Seven years. That’s as long as we have left to prevent a climate calamity by stopping the growth in carbon emissions entirely, according to the conclusions derived from thousands of studies by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Doing that, along with cutting emissions 50-85% by 2050, will stabilize the climate at a 3.5 degree Fahrenheit increase, which will “merely” cause seas to swell, a reduction in water supplies from glaciers and icecaps with millions of people going thirsty, acidification of the oceans, the dying out of most coral reefs, and increases in flood and storms. Again, ladies and gentlemen, this is what we get if we meet the impossible goal of stopping emissions growth in 7 years.

What if we do not? Well then things go downhill from there, don’t they. If instead we fail to stop emissions growth until 2030, the planet’s temperature will increase by 6.3 degrees F. That would result in the widespread extinction of species, slowing global currents that would wreak havoc on climates all over the developed world, decreases in food production, 30% global loss of wetlands, flooding of millions of people, and many more deaths from heat waves.

To say that these are “extremely serious findings,” as the chairperson of the IPCC said, is an understatement. They are stunning and depressing in their immediacy, inevitability, and seeming impossibility of doing anything in our political world in time to prevent catastrophe.

Seven years is also, by the way, the amount of time the US has wasted in doing absolutely NOTHING about climate change under our current Chimp-in-Chief, who refused to join most of the rest of the world in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Even now, when confronted with these dire warnings and mindful that they can no longer play the part of ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground, US climate delegate Sharon Hays had the gall to defend our non-action, saying that “what’s changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening”–with no promises that Washington would change its reliance on “voluntary” (aka non-existent) reductions given the “new evidence.”

No Sharon, we knew fully well in 2001 what was happening, which is why Kyoto came about. What hadn’t happened then was Katrina, and Atlanta going dry of water, and Al Gore, and other evidence so clear that even a monkey could understand it. In insisting on evidence as certain as cogito ergo sum, all we have done is waste seven valuable years while allowing the oil industry and other polluting interests increasingly free reign to pollute with impunity. We now have the result–our backs are against the wall with only 7 years left to avoid a worse calamity.

I’m not sure anything CAN be done in 7 more years, despite the good intentions of a few. Our world is just too fragmented politically, with too many competing interests. I also wonder whether the exponential nature of technological advancement is being accounted for in these findings–futurist Ray Kurzweil is severely critical of Al Gore for supposedly failing to account for technological advancements in areas like nanotechnology that could prevent carbon emissions or even suck already-emitted carbon out of the air.

I sure as hell hope Kurzweil is right, because that may be our last best hope. In case he is not, however, we still have a moral obligation to do everything possible to lessen the damage and destruction as much as we can. If we can’t or won’t, then I question whether we even deserve to be on this third rock from the Sun, given our disgraceful stewardship of the planet.

Tags: bush, global-warming, ipcc, kurzweil