Robert Friedman, Youth Engagement Coordinator, New York City
A recently released paper by former chief NASA climatologist James Hansen and 17 other international climate scientists is getting some pickup in youth movement circles. The paper, published by peer reviewed journal PLoS ONE, goes well beyond what one would traditionally expect from a scientific paper, mainly because of its intergenerational framing of climate change:
“The possibility of such intergenerational injustice is not remote – it is at our doorstep now. We have a planetary climate crisis that requires urgent change to our energy and carbon pathway to avoid dangerous consequences for young people and other life on earth.”
Hansen et al. go on to state that despite the increasing body of evidence stating that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, governments around the world continue to burn fossil fuels. Further fossil fuel extraction has and will impact us all, but it will inflict the greatest damage on my generation and those that follow. Hansen’s paper is compelling because it discusses an intergenerational justice angle, and the dire need for action, as being directly linked to climate science. While perhaps obvious, rarely is this connection made so explicitly in academic writing.
Among Hansen et al.’s main findings is that a previously understood limit of 2°C rise in global average temperature is a “dangerous target” that would not avoid the worst impacts of climate change. According to the paper, negative feedback loops connected to sea level rise and arctic ice melt would in fact become apparent with a 1°C degree rise in current temperatures. These environmental shifts are real, observable and actionable. And they must be addressed as such.
Our friends at iMatter recently wrote of their thoughts on the paper:
“Maybe it’s only my young and optimistic age of 15 that makes me believe this, but I have a strong belief that in this time of crisis, the nations of the world can truly cooperate in working to find real solutions and new technology. I am not blind. I see the divided political parties, the extreme difference in ideologies, and the tense relationships that make a clean and global future seem unattainable. However, we cannot continue to push aside the matter of climate change as something to be dealt with in better circumstances. The world will go through its hardships and challenges, but unless climate change is dealt with right now through cooperative measures from different countries and sectors, the future, or lack thereof, is a dark and alarming place.” – iMatter Youth Council leader Rebecca Chung, age 15, Buena Park, CA
“Global leaders are disregarding the facts and ignoring the scientists. To put it simply, they are approaching this problem with ignorance because it’s not “economical” or “important.” As put by James Hansen, “we are all in the same boat together and we will all sink together or sail together.” We have reached a point in our time on earth when we must all step down from our pedestals and realize that we are all of the same species. We breathe the same air, we walk on the same land and we all call this great big Earth our home. Despite coming from different backgrounds and understanding different mindsets, there are things that connect every single human being on this earth and those are the desire to love, to be happy, to live comfortably and so on. But we cannot achieve such things when our home is hurting. We have reached a point in our time on earth when we must forget about the divide that we have created against this human family that we are all part of and recognize that it’s all or nothing now.” Jenna Farineau, age 17, Louisville, KY
Despite being outspoken on this issue, young people continue to serve as largely a talking point in the climate change dialogue. Many a politician cites the need to act on climate for the sake of future generations. It is time for these politicians to actually engage young people directly in creating solutions to this growing crisis. The passion around this issue is clearly there. For us, this issue could not be more personal – we are in fact fighting for our very existence. It is time that we are engaged as such.
Thousands of young people rallying for climate justice and clean energy solutions at Power Shift in October. Credit:Robert Van Waarden
Over the next few months, we will be working with allies across the movement to facilitate further engagement around the President’s Climate Action Plan. Stay tuned and see you out there.
To follow updates from our work with young people, follow @NRDCYouth.
It’s nice to hear young people actually being concerned about this “adult like” issue. When I was a kid, I had heard about global warming already in the 70’s but did not realize the issues like the kids do now.After a few years of searching, I find that we already have the tech but that special interests will prevent anything capable of lessening the profit revenue.Molten salt nuclear could have powered the world since the 70’s and I’m starting to believe that even though it would take hundreds of thousands ofsquare miles to do so, solar could also have been powering the entire world by now.All the arguments concerning any option are usually just smear campaigns against all the other options… We have the tech, now we need to network and rip the guts out of the established system of laws, regulations, fees, taxes, etc, etc which seek to minimize ANY clean energy source.There are 3 fundamental clean energy options… renewables, fission and fusion. How dare anyone rape humanity by working to slow down ANY of them! There is also efficiency and conservation. Even though good for productivity (and poor people) how dare anyone say these can replace actual energy sources. And there is a 5th option… burn fossil fuels today and use machine automation in the future to mine olivine at the scale of the coal industry today to sequester it in geologic time (as rock).Only wind, solar and advanced geothermal has a chance at providing power at the level required by planetary civilizations. Biofuels and what not is just a waste of time (if considered at the global scale). But there are some really treacherous people called environmentalists that would rather us NOT use large scale solar and wind to replace fossil fuels. Therefore, we, who still have the passion, must deem these kind of people as traitors to humanity (and the biosphere).Nuclear is good but the molten salt reactor could have powered … you know. Again, there is a certain kind of traitorous species called “environmentalist”, which have already prevented that.So, I have NO faith in fusion (yet), because, well… it was probably already “invented” decades ago, and some traitor probably prevented that as well!Yes, I am at odds with those who say “The future of energy is in less of it“. They know that the rest of world needs like FIVE times the energy just to compare to the comfy offices of the traitorous “use less” advocate. They know that we will need MORE energy to engage the economic growth necessary to solve the twin problems of excess CO2 and fossil fueled depletions. If they do not know this, then they have NO business even participating in the energy/climate debate.Less energy will NOT raise rest of world out of poverty, will NOT reverse the possible effects of global warming and ocean acidification, and definitely will NOT support humanity in its need to learn and GROW!
I agree that the future of today’s youth is being eroded by unfair energy policies which don’t do enough to tackle climate disruption.But the youth need to understand why stopping climate disruption is difficult. In a word: costs. Tacking climate change is costly so governments have trouble finding the money to pay for it.The best chance for youth to protect their future is to demand that politicians concentrate on the least-cost solutions to climate disruption. Most youths are not doing this, in my experience. Most youth (who are activists) are supporting the highest-cost solutions, such as rooftop solar panels and biofuels. That is not going to work. Even if the entire EU and US populations switch to these kinds of expensive energy, the rest of the world will still burn the fossils.To stop climate disruption, energy sources that are cheaper than fossils are essential, in order to pursuade developing countries to adopt that technology in favour of fossils. Only nuclear power offers the potential to achieve such low-cost energy. Youths must inform themselves about nuclear power and break free from the anti-nuclear propaganda. Without nuclear power, the battle against climate disruption is as good as lost. Not because governments are somehow failing to do their job to stop cliamte disruption, but because governments simply do not have the power to force energy technologies on the global economy that are not economical.”If sustainable energy is not economical, it is not sustainable.” That might be the best and most simple mantra for youths who are interested in securing their future prosperity and security, and the health of the global environment, IMO.
Joris,Youth also is getiing the short end of the stick regarding participating in the “American Dream”. Here is some info of interest:Household formation was about 1.5% per year since 1965, equivalent to about 1.3 million in 2005. Household formation was about 0.75% per year, since 2007, about 600,000 – 700,000 per year.Unemployment rate for workers 16 – 20 was 14.4% in October 2013, down from a peak of 20% in June 2010, up from a low of 9.4% in December 2005Unemployment rate for workers 21 – 24 was 11.8% in October 2013, down from a peak of 17.1% in June 2010Unemployment rate for workers 25 – 34 was 7% in October 2013, down from a peak of 11% in January 2010, up from a low of 4.2% in December 2006Workers 20 – 34 are underperforming in household formation, shopping at malls, and the car and housing markets, compared to 2007, even though the Federal Reserve has been creating $85 billion/per MONTH out of thin air (thus far $3 trillion, and counting) to buy government bonds (almost no one else will) and to buy mortgage-backed obligations, MBOs, from banks (almost no one else will). What would the US economy look like if that phantom-money, merry-go-round came to a halt?From 2007 – 2009, household real incomes decreased 17.4%; the top 1% decreased about 33%, the bottom 99% decreased 11.6%.From 2009 – 2012, household real incomes of the top 1% increased 31.4%, which brought them back about to the level before 2007.From 2009 – 2012, household real incomes of the bottom 99% increased 0.4%, which left them 11.2% in the hole. Governments continue to impose increased taxes and fees on these households, grow the bloated government sector relative to the shrinking, hollowed-out private sector, as if all is well.Such “recoveries” have been typical since about 1973.From 1940 to the early 1970s, the top 10% received about 33% of total personal income; it was 50% in 2007; 47% in 2009; over 50% in 2012. See Figure 1 of URLFrom the early 1970s, the top 1% have had an increasing share of total personal income; it was 22% in 2012, a record. See Figure 2 of URLhttp://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdfThe top 1% cash in on the federal and state tax credits and subsidies for their renewable energy projects, which enable them to shelter their excessive incomes from taxes and further increase their wealth. The result is an increasing tax burden, higher electric rates and additional fees on the bottom 99%; an unholy mix of profit seeking, tax sheltering and crony-capitalist politics that boost RE lobbies, etc., into unwarranted political prominence.RENEWABLE ENERGY INCREASES INEQUALITY; ENERGY EFFICIENCY DECREASES IT!!RE polices are not designed to work; they produce low-quality, non-dispatchable energy at 3 -4 times NE grid prices. They are designed to sell a mix of centralized command and control government, which:- politicians like because it makes them more important, nets them bigger pork barrels, more votes, and creates more government jobs, and – enable energy companies to wrap the bane of higher energy prices and crony-capitalist profiteering into the halo of “fighting global-warming/climate-change”.Politicians need to wake up to this reality. They could become more humane leaders by promoting EE, instead of RE.Sources:US Census BureauUS Department of LaborDr. Emmanuel Saez, Economist, University of Californiahttp://www.vnews.com/opinion/9769064-95/column-income-inequality-has-been-years-in-the-making
Joris,Please note on a global scale the use of biofuels would be worse than fossil energy. It would emit an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases and adversely impact land and water resources.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
JA
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
I completely agree. In my work I have been advising against the use of biofuels for about ten years, pretty much since the start of the biofuels-hype in the EU. Back then some people thought I was a stupid pessimistic fool for denying the sustainability of this technology. They might be right that I am a fool, but I am not a pessimist. I’m just not convinced that the risks of developing biofuels on a huge scale are acceptable or for that matter than biofuels really offer the large sustainability benefits that we need.Bad news about biofuels concerning biodiversity loss, rainforest destruction, pollution, social injustice, costs, etc have been coming in steadily since then and there are more and more consultants who agree today that biofuels (except those derived from waste) really are not sustainable.Concerning liquid fuels, I believe that they are essential and will remain in use for the foreseeable future. Modern civilization was built on cheap, liquid fuels. Without such fuels, the wheels will fall off. Currently, I believe we are seeing the peak of conventional oil production. All liquids production will keep rising or stay flat for perhaps a few decades more. Eventually, liquid fuels will need to come from carbon neutral sources in order to stop climate disruption and to end dependence on fossil sources subject to depletion. I think the development of synthetic liquid fuels production using nuclear power is the future. I think oil companies should invest a few % of their annual budget in developing this technology. (I’d like to help with that! :))
Thanks Willem for this troubling information. I think it reinforces the message that youth need to wake up and smell the coffee. Go down the rabbit hole. Inform and educate themselves beyond the superficial level. Pose difficult questions demand answers. Reclaim their future. It will enrich their lives and empower them.I have two small children. I worry about their future. I am conscious that many of the problems they will face in their future are man-made. I am very interested in helping to solve or prevent some of those problems. But it is a difficult job and so far things seem to continue to get worse. On the other hand, compared to life just a few hundred years ago, average quality of life today is very, very good. The challenge is to keep it that way.For what it’s worth Willem, I have seen that you have been doing an excellent job for many years in ferreting outand communicating the (often hidden) truth about the important issues of energy and sustainability, and policy, which is the cornerstone of securing a safe, prosperous and clean future. I respect you highly because of it. I’ve learned a lot.