It’s hard to know what to think. Is the Obama administration really looking for a Do-Over, and would it really be preferable to wipe the slate clean, and begin again?

Recent comments from Obama officials suggest that we won’t have an agreement in Copenhagen.

Certainly, three years of intense negotiations seem to have gotten us nowhere. The Bali Summit was marked by community and a sense of strong purpose — Canada, the US, and Australia excepted — but Poznan was a discouraging bust. The election of President Obama promised serious action, but many are now concerned that we might we get too much action.

With the looming deadline and immense pressure, cracks are beginning to show: The Guardian is reporting that European Union negotiators are clashing with their American counterparts, and it could lead to a rift that won’t be mended before Copenhagen.

Europe has been pushing to retain structures and systems established under the Kyoto Protocol in any subsequent international climate agreement. But US negotiators have told European counterparts that the Obama administration intends to sweep away almost all of Kyoto’s architecture and replace it with a system of its own design.

Any whiff of Kyoto, the theory goes, and the US Senate won’t must the two-third support required to pass an international treaty.

Unlike his predecessor, the Obama administration is engaging on climate change, so EU stakeholders don’t wish to criticize. But they are worried that starting from scratch will take years, and delay meaningful climate action until 2015 or later. And therein lies the rub. According to the best science available now, emissions must peak by 2015 — or 2020 at the latest — or several dangerous tipping points could be broached that will create millions of climate refugees, and huge uncertainty. We just don’t know.

So this seems like an enormous gamble.

US stakeholders are arguing that each country be allowed to write its own set of rules, and be allowed to meet its required emissions targets in whatever way it deems best. Such a provision makes sense for the US, which needs to get an international climate bill through the Senate with a two-thirds majority. But EU sources told The Guardian that this provision will scuttle any hope of meaningful progress at Copenhagen, and create loopholes that many countries will exploit to avoid emission responsibilities for decades to come.

But others, including former Kyoto negotiators for the US government, don’t see the problem. As the world’s largest historical contributor to global warming, the US must be a key player in creating a solution.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu suggested that a new dynamic was at work, telling people not to have high expectations for Copenhagen. “You have to bring more people along,” he said, “So don’t tee it up as now or never.”

When I was studying science at Dalhousie, one of my professors was Gordon Ogden who was publishing regularly in scientific journals to warn about the dangers of acid rain. At one lecture, he explained that the pristine lakes and rivers in Nova Scotia — we had a multimillion dollar sport fishery at the time — would die in a generation if more wasn’t done to curb air pollution.

Well, it didn’t take a generation, just a decade. Our lakes and rivers still have fish, but they are few and far between. The acid rain shifted the pH downward by just a smidgen here and there, and now very few Atlantic salmon and trout eggs actually hatch. We no longer have much of a sport fishery, and people in Nova Scotia eat farmed salmon and trout.

We can’t even be blamed for soiling our own nest, as the pollution that killed our lakes and rivers originated in the Ohio industrial belt. But the saddest truth is that we can’t turn back the clock. Reclaiming our lakes and rivers would take more money than our government possesses.

Science is often that lighthouse at the edge the rocky shore. Thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed studies offer proof that global warming is here, and that it’s likely to roll over us if we don’t get our shit together.

And yet there is an entire industry based on denying the science of climate change, and thousands of bloggers have taken up the charge. We can’t call them skeptics, because they’re not, for skeptics are supposed to have an open mind. Skeptics can be convinced by the evidence.

The folks who inhabit the Denialosphere cannot be convinced by any metric. They cling to long-refuted doctrines and seem to believe that all climate scientists are in cahoots, and falsifying data to secure funding.

It’s absurd!

But what to call them? I thought about that this week as I answered a critic who took issue with an earlier post. And later in the day, I came across these two editorials at The Guardian.

From James Randerson.

How do you sum up an intellectual stance that has a pre-conceived position that is unyielding to the most compelling evidence; ignores mounting and alarming data from numerous scientific fields backing up the opposing position; and clutches at the most ephemeral of straws that can be twisted to support its arguments? How to capture the sheer head-in-the-sand-fingers-in-the-ears bloody mindedness?

Let me give you just one example of this mindset. When The Guardian broke the story in December that 2008 would be a relatively cool year by recent standards, the response was predictable and depressing. Wilfully ignoring the fact that this was the tenth hottest year on record and a scorcher by the standards of Charles Dickens’ era, many commentators leapt on the data as incontrovertible proof that climate change has gone into reverse. That was despite the calm words from climate scientists that they had expected 2008 to be a colder blip in the warming trend because of a short term climate phenomenon called La Niña.

How on Earth do we sum up such dim-witted obstinacy in a single phrase?

Climate change fact-ignorers? A little too cumbersome I think. Climate obfuscators? Better, but still not quite right. Climate change creationists. A suggestion from a friend that I believe sums them up perfectly. Although people have linked the two groups before, as far as I can see no one has used the phrase before.

From George Monbiot:

I use the term deniers not because I am seeking to make a link with the Holocaust, but because I can’t think what else to call them. They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause. They will argue, for example, that a single weather event in one part of the world is evidence of global cooling; that the earth is warming up because of cosmic rays and that the Antarctic is melting as a result of volcanoes under the ice. No explanation is too bonkers for them, as long as it delivers the goods.

The OED defines a sceptic as, “A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions.” This is the opposite of what people like Booker, Bellamy and Tomlinson are. They have their definite conclusion and will defend it against all comers, however many inconvenient truths might stand in the way.

There is another class of people, whose materials these independent deniers often use: those who are paid by corporations to defend definite conclusions. I have documented this trade extensively (see also my book Heat). But many of these people still masquerade as free thinkers. Earlier this month, for example, the Guardian’s Comment is Free site published an article by Patrick Michaels. The Guardian described him as “a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes“. What it didn’t say is that he has been paid extremely well in the recent past to promote the views he expressed here by interests which, as far as I can discover, he has never voluntarily disclosed.

Take a look at this leaked memo circulated by the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA) in 2006. IREA transmits electricity – most of which is produced by coal-burning power stations – across the US midwest.

The memo reveals that IREA was about to start buying electricity from a new coal-fired plant, replacing some of the gas production it was using before. But the cost advantages would be wiped out if a carbon tax were imposed. In the hope of averting this prospect, IREA had:

decided to support Dr Patrick Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services, Inc). Dr Michaels has been supported by electric cooperatives in the past and also receives financial support from other sources … In February of this year IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels. In addition we have contacted all the G&T’s [generators and transmitters of electricity] in the United States and as of the writing of this letter, we have obtained additional contributions and pledges for Dr Michaels group.

I posted this information up in the comment thread following Dr Michaels’s article, but it was deleted by the moderator. I’m not sure why.

Whether we’re talking about people who are paid to deny that climate change is happening, or those who use the materials these flacks produce, denial is a precise and concise description of what they do. Their attempt to wriggle out of it by insisting that – by calling them what they are – we are somehow debasing the Holocaust is as contrived as all the other positions they take. We shouldn’t fall for it.

It’s funny. I learned more about ethics and social justice in a biology class than any dozen religious sermons that I can remember.

Most people are surprised to learn — as I did during an undergraduate lecture — that we can take dramatic steps towards feeding the world’s poor, and it has little to do with throwing a few dollars in the collection plate, or saying an extra decade of the rosary.

One of the greatest sins of our generation is that every two seconds, malnutrition takes a child’s life. The math means that 40,000 children die every day.

Vegetarianism is one way to restore balance to that tragic metric. And that fact has another corollary: Vegetarianism is also one of the best ways for North Americans to cut their carbon footprint by more than five percent.

My point is not to preach, but to introduce a new section to One Blue Marble: vegetarian cookery and recipes. My partner, Kristina Robinson, is the best natural chef that I have ever met, and I swear that she could make a leathery old shoe taste so good that I’d return for a second helping.

So we’ll be publishing vegetarian recipes here that all filled with rich flavors and exotic spices. The combinations and permutations will be endless.

But I do understand.

If you love meat, then vegetarianism must seem like the proverbial final straw that proves that a low-carbon economy must necessarily be a world sapped of all joy and pleasure — a world in which people wear Birkenstocks to weddings, drink innocuous local beer and insipid herbal teas, and suffer through plain vegetables served over steamed brown rice — leavened occasionally with a little yogurt — morning, noon and night.

It’s a provocative image, to be sure, but a false one. I’ll let you in on one of my quiet little secrets: In a past life, before I grabbed hold of this climate change banner, I was an up-and coming writer who sold stories to national and international food and wine magazines. So hedonistic virtues like flavor, texture, and variety are still vital to my peace of mind. I could no more lead the life of an ascetic than I could be the chief executive at Exxon.

So we will offer recipes and cooking lessons not with the expectation that you’ll become a card-carrying vegetarian tomorrow, but with the hope that you will take a few steps towards living mindfully and sustainably. Start slowly, perhaps by creating one vegetarian meal per week.

Please let us know how it goes!

And if you’d like to know why vegetarianism is good for the planet, please read on!

______________________

Sadly, as this millennium settles in, we’re not making much headway in the fight against hunger. When the Cold War ended, we were promised a peace dividend, and the more optimistic among us hoped the money would be used to promote justice throughout the world. Hasn’t happened. High unemployment and its attendant social problems have made people in developed nations increasingly insular, less willing to look across the oceans when many are suffering next door. After all, charity begins at home.

Truth to tell, it will probably get worse before it gets better. A recent United Nations’ report suggests that food production will have to triple to feed the world’s people in the year 2050.

So what should we do about it? We could let plant geneticists loose, breeding hardy strains of super plants. The world might be better off if tomato vines produced more tomatoes. But few people, even ardent technophiles, believe that we can increase yields by 300 per cent. Besides, serious problems arise from tampering with the gene pool.

It would be wise to slow population growth, by encouraging developing nations to limit procreation. But that road is fraught with peril. Many world religions, Catholicism chief among them, believe any form of birth control is morally reprehensible, and refuse to condone it.

Some developing nations take a provocative view, suggesting that we have no right to rape the world’s resources and then smugly tell them how to live.

No wonder most experts believe that we’ve already lost the population war.

That’s why the best solution may be to change our position on the food chain. You see, animals high on the food chain are incredibly inefficient — it takes more land and natural resources to feed meat eaters. A hundred gazelles can graze on a hectare of land, but those hundred gazelles may only be able to feed one or two lions.

Think of it this way. An acre of land in a warm climate can produce 60,000 pounds of celery each year, or 40,000 pounds of onions. Or it can produce 250 pounds of beef. The simple fact is that as people become affluent, they usually move up the food chain, consuming more resources.

In the United States, 64 per cent of crop land grows feed for livestock, while a mere two per cent produces food and vegetables for human consumption. Almost 80 per cent of the corn grown stateside and 90 per cent of soybeans are eaten by animals that are eaten by us.

Sadly, our wealth and prosperity — our buying power — is making it difficult for developing nations to feed their own. Twenty-five years ago, livestock consumed only six per cent of Mexico’s grain. Today, it’s 50 per cent. In fact, most developing world nations are importing grain to meet their agricultural needs, with a high percentage going to feed livestock, not people. Well-to-do landowners know that they can make good money by selling meat to New and Old World countries, and to the rising middle class in their own backyards.

I first explored these ideas when I read John Robbins’ gentle book May All Be Fed (Morrow). Robbins — for those who don’t know him — was born into an affluent ice-cream family, but couldn’t stomach the inequalities between rich and poor. He renounced his family fortune, and founded Earthsave, an environmental organization devoted to creating a liveable world for all.

The truth is that vegetarianism is a blessed gift that humankind can give the less fortunate. Robbins adds perspective with these words: “If Americans were to reduce their consumption of meat by only 10 per cent, it would free land and resources to grow more than 12 million tons of grain annually for human consumption, more than enough to adequately feed every one of the 40-60 million human beings who will starve to death on the planet this year.”

Ironically, I first heard about this novel approach to feeding the world’s hungry at Dalhousie University in 1979, the year my father died of heart disease. Unfortunately, studies linking diet and illness were simply too late to save the lives of many in my father’s generation.

Today, we know that fat intake is closely tied to health problems like cancer and heart disease, and everyone concerned about health knows that an easy way to cut fat calories is to cut back on meat, and that fruits and vegetables are the best things we can eat to ensure a long and healthy life.

I’m not silly enough to think that cutting back on meat consumption will solve the world’s problems. If, as individuals and as a continent, we start eating more sustainably, we will be making the world a more equitable place.

It won’t be easy. And it won’t happen without a first step. Think globally, but act locally. Start eating less meat. Buy a good vegetarian cookbook.* Cherish every meal as a family, knowing that many are far less fortunate.

Robbins titled his book after a simple mealtime prayer: May all be fed; may all be healed; may all be loved.

Amen to that.

______________

George Monbiot and Bruce Friedrich have also written about diet and environmentalism recently.

Photo credit: Pedal & Sea Adventures

* We’ll write about good vegetarian cook books going forward!

The sweet, haunting melodies of Loreena McKennit’s To Drive The Winter Cold Away are wafting through our apartment here in an unsuspecting tiny town perched near the very end of the continent. Each note reminds me of how a world filled with unspeakable acts of destruction and cruelty can also be a world that gives birth to springing creativity and enduring beauty.

We can’t give into despair. The climate news this week was so unrelentingly bleak that it feels as if the Ringwraiths are circling. But there was a brief flash, a glimmering along the horizon that is flitting skyward, like the aurora, offering us that most cherished of gifts.

Another chance.

That redoubtable democracy has finally elected a president who can answer the call to greatness. And to the extent that any one man can beat back the darkness, I have a brimming faith in Mr. Obama ― who will become the world’s most powerful leader just twenty-nine days from now. Each decision that he made in the past fortnight has confirmed my belief in his insight and acumen. He understands that climate change is the truest challenge, not of our generation, but for all time. I’m also comforted by the thought that words like intelligence, education, science, and integrity will once again be held in high regard, their luster restored.

Obama has chosen men and women of letters and uncommon ability, men and women who aren’t afraid to challenge authority, deliver bad news, speak with unfailing honesty, and then roll up their sleeves and get down to the business of saving the planet. We need each quality in healthy measure, but we need them first to get busy.

I’m not for one moment suggesting that Barack Obama is some half-hallowed saint who will save us from ourselves. He’s just one a politician, and I have little doubt that he’ll make many mistakes during his first term. How could he not, with the depth and breadth our of problems? I also know that the United States is but a fifth of the climate change problem, and that other nations have the potential to rise in history on their insight and resolve.

But America, for good or ill, is vital to our future. It’s the first major skirmish of this new fight for the planet, and the one that will embolden us for the trying path ahead. I am lifted by my belief that Obama is a smart man who isn’t afraid to let people smarter than himself into the room. We need the entire White House to be filled with educated, brilliant people who will shake up the halls of power.

Obama is doing exactly as I’d hoped. He’s picking the best people for the most important positions in his cabinet and administration. And at this point in world history, that doesn’t mean that I’m as chuffed about his Secretaries of Defense or the Treasury, but of the scientists and policy wonks who have rounded out his environmental portfolio.

It’s almost been funny this week, as I’ve watched the Internet’s best climate change writers greet each appointment with virtual high-fives and deep satisfaction. I could easily imagine a smiling Joe Romm at Climate Progress doing a happy dance with his young daughter, who gives meaning to his tireless pursuit of the truth.

I felt it, too ― a brief welling here and there that softened the news. This week was the best of times, and the worst of times. We know that climate change is rolling over us, and we are not ready. Many will suffer and die because of our petty bickering. But we also know that the best and brilliant minds of our generation are seeking a way out of this deceptive morass.

On this, the darkest of days, we are moving towards the light.

_____________

John Holdren talking about climate change via US Climate Action

Find out more about:

John Holdren, Science via Climate Progress

Steven Chu, Energy via Climate Progress

Lisa Jackson, EPA via The Washington Post

Carol Browner, Energy & Climate Change via Time

Hilda Solis, Labor via Salon

Jane Lubchenco, NOAA via Wikipedia

Delegates agreed with the timeline for further talks leading up to the Copenhagen meeting, scheduling two conferences for late March and early June to be hosted in Bonn, and a third meeting in August or September. They also say they will have the climate pact’s draft text ready by June, hopefully giving President-elect Barack Obama time to formulate his administration’s plans. Progress was also made on reforming the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to speed up project approvals, but forest carbon and CCS credits could not be agreed upon.

But the divide between developed and developing countries is wider than ever. The UN announced the launch of an adaptation fund for developing economies initially worth about $80 million annually, with provisions for it to increase to $300 million a year by 2012. The fund will draw on cash raised through a two per cent levy on the CDM.

But delegates from developing economies described the fund as derisory, and it’s hard to disagree with their assessment, given that the UN earlier claimed that poorer nations will require up to $80 billion to adapt to the worst effects of climate change.

Echoing the comments of many negotiators from developing countries, Colombian Environment minister Juan Lozano said he was “so sad and so disappointed” by the deal. “The human side of climate change is the suffering of our orphans and our victims and that was not considered here,” he said. “It’s a bad signal on the road to Copenhagen”.

See a longer story at Business Green.

________________________

* UNFCCC — United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Truth to tell, I had wanted to make this blog look exactly like the One Blue Marble web site, but with everything else on my plate, that’s too high a hurdle (he wrote, mixing metaphors). So this will do for now, until I learn how to transform my HTML and CSS into a WordPress Template.

In the meantime, I plan to blog here regularly. I will link to interesting articles and commentary — in the traditional media and blogosphere — that will help you stay abreast of what’s happening in the world, and how precari0us is our place in it. But I don’t only want to be a purveyor of doom, for the clean tech world is filled with exciting technologies, and everywhere you look, you find ordinary — and extraordinary — people who are making a difference. I want you to become inspired, to become the change that our world needs.

Let me know what interests you, what you’d like to know more about, and where OneBlue Marble should go next. I’m new to activism, but I know my stuff, and I want to make a difference.

Join me here, and tell your friends about us!