311. IPCC – Good News!
World’s Top Climate Scientists Give
Us Hope for a Better Future If We Act Now
นักวิทยาศาสตร์ภูมิอากาศชั้นนำของโลก
ให้ความหวังแก่เราว่า โลกที่ดีกว่ามีได้ หากเราปฏิบัติการเดี๋ยวนี้
-สเตฟานี ตุนมอเร
Five
Greenpeace International activists attempt to climb the 'Prirazlomnaya', an oil
platform operated by Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom in Russia's
Pechora Sea; to stop it from becoming the first to produce oil from the
ice-filled waters of the Arctic. (Photo: Greenpeace)
Thirty crew members of the Greenpeace
ship Arctic Sunrise are in
prison in Russia,
because they took peaceful action against oil drilling in the Arctic, intending
to change the grim future we are constructing for ourselves and the planet with
our addiction to fossil fuels. Today, the world’s leading authority on the
science of climate change released a
report
that shows the concerns of the Greenpeace activists are completely justified.
สมาชิกทีมงาน
๓๐ คนของเรือกรีนพีซ Arctic
Sunrise (ตะวันรุ่งอาร์คติค) อยู่ในคุกรัสเซีย,
เพราะพวกเขากระทำการอหิงสาต่อต้านการขุดเจาะน้ำมันในขั้วโลกเหนือ,
ด้วยเจตนาที่จะเปลี่ยนอนาคตที่สยดสยอง ที่พวกเราสร้างขึ้น เพื่อพวกเราเองและพิภพโลก
ด้วยการเสพติดต่อเชื้อเพลิงฟอสซิล.
วันนี้, ผู้มีอำนาจชั้นนำของโลกในด้านวิทยาศาสตร์ภูมิอากาศเปลี่ยนแปลง
ได้เปิดตัวรายงานที่แสดงให้เห็นถึงความห่วงกังวลของนักกิจกรรม กรีนพีซ
ซึ่งมีความชอบธรรมบริบูรณ์.
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has assessed all of the recent climate science and found
worrying signs of accelerating impacts, especially in Polar regions:
IPCC ได้ประเมินผลการศึกษาทางวิทยาศาสตร์ภูมิอากาศเมื่อเร็วๆ นี้ทั้งหมด และ
พบสัญญาณที่น่ากังวลของผลกระทบที่เร่งตัวเร็วขึ้น, โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่ง
ในแถบขั้วโลก.
- In the
past decade (2002-2011) the Greenland Ice Sheet melted at a rate six times
faster, on average, than the decade before.
- ทศวรรษที่ผ่านมา
(๒๕๔๕-๒๕๕๔) แผ่นน้ำแข็งกรีนแลนด์ ได้หลอมละลายในอัตราเร็วขึ้น ๖
เท่าโดยเฉลี่ย จากทศวรรษก่อน.
- Antarctic
melting was five times faster.
- การหลอมละลายในขั้วโลกใต้เร็วขึ้น
๕ เท่า.
- Since
1993 sea-levels have risen twice as fast as in the past century on
average.
- ตั้งแต่ปี
๒๕๓๖ ระดับน้ำทะเลเพิ่มขึ้น ๒ เท่า โดยเฉลี่ย เมื่อเทียบกับศตวรรษที่ผ่านมา.
- Arctic
sea-ice extent has also diminished significantly faster than projected.
- ขอบเขตของทะเลน้ำแข็งของขั้วโลกเหนือได้หดหายไปรวดเร็วกว่าที่คาดการณ์ไว้
อย่างมีนัยสำคัญ ด้วย.
Our pollution has warmed the atmosphere
and oceans, melted glaciers, raised sea levels, changed water cycles and
increased some extreme weather events. In addition, our carbon dioxide
emissions are turning oceans more acidic at an unprecedented rate, threatening
marine life. It is now certain that most of the warming since 1951 was caused
by human activities.
มลภาวะของเรา
ได้ช่วยอุ่นชั้นบรรยากาศและมหาสมุทร, หลอมละลายธารน้ำแข็ง, เพิ่มระดับน้ำทะเล,
เปลี่ยนวงจรน้ำ และ เพิ่มบางเหตุการณ์ของอากาศสุดโต่ง. นอกจากนั้น, การปล่อยก๊าซคาร์บอนไดออกไซด์
กำลังเปลี่ยนมหาสมุทรให้เป็นกรดในอัตราเร็วที่ไม่เคยเป็นมาก่อน,
คุกคามชีวิตสัตว์ทะเล. ตอนนี้ รู้แน่นอนแล้วว่า
การอุ่นขึ้นส่วนใหญ่ตั้งแต่ปี ๒๔๙๔ เป็นต้นมา มีสาเหตุจากกิจกรรมของมนุษย์.
But the IPCC didn’t just deliver the
bad news. They also looked at potential pathways for the future. The future
they describe if we stay on our current path and continue with business as
usual looks bleak and hostile. But remember, these are projections, not
prophecies. They also set out a way forward that will limit the amount of
warming to well below 2°C and lower the scale of sea-level rise, ice melting,
ocean acidification and extreme weather events as well as lower the risks of
triggering abrupt changes with unknown consequences.
แต่
IPCC ไม่ได้เพียงมอบข่าวร้าย. พวกเขาได้ดูที่หนทางที่เป็นไปได้สำหรับอนาคต. อนาคตที่พวกเขาบรรยาย คือ
หากเรายังคงอยู่ในหนทางปัจจุบัน และยังทำธุรกิจตามปกติเหมือนไม่มีอะไรเกิดขึ้นแล้ว
ก็จะมีแต่ความเคว้งคว้าง กราดเกรี้ยว.
แต่จำได้ไหม, นี่เป็นการคาดการณ์, ไม่ใช่คำทำนายล่วงหน้า. พวกเขายังได้กำหนดหนทางไปข้างหน้าที่จะจำกัดปริมาณความอุ่นขึ้นให้อยู่ต่ำกว่า
2°C และลดขนาดการเพิ่มขึ้นของระดับน้ำทะเล,
การละลายของน้ำแข็ง, ความเป็นกรดของมหาสมุทร และ เหตุการณ์อากาศสุดโต่ง
ตลอดจนลดความเสี่ยงของการจุดชนวนให้เกิดการเปลี่ยนแปลงอย่างกระทันหัน
ที่นำไปสู่ผลพวงที่ไม่อาจล่วงรู้ได้.
There is better future than the one
we are currently facing and it is ours if we want it.
มีอนาคตที่ดีกว่าปัจจุบันที่เรากำลังเผชิญอยู่
และ มันเป็นของเราหากเราต้องการมัน.
We must accept that most fossil fuels
will have to stay in the ground and that chasing to the ends of the earth to
suck out the last few remaining drops of oil is an expensive and dangerous
waste of time. This will come as no surprise to the fossil fuel industry. Coal,
oil and gas companies along with heavy energy using industries like car
manufacturers have spent decades trying to muddy the waters around the science
of climate change rather than address the serious threat it poses. They have
funded advertising campaigns, disinformation campaigns and climate
science 'deniers'
with the intention of creating uncertainty amongst the public and blocking any
efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
เราต้องยอมรับว่าเชื้อเพลิงฟอสซิลจะต้องอยู่ใต้ดิน
และการไล่ล่าจนสุดขอบโลก เพื่อดูดน้ำมันหยดสุดท้ายที่หลงเหลืออยู่ เป็นการผลาญเวลาที่อันตรายและราคาแพง. นี่จะมาถึงอย่างไม่น่าประหลาดใจสำหรับอุตสาหกรรมเชื้อเพลิงฟอสซิล. บริษัท ถ่านหิน, น้ำมัน, และแก๊ส พร้อมกับอุตสาหกรรมที่ใช้พลังงานหนักหน่วง
เช่น โรงงานผลิตรถยนต์ ได้ใช้เวลาหลายทศวรรษพยายามกวนน้ำให้ขุ่นรอบๆ
วิทยาศาสตร์ของภูมิอากาศเปลี่ยนแปลง
แทนที่จะแก้ไขภัยคุกคามร้ายแรงที่เผชิญอยู่.
พวกเขาได้ทุ่มทุนสนับสนุนการโฆษณารณรงค์, การรณรงค์ด้วยข้อมูลบิดเบือน และ
วิทยาศาสตร์ภูมิอากาศ ‘จำพวกปฏิเสธ (ความจริง)’
ด้วยเจตนาสร้างความไม่แน่นอนในหมู่สาธารณชน และ ขัดขวางความพยายามใดๆ
ที่จะควบคุมการปล่อยก๊าซเรือนกระจก.
We must embrace and accelerate the
clean energy transition that is already underway. Renewable energy is currently
the fastest
growing power source.
Globally, renewable generation is estimated to rise to 25% of gross power
generation in 2018. But the biggest barrier to even greater expansion is uncertainty
around renewable energy policies. This is an area where governments could
create strong signals to investors about the future.
เราต้องโอบรวมและเร่งการเปลี่ยนผ่านสู่พลังงานสะอาด
ที่ได้เริ่มขึ้นแล้ว.
พลังงานหมุนเวียนปัจจุบัน เป็นแหล่งพลังงานที่เติบโตเร็วที่สุด. ในระดับโลก, การผลิตพลังงานหมุนเวียน ประเมินว่าจะเพิ่มขึ้น
25% ของมวลรวมของพลังงานที่ผลิตในปี ๒๕๖๑.
แต่อุปสรรคใหญ่ที่สุดที่ขัดขวางการขยายตัวมากขึ้น คือ ความไม่แน่นอนรอบๆ
นโยบายพลังงานหมุนเวียน. นี่เป็นพื้นที่ๆ
รัฐบาลทั้งหลายสามารถสร้างสัญญาณชัดเจนต่อนักลงทุนเกี่ยวกับอนาคต.
Our activists have shown tremendous
courage and commitment and put to shame those governments that continue to
protect the interests of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of their
citizens. Their actions, borne out of personal conviction and a desire to
protect our rapidly changing climate is a challenge to governments to show the
same level of integrity and put people and the planet first.
นักกิจกรรมของเราได้แสดงความกล้าหาญและความผูกพันมากมาย
และ
ได้ทำให้บรรดารัฐบาลที่ยังปกป้องผลประโยชน์ของอุตสาหกรรมเชื้อเพลิงฟอสซิลโดยผลักภาระค่าใช้จ่ายไปที่พลเมืองของตน
ต้องรู้สึกละอาย. ปฏิบัติการของพวกเขา, อันเกิดจากการตัดสินใจส่วนตัว และ
แรงปรารถนาที่จะปกป้องภูมิอากาศของเราที่กำลังเปลี่ยนแปลงไปอย่างรวดเร็ว
เป็นการท้าทายบรรดารัฐบาลให้แสดงศักดิ์ศรีในระดับเดียวกัน
และให้ความสำคัญอันดับแรกแก่ประชาชนและพิภพโลก.
Copyright 2013 Greenpeace
International
Stephanie
is a climate campaigner at Greenpeace International.
สเตฟานี
เป็นนักรณรงค์ภูมิอากาศที่ กรีนพีซสากล.
There
is so much ignorance out there, mainly owned by the pseudo- patriotic types and
the just- plain- gullible types who listen to "Flumoxed" news and
believe that garbage. What is needed more than ever is for people to truly
listen to REAL scientists and to truly think for THEMSELVES, and not let paid
shills tell them what to think.
Wow,
love how the first paragraph and photo has little to nothing to do with the
rest of the article...Greenpeace finding any excuse for milking their publicity
stunt as usual.
But
other than the tenuous connection to justify their actions, I agree with most
of the article, and like how she has used this to focus on the positive and try
to motivate people out of hopelessness into action.
Yup.
Greenpeace actions are ridiculous, utterly useless expensive,
liberal-bourgeois, and carbon intensive, publicity stunts. Imagine how much
diesel the "Rainbow Warrior" burns - along with all the plane trips
its stunt-actors take.
And
it is not even the people who work on the oil rigs who have anything to do with
the decisions to drill for oil!
Why
isn't Greenpeace raiding and occupying the corporate offices, and the offices
of their wholly-owned politicians, who DO make these decisions?
Edit
- so i guess the down-voters like publicity stunts instead of confronting
corporate impunity....
Well,
I know 2 Canadians were aboard. As a Canadian you don't have to take an
icebreaker to Russia's arctic circle to protest against environmental
destruction...just take a bus to Alberta.
Even
the CAPTAIN of the Coast Guard ship, let alone the sailors, that arrested the
activists wasn't making the decisions about what happened that day, let alone
anything to actually do with drilling. But we should stop thinking so
critically.
I
was not referring to the specific Russian incident - but Greenpeace's publicity
stunts in general. Rather than travel to the middle of the arctic or pacific
why not perform their direct actions in the cities where they can directly
confront those in charge? The
cost of the "Rainbow Warrior" could buy a lot of MTA passes to Wall
Street.
Climate
change would have a better chance of being addressed if its leader wasn't a
born with a silver spoon in his mouth, a career politician, and didn't own a
10,000 square foot home. Sometimes the
messenger can be its biggest liability.
Why
are you fixated on Gore? He's not the "leader" of the
"movement," and most folks involved with the issue rarely mention
him. He's much less relevant than McKibben, Hansen, and any number of
scientists, lawyers, activists, etc. He wrote Inconvenient Truth, which served
a purpose, but that was quite a while ago. At this point, the people who care
most about Gore are the denialists, who like to have him around as a sort of ad
hominem punching bag.
Sad
to say Gore is the poster child for many on this issue due to his political
clot and outspoken comments(It is also a generational issue). Others lead
-
o
the
pack now but in many minds Gore is the man. His extreme warnings/comments have
proven to add fire to the opposition ...
You
really don't spend much time on this subject, do you? The only people Gore is
the poster boy for are the Denialists. The rest of us pay attention to the
science.
Yup,
for me, the poster boys and Heroes are James Hansen; Michael Mann - who bravely
faced down possible imprisonment on utterly preposterous charges by the
fascist, fanatic Virginia Attorney general - and then threatened with the same
when he fled to Penn State U.; Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies
and the "Real climate' blog, and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam
University Institute for climate studies.
And
of course, the UC San Diego professor of History and Science Studies Naomi
Oreskes, who was the first to elucidate the tobacco-industry/merchant-of-doubt
mechanistic model of AGW denialism.
Al
Gore? Yeah, I recall him - he was some guy who won a senator seat for Tennessee
way back when I was living in Knoxville in the 1970's. Oh, that right; he also
ran against my man, Ralph Nader for US president back in 2000.
But
that's an awful lot of people in the debate. Depending on how the polls ask the
question.
Also,
you may want to check what you are paying attention to, because science never
involves belief or denial. Certitude like that is only found in philosophy or
religion. Science is about theory and observation, which is quite different.
Matthew,
I must confess to being baffled how you got from my comment to your response.
Certitude didn't enter into the discussion, unless you thought I was talking in
absolutes vis-a-vis denialists and Al Gore. And which question are you referring
to, whether or not Gore is anyone's poster child? Or whether or not the rest of
us are paying attention to the science? Color me confused.
Weirdly,
your post is reminiscent of many of mine over the years. I understand the
scientific method reasonably well, that it doesn't deal in absolutes, that
there are no proofs (which is why they're called theories), and that
probability and statistics is the name of the game. Science, by it's very
nature, requires skepticism, which is why I refer to that particular subset as
denialists: they aren't skeptical at all, they have ruled out the possibility
that climate change might be driven in any degree at all by human activity.
Watts isn't a denialist, nor is Lindzen nor even Christy (unless he's fallen by
the way); they're skeptics, just like Hansen or Mann.
If
I am missing something here let me know.
No,
you're not missing anything.
Five
years ago, the UK climatologist James Annan, who was (maybe still is) at Yokohama
working on the simulator there, finally managed to get someone to take him up
on the bar-bet he was offering. A couple of Russian scientists at Irkutsk
agreed to bet $10K against climate change being real.
Richard
Lindzen at MIT (who really is a denialist -- up at this level of certainty,
"skeptic" and "denialist" are virtual synonyms) wanted 50:1
odds from Annan before he'd bet. Which meant he knew that the IPCC's public 95%
number was too low and the real level of certainty was 98%.
Similarly,
George Monbiot couldn't get even a £5K bet going at any odds with Myron Ebell,
one of the loud-mouthed professional denier/lobbyist/shills for Capitalism.
Ebell turned Monbiot down flat on the grounds that he couldn't afford to take
the risk even though he constantly claimed in public that there was no risk.
I'm
curious why you consider those 3 skeptics rather than denialists--or in my way
of thinking, denying delayalists. Here's what I'm thinking; please tell me what
you think:
Denial,
whether done through conscious lies or unconscious psychological processes, is
a tactic. If unconscious it's a tactic the mind and body use to protect oneself
from cognitive-emotional dissonance and truth that's just too painful to remain
aware of. When used as a conscious tactic of lying, it's generally part of a
larger strategy whose purpose is to delay action; other tactics include
creating despair, creating false hope/passivity through minimizing,
technological optimism (supposedly non-dirty coal, nuclear reactors not yet
invented, geoengimagicalism), splitting people into goats and heroes*, the 'cut
off the head' technique used against wind, solar and cap and trade--attacking
viciously whatever seems to be the most acceptable solution at the moment. This
often involves supporting all the other solutions, including the ones the
denialists hate the most, suggesting that they're better; then once the leading
head is cut off and something else takes the lead, that's attacked the same
way, including suggestions that the just-defeated solution is the way to go
instead of the new one. In this way all solutions are stalled. In addition,
it's Swift-boating--the Rovian method of attacking the opponent's strength with
a relentless barrage of lies. Even if the attacks don't work quite as planned,
a dirty fight makes people want to wash their hands of both sides and plays
into the delaying strategy.
People
who lie about an issue like this, in the end, are denying the reality of how
serious the situation is or they couldn't lie about it; in the end, whether
parts of it are conscious or not, it's always a jumble of consciousness,
unconsciousness, lying, insanity and stupidity (Gregory Bateson's "evil as
an epistemological mistake"). Lindzen in particular is not a denialist
like Inhofe or TVMOB but he's a denying delayalist just the same, as far as I
can see. Watts seems like an out and out denialist, arguing about weather data
sites etc. to disparage the clear evidence of climate change. John Christy
hasn't been completely consistent, but said this: "I'm sure the majority
(but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither
the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is
to blame for most of the warming we see." There's not a smoking gun; there
are at least 10. www.skepticalscience.com/10-In...
*A
hero can morph into a 'savior' if in certain circumstances a suitable one is
found to distract from real solutions and painful truths; this is something we
should avoid at all costs because if put forth in chaotic and dangerous times
(as we're about to enter more or less permanently) it's likely to be a savior
like Hitler or Milosevic.
Al
Gore is rich therefore global warming is a lie. I see you're a scientist!
Unless we acted ASAP we had no hope a
number of years ago, according to Al Gore and his group of scientists. We are
still here. If this is the boy who called wolf syndrome then perhaps someday
the wolf may come... If not well it serves as another example of political
agendas mucking with science (Like the reported coming ice age in the
1960-70s). In either case irresponsible journalism might have cost us many
opportunities to do what is right..
Please
provide the citation in which Al Gore says we will not be here in 2013.
I
hope you are an incredibly patient person.
He
didn't say that. He said that we had that long to act to stop runaway climate
change. So either he was wrong, that round number was off, or its too late.
Where's
your citation?
"We must accept that most fossil
fuels will have to stay in the ground..." Every time I read or hear a
version of this emergent mantra, I have to roll my eyes.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STOP PEOPLE FROM
UNEARTHING AND USING FOSSIL FUELS?!?!?
Occupying that Gazprom platform
didn't stop anything, did it?
There's just so much wrong with this
way of thinking it is hard to know where to begin.
How about: "25% of gross power
generation by 2018", huh? I guess when we get the other 75% of generation
and the ENTIRETY of the
engine fuel demand replaced we'll really be somewhere, right? Is there
proof that renewables alone (especially when you leave out alcohol fuels from
biomass as most Greenpeace fans seem to) can even DO this? Even assuming flat
or falling demand which makes NO SENSE AT ALL in light of current population
and development trends?
Which brings me to the only other way
I can stand to engage this at this time: You show me China, India, and the rest
of the developing countries signing on to stop using fossil fuels, then show me
the USA Empire going so as well, and I'll start to believe your notion has a
chance in hell.
Without real, viable, alternatives to
meet, say 200% of current generator and engine demand to account for growth,
the vast majority of remaining fossil fuels that can be brought up and burned.
Love to read the report demonstrating that solar and wind can do that. Even
with biomass fuels allowed I doubt it is possible.
see
more
There
are many tactics; denial is only the first line of defense against the truth.
Despair, false hope/passivity and others are used, and whether you mean it
consciously or or partly or not at all, you're using these to delay actions we
have absolutely no choice about doing.
As
long as denying delayalists stop us from acting, we don't know exactly how
we're going to accomplish the task. It's monumental and more difficult than
anything humans have ever done. It's a huge physical task--building millions of
solar panels and wind generators, passive solar houses, third world solar
cookers, reforesting the world, cutting back dramatically on energy use while
we do all that... But it's all completely doable. Like the heroic US industrial
effort that won World War II, it's a relatively simple case of applying enough
attention, expertise, determination, engineering, planning, coordination of
supply and construction. The most complex and difficult part of the job is
convincing those who want to continue to profit from fossil fuels, and those
they've duped into being their volunteer army of lies and fog, that one way or
another their time is over. They need to realize that if we don't do this in a
controlled, peaceful way now, chaos and violence are inevitable and it will
happen then in the worst way possible. They need to know without a shadow of a
doubt that if it comes to that they will be the ones responsible for the deaths
of billions of people and uncountable other beings, and the collapse of global
civilization.
To
think that politics trumps physics is absurd. We know what we have to do to
survive as a civilization. Whether you or any other single person or group
thinks we can do it or not is immaterial to the question of whether we have to,
to survive. We do.
It's
good to wonder how we do it; that's how we figure out how to do it. But it's
counterproductive to wonder in a way that makes it clear before you know
anything that you know it can't be done. That is not an option for us. If we
want to survive we have to do it.
If
we want to survive we have to do it.
see more
The people in the industrialized
countries can just "act" to halt environmental poisoning, of which
climate change (aka global warming) is a large but not an exclusive part. Even
"acting up" won't do it. There's a big difference between "acting"
like we're changing reality and really doing it, and in this case really doing
it would mean a quite swift redesign of industry, economics, food production
and distribution, the definition of, the necessity for, and the ways of rewarding
what is considered "work," and doing so within a single generation or
less.
Hurricanes, tornadoes, snow storms,
rain storms, floods, fires, rising sea levels, artic ice melting, glaciers
melting, famine, temperature rising, carbon emissions, extinctions, polar
bears, and all the other problems are actually true. Politicians, corporations
and ignorance all contributed to this problem. We need to have a separation
between government and business just like we have a separation of church and
state. Education will solve this problem amongst the ignorant and laws will
separate business and government.
First: Double soil carbon
sequestration using the cheap and simple, open source methods illustrated and
described at: http://garden-life.ws/plant-ly...
Second: Quadruple alcohol production
from existing alcohol sources: http://garden-life.ws/Alcohol....
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น