Gratitude on Thanksgiving Day 2030
November 20th, 2007
Thanksgiving is, in many ways, the truest of holidays. It is not connected to a religion or to a national political event. It is about giving thanks and sharing life’s abundance, manifested by a large meal to be shared by friends and family. Giving thanks for all the wonderfulness of this planet.
On Thanksgiving day in 2030, I hope my then middle aged son will be sharing this day with loved ones hopefully including me. I hope that they all will be able to give thanks for what those of us alive today did between 2007 and 2015 to mobilize humanity to slow and start to reverse global warming. That is the window we have to allow those of us still living and our descendents to have some semblance of a Thanksgiving that might be similar to the one we celebrate in 2007.
The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change issued its’ final, synthesis report this past weekend. The fact that it had recently won the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore gives the I.P.C.C. an amplified voice for this, its’ fourth and final report. The report is stunning in its conclusions and recommendations. It puts in stark relief the fact that urgent and global action must be taken immediately to avoid almost unimaginable consequences.
The I.P.C.C. said that the world would have to reverse — not just slow — the growth of greenhouse gases by 2015 to prevent “serious climate disruptionsâ€. As Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the organization said: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining momentâ€.
This report, unlike the three prior reports, was not allowed to be watered down by national governments such as those from the U.S., China and India. It is therefore much more blunt and alarmist in its language. That being said, what some scientists now admit is that, since the I.P.C.C. has taken five years to gather, analyze and report on climate change data and computer projections, recent developments make the worst case scenarios predicted in the report only match the reality of today. Change is occurring that quickly. For example the National Academy of Science reported that 8.4 gigatons of carbon were put into the atmosphere from fossil fuels in 2006. That is what the worst case prediction of the panel indicated for last year.
Additionally, the International Energy Agency, in looking at the unexpected rapid emissions increase from China and India estimated that if current policies were not changed, the world would warm six degrees by 2030. That is a calamitous increase and far higher than the panel’s estimate of one to four degrees by the end of the century.
I have written here that global warming should be thought of as a risk management issue by those that still have doubts. What the I.P.C.C. report does is dramatically increase the urgency and therefore risk of the situation. It is changing dynamically day by day. The three countries that the rest of the world will begin pointing fingers toward are the U.S., China and India. The U.S. because it consumes 25% of all energy yet has 5% of population, China because it is becoming the nation with the largest amount of greenhouse emissions, and India because of its exploding population and double digit economic growth. A profound change in policy and leadership is needed in these three countries.
The I.P.C.C. report makes every single energy proposal of the leading presidential candidates seem lame and incremental. It is time for the U.S. to have a government that will lead its citizens and the world in addressing “the defining challenge of our age†as stated by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. America, certainly in the last 100 years has seemed to rise to the occasion of global challenges. We now need to do it once again, this time for every person alive and all of our descendants. We must mobilize as the engine of innovation of the globe and find ways to reverse emissions and bring renewable energy to market.
The time from Thanksgiving 2007 to Thanksgiving 2012 is the five years we have to slow down the acceleration to catastrophe. If we do that then the Thanksgiving of 2030 might well be a holiday of gratefulness and thanksgiving for all that we are about to do.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
While I sincerely share your sentiments about the future, I believe it is worthwhile to consider that although Thanksgiving is an ecumenical holiday, it is by no means a non-religious holiday. Its origins, whether you choose to follow the Massachusetts or Virginia lore, were certainly seen by the founders of the holiday as a day of “Thanksgiving and Prayer”, to cite President Washington’s proclamation in 1789. Perhaps it is also noteworthy that there was no stricture about the way in which it was to be celebrated — eat, don’t eat, as you wish — but instead take a moment to reflect and be thankful. A great American tradition, and one we can enjoy every day.
I pray that we all work together to make this great country better and address the pressing issues of climate change and its effects. Let’s hope my prayers are not answered with platitudes, but with action.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize may give the IPCC amplification to their cause, but it does nothing for their credibility.
David, as you know, I am all for reducing emissions, if anything for the sake of our health in areas like Denver and Phoenix where athsma is rampant due to the pollution.
However, I fear that blind acceptance of “science” indicating that the world is doomed could in fact lead to our own self-inflicted economic wounds.
Funding climate reversal will do nothing but bleed funds from other important segments of our economy that we DO have control over: homelessness, health care, etc.
In addition, our government is starting to lose influence over the world economy. As such, we can dump money into a scientific “theory” that we could change the climate, but unless we get the rest of the world to play along, our efforts will see minimal return.
I still fall back on the FACT that this planet has been through several ice ages; climatary cycles that were by no means influenced by man kind.
To think that mankind has the power to influence these climate changes is silly.
I digress.
Happy Thanksgiving, David, and GO JAYHAWKS!
-Grant
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:14 am
david,
I like the way you go ahead of the curve and envsion a future for 2030. nice. i am also working with future vision of polar cities, for year 2500 or so. if all else fails, and i believe none of the fixes are going to work, we will need to migrate north to polar areas for breeding pairs, in the famous words of Lovelock, to continue the species. My polar cities are to house survivors of global warming disaster events in far distant future. wonder if u might care to blog about my idea, pro or con, just to get a discussion going. the new york times interviewed me last week and will report about polar cities this week. please do take me seriously. most people don’t. but polar cities is an idea whose time, while it has not come and won’t come for a long long time, is nevertheless worth thinking about when it does come. I have no children, so this is not for them. This is for the world. I care. You do too. Blog on this , please.
danny
Tufts 1971
A christmas letter from a respected reporter who covers climate change issues:
“Hey, Dan
I think the polar cities might surface as a reasonable model for
future habitation. But I’m not ready to give up on reorganizing
ourselves in the lower latitudes just yet.
I’m also not 100 percent sure why they’ll need to be buried and
equipped with lots of intricate underground infrastructure — especially
if there’s virtually no polar ice left under which to create habitats.
In other words, given the warming scenarios, why not simply
reconstruct sustainable (and, most especially equitable) kinds of
communities in northern Canada, Siberia, Scandinavia etc.
With the movement of grain belts north, and the thawing of
lots of open ground, wouldn’t it be much easier, less costly
and accommodate many more of us refugees if we were to
build closed-loop, sustainable communities further north
— but still above ground?
Anyway, just a thought.
But your notion is quite provocative — and most interesting.
My real hope is that it will help prod the conversation in the
direction it needs to go. If it serves that purpose, that, alone,
will be a considerable contribution.
Thanks again so much for sharing this with me.”