There is so much noise about it.  The media knows it is an important topic to many and they know that controversy prompts viewership so they create controversy.  The U.N. Copenhagen Climate summit is the current case in point.  TV in particular provides superficial, breathless coverage of registration problems, conflicts,  walk-outs and somewhat angry talking heads arguing points of view.  So what to think?

The most cogent description of the four general points of view concerning climate change and humanity’s causality of it was in a column in the New York Times.  It was written by Stewart Brand.  Stewart Brand is best known for creating the “Whole Earth Catalog” and also for being one of Ken Kesey’s Merry Pranksters.  It can – and has- been argued that Brand and the “Whole Earth Catalog” created the beginning of the environmental movement and the cultural underpinnings of Silicon Valley.  He is that significant of a cultural figure.  After all it was Brand who, in 1968, asked the straightforward question:  “Why haven’t we seen a picture of the whole earth?”

Stewart Brand has been a hero of mine for the last 40 years.  It therefore gave me great comfort to read his column and find that of the four positions he describes around climate change that he and I are in the same one: “Warners”.

Brand describes ...]]> As someone who writes and speaks about alternative and renewable energy, I often get asked about climate change.  What do I think about it?  What is true?  Who to believe?

There is so much noise about it.  The media knows it is an important topic to many and they know that controversy prompts viewership so they create controversy.  The U.N. Copenhagen Climate summit is the current case in point.  TV in particular provides superficial, breathless coverage of registration problems, conflicts,  walk-outs and somewhat angry talking heads arguing points of view.  So what to think?

The most cogent description of the four general points of view concerning climate change and humanity’s causality of it was in a column in the New York Times.  It was written by Stewart Brand.  Stewart Brand is best known for creating the “Whole Earth Catalog” and also for being one of Ken Kesey’s Merry Pranksters.  It can – and has- been argued that Brand and the “Whole Earth Catalog” created the beginning of the environmental movement and the cultural underpinnings of Silicon Valley.  He is that significant of a cultural figure.  After all it was Brand who, in 1968, asked the straightforward question:  “Why haven’t we seen a picture of the whole earth?”

Stewart Brand has been a hero of mine for the last 40 years.  It therefore gave me great comfort to read his column and find that of the four positions he describes around climate change that he and I are in the same one: “Warners”.

Brand describes all four groups; the Denialists, the Skeptics, the Warners and the Calamatists.  He then speculates on what each of these groups would do if climate change were to suddenly reverse and the opposite, that it keeps getting worse.

Which category are you in?  Here is the column:

Four Sides to Every Story

By STEWART BRAND

Published: December 14, 2009

San Francisco

CLIMATE talks have been going on in Copenhagen for a week now, and it appears to be a two-sided debate between alarmists and skeptics. But there are actually four different views of global warming. A taxonomy of the four:

DENIALISTS They are loud, sure and political. Their view is that climatologists and their fellow travelers are engaged in a vast conspiracy to panic the public into following an agenda that is political and pernicious. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and the columnist George Will wave the banner for the hoax-callers.

“The claim that global warming is caused by manmade emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science,” Mr. Inhofe declared in a 2003 speech to the Senate about the Kyoto accord that remains emblematic of his position. “CO2 does not cause catastrophic disasters — actually it would be beneficial to our environment and our economy …. The motives for Kyoto are economic, not environmental — that is, proponents favor handicapping the American economy through carbon taxes and more regulations.”

SKEPTICS This group is most interested in the limitations of climate science so far: they like to examine in detail the contradictions and shortcomings in climate data and models, and they are wary about any “consensus” in science. To the skeptics’ discomfort, their arguments are frequently quoted by the denialists.

In this mode, Roger Pielke, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado, argues that the scenarios presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are overstated and underpredictive. Another prominent skeptic is the physicist Freeman Dyson, who wrote in 2007: “I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models …. I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests.”

WARNERS These are the climatologists who see the trends in climate headed toward planetary disaster, and they blame human production of greenhouse gases as the primary culprit. Leaders in this category are the scientists James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and James Lovelock. (This is the group that most persuades me and whose views I promote.)

“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted,” Mr. Hansen wrote as the lead author of an influential 2008 paper, then the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have to be reduced from 395 parts per million to “at most 350 p.p.m.”

CALAMATISTS There are many environmentalists who believe that industrial civilization has committed crimes against nature, and retribution is coming. They quote the warners in apocalyptic terms, and they view denialists as deeply evil. The technology critic Jeremy Rifkin speaks in this manner, and the writer-turned-activist Bill McKibben is a (fairly gentle) leader in this category.

In his 2006 introduction for “The End of Nature,” his famed 1989 book, Mr. McKibben wrote of climate change in religious terms: “We are no longer able to think of ourselves as a species tossed about by larger forces — now we are those larger forces. Hurricanes and thunderstorms and tornadoes become not acts of God but acts of man. That was what I meant by the ‘end of nature.’”

The calamatists and denialists are primarily political figures, with firm ideological loyalties, whereas the warners and skeptics are primarily scientists, guided by ever-changing evidence. That distinction between ideology and science not only helps clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the four stances, it can also be used to predict how they might respond to future climate developments.

If climate change were to suddenly reverse itself (because of some yet undiscovered mechanism of balance in our climate system), my guess is that the denialists would be triumphant, the skeptics would be skeptical this time of the apparent good news, the warners would be relieved, and the calamatists would seek out some other doom to proclaim.

If climate change keeps getting worse then I would expect denialists to grasp at stranger straws, many skeptics to become warners, the warners to start pushing geoengineering schemes like sulfur dust in the stratosphere, and the calamatists to push liberal political agendas — just as the denialists said they would.

Stewart Brand is the author of “Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto.”

{This ran on the OpEd page of the New York Times Tuesday December 15,2009]

The other action last week that was a good first step was the announcement by President Obama that a deal had been made with auto manufacturers to impose new mileage and emissions standards for all cars and truck sold in the United States starting in 2012.  While this is very good, it is incremental improvement towards a necessary elevation of mileage standards if we are to gain independence from foreign oil, really lessen oil use  and resultant greenhouse gas emissions.

A growing number of energy, environmental and climate scientists have been providing evidence that even if humanity stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today, there would still be an increase in CO2 particles per million in the atmosphere during the next several years.  So complete stoppage would only start to slow this upward trend.  That is why incremental decreases in fossil fuel consumption will not end or alleviate the global climate change dynamics it will only slightly temper them.  All said, the new mileage and emissions standards are certainly a step in the right direction.  A step that should have been taken a decade ago, so this is just playing catch ...]]> Last week the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the most ambitious energy and global warming legislation ever debated in Congress.  That is very good news and a good first step.  Of course, since Congress has never been anything close to providing leadership in the areas of alternative energy and climate change, the comparison to past non-action doesn’t mean much.

The other action last week that was a good first step was the announcement by President Obama that a deal had been made with auto manufacturers to impose new mileage and emissions standards for all cars and truck sold in the United States starting in 2012.  While this is very good, it is incremental improvement towards a necessary elevation of mileage standards if we are to gain independence from foreign oil, really lessen oil use  and resultant greenhouse gas emissions.

A growing number of energy, environmental and climate scientists have been providing evidence that even if humanity stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today, there would still be an increase in CO2 particles per million in the atmosphere during the next several years.  So complete stoppage would only start to slow this upward trend.  That is why incremental decreases in fossil fuel consumption will not end or alleviate the global climate change dynamics it will only slightly temper them.  All said, the new mileage and emissions standards are certainly a step in the right direction.  A step that should have been taken a decade ago, so this is just playing catch up.

It will be very interesting to see how forcefully President Obama will “stand up to the special interests” as the House bill moves its way through Congress.  The fundamental reason that the U.S. has no alternative energy policy and is so dependent on foreign oil is the power of the entrenched special interests and their lobbyists.   The federal government has bowed to the agribusiness and petroleum special interests for decades.  This new bill will directly challenge them.

A majority of Americans want to lessen our dependency on foreign oil.  A significant percentage of Americans want an increase usage of alternative energy.  A majority of Americans are concerned about climate change and pollution.  If Congress represents the American people and not the special interests then this bill will pass.  If Congress does not pass, or greatly dilutes this bill, then we will know they vote not for the people but the lobbyists.  If President Obama stands true to his campaign promises then he will make this a fight and will clearly hold members of Congress accountable for how they vote.

The nations of the world will meet in six months in Copenhagen to discuss the next steps to be taken regarding climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.  If there is to be any progress globally, it will be imperative that the U.S. take a leadership position.  It will be difficult to do so if the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President cannot deliver the bill that was approved in committee last week.  In order to bring China, India and other countries to the table for serious discussions the U.S must lead by example.

The two actions taken last week are to be celebrated if you believe in the need to lessen the use of fossil fuels and in the incredible wealth creating opportunities of alternative and renewable energy.  The paradigm shift that must occur with energy is right before us and is inevitable.  It will be interesting to see if 2009 is the year the U.S. federal government finally moves toward a sane, clear and forceful energy policy. A policy that will let us become energy independent as a country, and allow the long-term investment of capital so essential for the innovation and resultant incredible wealth that will be created in the fields of alternative and renewable energy.

The Great Recession of 2008-2010/11 is going to be a very tough time economically.  As I wrote in my Forecast for 2009, this economic collapse brings four words to mind.

The first word is contraction, which is the standard way to view a recession.  Economic activity contracts and we are in a recession, economic expansion represents the end to the contraction.  The contraction was severe in the fourth quarter and will be so in the first quarter and second quarter. Output and consumption are in a deep fall right now and will remain so.

The second word is cleansing which in this context means that old ways of doing business, of looking at only the upside, of embracing debt and extreme leverage must and will be cleansed from both the economy and the way that people think. The casino capitalism of the past 20 years will soon be viewed as an unsustainable exercise in individual and corporate greed.

The third word is reorganization.  To quote from the linked column ...]]>

The Great Recession of 2008-2010/11 is going to be a very tough time economically.  As I wrote in my Forecast for 2009, this economic collapse brings four words to mind.

The first word is contraction, which is the standard way to view a recession.  Economic activity contracts and we are in a recession, economic expansion represents the end to the contraction.  The contraction was severe in the fourth quarter and will be so in the first quarter and second quarter. Output and consumption are in a deep fall right now and will remain so.

The second word is cleansing which in this context means that old ways of doing business, of looking at only the upside, of embracing debt and extreme leverage must and will be cleansed from both the economy and the way that people think. The casino capitalism of the past 20 years will soon be viewed as an unsustainable exercise in individual and corporate greed.

The third word is reorganization.  To quote from the linked column above:

“Reorganization of almost everything that is part of society and how humanity operates within society.  This reorganization will happen to economic institutions, political and philosophical allegiances, geopolitical alliances, communications; all to a new global order that is getting ever more electronically connected.”

Finally, the fourth word is transformation.  “Transformation of almost everything into new ways of seeing, doing, understanding and living. All of this will ultimately move us into new transformative realms of consciousness and understanding.  That will take a decade, but the process is underway and the transition to it is what 2009 will be about.”

Now, there have been a number of stories in the media about how the credit lock down has imperiled green companies seeking additional lines of credit.  There have also been stories about the perception that since ‘green energy technology’ is more expensive than conventional energy technology the recession will slow the development of these new technologies because people are looking for cheap things across the board.  Well, there may be examples of this in the micro sense, but in the macro sense this is a completely incorrect viewpoint.

First, the contraction part of the Great Recession has greatly reduced energy consumption as people are driving and buying less, which means less greenhouse gases and less goods destined for landfills.  If the great economic machine that is contributing to the heating of the planet and the pollution of our environment has slowed, the damage it inflicts is lessened.  The idea of reuse, reduce and recycle now has taken on real economic meaning across the country and around the world.

Second the stimulus bill that was just passed dramatically, and immediately increases the amount of government funding on green energy technologies and the development of a 21^st century grid in the U.S.  Because of the dire economic situation a stimulus bill including this much needed and much delayed investment was passed.  The Obama administration, and before that, the campaign was consistent and clear that a significant part of our economic future and well-being is dependent on the development of alternative and renewable sources of energy.  The urgent need for a stimulus package allowed investments in this area to occur faster than might otherwise be possible.

This leads to the reorganization and ultimately transformation parts of the Great Recession.  Yes this will be a couple of years of economic hardship, pain and suffering.  Whenever there is a transition from one age to another there is creative destruction as the old order gives way to the new.  Unfortunately this process cannot occur without pain.

The view here is that when the U.S. does emerge from this recession in 2010-11 it will be a greener country with a new vision actually taking root in the realm of alternative and renewable energy.  It will prove to be true that this recession will change habits, stop rampant consumerism, increase conservation and provoke investment in renewable and alternative forms of energy.   It is ironic that this Great Recession will actually accelerate the country into a greener future faster than if it had not happened.

2008 was the year of the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.  This collapse was the first one since the beginning of the new global economy and thus showed how humanity and all of its nation states are financially interconnected in a historically unprecedented way.  This global financial collapse is historically significant for several reasons.  First it did show that money and finance knows no national boundaries, and that nation states can no longer individually deal with major financial crises.  Second it is the start of the process to cleanse the global and particularly U.S economy from over leveraged, debt oriented mindless growth and consumption that has been a result of the mindless support of unlimited growth without thought of personal, national and global consequences.  Third it represents a clear albeit disruptive and painful part of the transition that humanity is now making from one age, the Information Age, to the new age, the Shift Age.

2008 was the year when people around the world, and most strikingly Americans, make a sudden and profound switch from consumption, debt and spending to, thrift, saving and shedding ...]]> The year 2008 will obviously go down as one of the most eventful years in recent history.  It was the year that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States.  It was the year that the Internet replaced print and TV as the driving force in a presidential election. It was the beginning of the end of 15 years of divisive cultural politics in America.

2008 was the year of the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.  This collapse was the first one since the beginning of the new global economy and thus showed how humanity and all of its nation states are financially interconnected in a historically unprecedented way.  This global financial collapse is historically significant for several reasons.  First it did show that money and finance knows no national boundaries, and that nation states can no longer individually deal with major financial crises.  Second it is the start of the process to cleanse the global and particularly U.S economy from over leveraged, debt oriented mindless growth and consumption that has been a result of the mindless support of unlimited growth without thought of personal, national and global consequences.  Third it represents a clear albeit disruptive and painful part of the transition that humanity is now making from one age, the Information Age, to the new age, the Shift Age.

2008 was the year when people around the world, and most strikingly Americans, make a sudden and profound switch from consumption, debt and spending to, thrift, saving and shedding of debt whenever possible.  As written here months ago, “Thrift is the new hip, thrift is the new extravagance”,  It is and will be cool to shop at resale stores, drive cars years longer, save money, and in general to embrace the thrift lifestyle.  This trend, along with the collapse in the price of oil has ushered in a time of both economic contraction and monetary deflation.  Think about it, what costs more today than it did a year ago?  Not much.

2008 was, in the first half the seeming beginning of peak oil and in the second half a realization that this peak situation, while still real, will be drawn out a few years longer than was thought as recently as 2-3 years ago.  Oil, and gasoline will go up from its current price in 2009, but not enough to shock the system, just enough in underscore to the consumer the need to be thrifty elsewhere in their spending.

2008 was the year when it seemed that the critical mass thinking about global warming that occurred in 2006 reached a level of massive acceptance.  The age old exercise about talking about the weather took on new meaning this year.  If we all had the sensitivity to the earth that the Native Americans had centuries ago we would be hearing the earth and the spirits of the planet telling us clearly that all is not well.

This is the last column of this incredibly eventful year.  I deeply thank all of you who have been loyal readers of www.evolutionshift.com during its almost three years in existence.  Your support and comments over this time period has meant a lot to me.  Thank you.  I also acknowledge all of the new readers who have come to this site during 2008.  The readership has grown significantly this past year, both in the U.S. and around the world.  It makes no difference whether you came here because of hearing me speak, a recommendation from a friend or favorite blog, or just because in this time of upheaval you wanted something to read that might provoke clarity about what might seem like an uncertain future.  You are here, I thank you for that, and will strive to give you thought provoking columns in 2009.

The next couple of columns, in the New Year, will be my annual forecasts for the year.  2009 will not be a respite from the turbulence of 2008, it will be a continuation, an expansion and the beginning of the new directions that humanity is going to take in the years ahead.  Our journey together is changing course.  Happy New Year!

Nuclear energy is one of the sources that now must be better utilized in the U.S and around the world. Contrary to trailing popular perception, it is a relatively safe energy source. Fewer people have died working at and around nuclear power plants in the last 20 years than have died in coal mining accidents in the last three years. France obtains 50% of its energy from nuclear. Now that we are passing through Peak Oil we have only decades left of petroleum. All energy options must be explored, made safe, and made affordable if we are to avoid the tearing apart of the social, economic and cultural fabric.

When we think of the Middle East we think of petroleum. However, the rulers in that region know that the bonanza they are currently enjoying will be coming to an end by mid century. Even countries in the Middle East are looking ...]]> The last 50 years of humanity’s mindless consumption of fossil fuels has helped accelerate global warming. The total lack of a cohesive energy policy and program in America has given us $4 a gallon gasoline with $5 and $6 a gallon a practical certainty. There are millions of new riders on our mass transit systems at a time when many of these systems are in crumbling decline due to decades of neglect and total lack of strategic initiatives. Solar and wind power are extremely exciting and coming on line quickly. Globally, and nationally we have backed ourselves into an energy corner.

Nuclear energy is one of the sources that now must be better utilized in the U.S and around the world. Contrary to trailing popular perception, it is a relatively safe energy source. Fewer people have died working at and around nuclear power plants in the last 20 years than have died in coal mining accidents in the last three years. France obtains 50% of its energy from nuclear. Now that we are passing through Peak Oil we have only decades left of petroleum. All energy options must be explored, made safe, and made affordable if we are to avoid the tearing apart of the social, economic and cultural fabric.

When we think of the Middle East we think of petroleum. However, the rulers in that region know that the bonanza they are currently enjoying will be coming to an end by mid century. Even countries in the Middle East are looking to nuclear power for the future of their societies. In my last column I featured a video interview of Ambassador Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian Ambassador to the U.S. He spoke with anchor Tom Hudson of First Business about the need for the U.S. to rethink its powerful position in this new global age.

Today I want to share Ambassador Fahmy’s thoughts on nuclear energy and in particular how it might exist in the greater Middle Eastern region. Again I must state how impressive, articulate and insightful I find the Ambassador to be. Here is the second part of the interview, on nuclear power.

As we all move forward in the Shift Age, humanity must increasingly work in a coordinated way to create safe new sources of energy. Sound intelligent voices such as Fahmy’s are essential if we are to avoid mass disruption and on-going warming of the planet due to mindless addiction to petroleum.