Why We Shouldn’t Think of Climate Change as Only a “Global” Issue

You’re sweltering in the summer heat. Or maybe you saw photos of the giant chunk of ice that broke off Antarctica. Or you read about the climate Armageddon as described in a recent New York magazine article, and wrapped your mind around hot, belching seas, famine, massive waves of climate refugees, and even the possibility of human extinction. But climate change is a global crisis, and only national and international leaders can do anything about it, right?

Actually, some of the most powerful work to combat global warming is happening close to home. With the fossil fuel industry exerting so much power at the national level, much of our strength is in taking a stand together, where we live.

Here’s a success story that convinced me of this. I visited a quiet valley in southeastern Montana on the road trip that resulted in my book, The Revolution Where You Live. The Otter Creek Valley is made up of ranches, a small river, and the rocky outcroppings of the Custer National Forest. Nearby is the reservation of the Northern Cheyenne tribe. The area is also rich in coal, and Arch Coal and its partners wanted to dig the largest strip mine in the state to get at it.

Read the story by Sarah van Gelder on Yes! Magazine - “Why We Shouldn’t Think of Climate Change as Only a “Global” Issue.”

Keeping warming below 1.5℃ is possible - but we can’t rely on removing carbon from the atmosphere

Kate Dooley.

This week international leaders are meeting in Marrakech to thrash out how to achieve the Paris climate agreement, which came into force on Friday. The Marrakech meeting is the 22nd Congress of Parties (or COP22) to the United Nation’s climate convention. One of the key goals of the agreement is to limit global warming to well below 2℃, and aim to limit warming to 1.5℃.

With global greenhouse gas emissions still rising, this is a daunting task. Numerous models, including recent research, suggest we will not be able to achieve this without removing large amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere later this century (known as “negative emissions”).

But scientists are becoming increasingly sceptical of the concept, as it may create more problems than it solves, or fail to deliver. Instead, we need to ramp up action before 2020, before even the earliest targets of the Paris Agreement.

Read the piece on The Conversation by a PhD candidate from the Australian German Climate and Energy College at the University of Melbourne, Kate Dooley,  “Keeping warming below 1.5 C is possible - but we can’t rely on removing carbon from the atmosphere.”