Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Politics”

Hair Changed Everything: Music, Sex, Drugs and Music


Special To Topanga Journal

Producer Michael Butler talks about the groundbreaking musical Hair, June 12, 2007 at the Met Theatre in Hollywood, with Lee Ferris.

1968. The height of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement, a time of peace, love and chaos. A year that held the death of RFK and MLK Jr., anti-war protests and a musical that changed lives, embodying core values resonating in self-worth and hope. The year 2018 marks the 50th anniversary of the original Broadway show “Hair: The American Tribal Love-Rock Musical.” It is a social-emotional, politically driven force of rights and voice. “Hair” parallels attitudes of the time it was born. The producer of the original Broadway show, Michael Butler, states, “the musical taught me about peace and love. I believes that ‘Hair’ is a work of God. It has such an effect on the people that work within it.”

Cara Robin and Richard (Dick) Osorio, General Manager of the Original “Hair” Broadway Production
Cara Robin and Richard (Dick) Osorio, General Manager of the Original “Hair” Broadway Production

Flower children, hippies, musicians, artists and revolutionaries are voices loud and strong; A part of history woven into stories of freedom, oppression, happiness and desire. Stories told through music, sex, drugs and politics. According to Butler “Politics are more serious now than when it opened. The war situation is much worse. America has become War Incorporated. The social point of view is that the rich are dumping on the poor. Politics are helping that. The President is out to lunch. Fascism is now a keyword in this country. “Hair” is more current today than it was in 1968.”

A reflection of counter-culture perspective, “Hair” opens conversation for future collaborations. This dialogue will start with Cara Robin, the production coordinator and second company casting director of the original Broadway show. Cara Robin is “an important part of the ‘Hair’ community and a light” beautifully expressed by Mr. Butler.  

I got into ‘Hair’ because Bobby Kennedy asked me to go to New York.“ Michael Butler

Interview of Music, Sex, Drugs and Music. Reflection: The 60s and 2018  

TJ – It is the 50th Anniversary of “Hair” – does its message still stand strong? 

CR – The musical still gives hope to a generation. It’s a sing-along of social issues by people looking for their identity, wanting a voice, and looking for the sun to shine in. It addresses topics with which we’re familiar: the military, air-pollution, love-triangles. Racism is alive and well. And people need people. 

TJ – What are the main musical messages of the 60s? 

CR – The explosion of rock n’ roll came via the Beatles’ early music, infectious and fun, pop lyrics with super style. It didn’t yet have the social messaging folk music had but grew and evolved to set the tone for the changing times. Bob Dylan’s evolution to rock n’ roll music were lyrics speaking to a new generation looking for change and feeling alienated from society and addressed their deep-held fears and hopes.  The closest sound to the energy and feeling of the 60s is the “Hamilton” soundtrack. Poetry in music via rap. “Hamilton” made me cry the first time I heard it. It has power, passion and skill of storytelling.

TJ – What was the reaction of gender assumption in relationships? Talk about the idea of free love and open relationships.  

CR – The counter-culture was quite liberal and inclusive. People didn’t seem to judge others because of their sexual preference. There was also a lot of sexual exploration going on in relationships. We’re addressing a specific group here – the counter-culture – where, yes, free love and open relationships was prevalent. People were exploring new freedoms and defying the “normal.”

TJ – Does free love exist in 2018?

CR – Free Love does not exist amongst my peers as far as I know. We are looking for committed relationships and strong friendships rather than free love. It could exist amongst the younger generation, but it’s not being shouted from the rooftops as it was in the 60s.

 TJ – What was the usage of drugs for self-discovery? 

CR – LSD was the main “self-awareness” drug, although it was usually taken for recreation rather than self-analysis. But the thoughts the drugs produced were quite mind opening, even though usually forgotten the next day. I had a friend that took LSD under a doctor’s supervision; so all of his experiences were recorded, which must have been quite interesting after the fact.

TJ – Is the usage of drugs for self-discovery is still a good idea? 

CR – Seems like more people use yoga for self-discovery these days.

TJ – How did the musical “Hair” inspire you politically and emotionally? 

CR – It awakened me to the urgency of being present and aware, of recognizing goodness as well as danger in the political climate and society. Emotionally it opened my heart to love and accepting people for who they are, to acknowledge the warmth and light feelings of happiness.

MB – I got into “Hair” because Bobby Kennedy asked me to go to New York. When at a club, I saw a poster for the musical “Hair.” The faces in the photograph were of two interests, the Native Americans and being against the Vietnam War. It was the strongest anti-war image I had ever seen. The musical got well reviewed and was wanting to be something commercial. Would I like to do it? I said yes. I was in politics, running for US Senate, and I decided to produce “Hair” instead. These were the messages of anti-war that I wanted to be a part of. Emotionally the story of “Hair” is such a strong statement that I could get into. 

TJ – How do the political themes of the 60s compare to the political views expressed today? 

CR – Similar. Life seems to progress in circles, same issues with little resolution. Especially with regard to race. Hopefully we can change this in the next years, awareness is coming, people are getting woke. 

TJ – Were you involved in politics in the 60s? Are you involved in politics today? What is your main goal in working in politics?

CR – I participated in marches against the Vietnam War and worked briefly on Eugene McCarthy for President campaign, the anti-war candidate. Currently I am President of the West LA Democratic Club, Executive Board Member of the California Democratic Party, elected Member of the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee and Co-Chair of the Westside Democratic HQ. My main goal is to elect Progressive Democrats to every level of government and inform the public on issues and candidates through meetings and events. 

TJ – Talk about women’s rights in the 60s compared to women’s rights today. 

CR – In the 60s you had to be a strong woman to be heard, and as I was in a position of power in my casting work, I had a voice.  But not equal pay, the men always made more. Men were in higher positions in most areas in business, politics, fashion, publishing and the arts. Women have much more power and standing today than in the 60s. Women are at the top in nearly every field, and the fight for equal pay for equal work has made great strides. Women are leading the way in the political fights and protests.

TJ – How do we move forward politically with positivity? 

CR – We identify what is important in society – social justice, affordable health care, housing, debt-free education, immigration, gun control, people feeling safe and happy. We can’t discount the importance of feeling happy. Then we work to elect strong, conscious representatives that will move these ideals forward, and this can only happen when we take money out of politics. 

Remember to Love. “Hair” brings about a reason to care and an example of how. Through the topics of music, sex, drugs and politics we hear stories of a time that reflect the self and its current surroundings. “Hair” in lyric, style and production is a profound example of hope for the future. The messages of “Hair” will continue, the discussions of change and growth present new ideas of communication and a common ground of trust. Randy Brooks, Tribe from the original Los Angeles production of “Hair” expressed “what the show did was open my eyes to the unfairness and hate that needed all the love the show was preaching.” 

“Hair” will be the soundtrack for our lives for generations to come. Its impact is evident with the compassion it continues to produce. Remember to LET THE SUN SHINE IN! 

ON THE WEB:

https://youtu.be/P0Wh-ccZVfs


Subscribe to our newsletter

The Green New Deal Promises Peace and Progress. Will Nuclear Advocates Undermine it?


Harvey Wasserman

With Thanks to The Progressive Magazine

The environmental policy centerpiece of the Democratic House of Representatives is what’s now known as “The Green New Deal.” But it’s already hit deeply polarizing pushback from the old-line Democratic leadership. And it faces divisive jockeying over the future of nuclear power.

The Green New Deal’s most visible public advocate, newly elected twenty-nine-year-old U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, has laid out a preliminary blueprint advocating an energy economy meant to be based entirely on “renewable” and “clean” sources. According to a report in The Hill, fossil fuels and nuclear power are “completely out” of her plan.

Harvey Wasserman September 15, 2018 photo by Kriss Perras

By Harvey Wasserman

The draft proposal has ignited tremendous grassroots enthusiasm, with massively favorable poll readings, even among some Republicans. Substantial grassroots pressure has grown on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to form a Green New Deal Committee chaired by Ocasio-Cortez.

But on December 20, the Democratic leadership announced it will not support a separate House Committee on the deal. Instead, it will proceed with a panel on climate change, to be chaired by Florida Representative Kathy Castor, who has taken substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry. It remains unclear whether Ocasio-Cortez will even get a seat on the committee.

“The draft proposal has ignited tremendous grassroots enthusiasm, with massively favorable poll readings, even among some Republicans. ” Harvey Wasserman

But the grassroots push for a Green New Deal is clearly not going to go away. The youthful Sunrise Movement has vowed to fight for it, along with a wide range of others, including Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, a likely 2020 presidential contender.

The Green New Deal idea conjures visions of the vast “alphabet agency” programs birthed by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt in the 1930s.

With unparalleled pageantry, New Deal Democrats put millions of Americans to work building roads, bridges, schools, libraries, museums, public swimming pools, local and national parks, and more. They proved that immense communal good could come from a solid government blueprint administered through a competent, well-orchestrated brain trust.

In contrast, the Trump Administration’s promise to deal with “infrastructure” has involved none of the above. While denying the disaster of climate change, its energy policies have focused purely on handing cheap fossil drilling leases on public land (and waters) to Trump cronies.

It’s also granted a $3.7 billion low-interest loan (added to $8.3 billion previously granted by President Obama) to private developers of the last two U.S. nuclear reactors under construction, at Vogtle, Georgia. Already years behind schedule and billions over budget, the project may soar beyond $20 billion and still never be finished.

The fate of the Vogtle plant underscores a nuclear war that will cut to the heart of the Green New Deal and the climate issue as it plays out in the new Congress.

Already, The New York Times, with its long history of reactor advocacy, has featured an op-ed by U.S. Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, advocating more nukes as a solution to the climate crisis. In an article running under a photo of a Chinese reactor under construction, Barrasso argues “nuclear energy is produced with zero carbon emissions.”

While denying the disaster of climate change, Trump energy policies have focused purely on handing cheap fossil drilling leases on public land (and waters) to Trump cronies.

In fact, nuclear reactors do emit trace quantities of radioactive Carbon-14. The fuel rods that power reactor are produced with significant carbon in mining, milling, and enrichment. They pump huge quantities of waste heat directly into the eco-sphere, operating far less efficiently even than coal burners. They yield large quantities of radioactive waste, directly related to nuke weapons production. And five of them (Chernobyl 4 and Fukushima 1-2-3-4) have blown up.

Reactor enthusiasts like Barrasso invariably conjure visions of a “new generation” of small, modular nukes, and other techno-variants like molten salt and thorium, alleged to be safe, cleaner and cheaper that the current fleet. But there are few tangible indications such alternative reactors can come on line anytime soon, or beat the price of wind and solar, which continue to plummet. The criticism that renewables are intermittent is also losing its sting as large-scale battery arrays are also dropping in price while rising in efficiency and capacity.

Barrasso also advocates the continued use of fossil fuels, with various pipeline-related schemes for storing and using the resultant CO2. “The United States and the world,” he says, “will continue to rely on affordable and abundant fossil fuels, including coal, to power our economies for decades to come.

These pro-nuke arguments are echoed even by some self-proclaimed supporters of the Green New Deal. According to a report from DataforEnergy, principally written by Greg Carlock, at least part of the Green New Deal should be powered by “clean sources such as nuclear and remaining fossil fuel with carbon capture.”

Such rhetoric will be tested by advocates characterizing atomic energy as “clean.” Their fight for new reactor funding may quickly engulf much of the Green New Deal debate.

So will the struggle over the 98 U.S. reactors still licensed to operate. As they age, they continue to deteriorate and embrittle. Opponents of nuclear power want them shut down before they explode; advocates argue that without them, more fossil fuels will be burned.

But such choices are made in corporate boardrooms, not even by the free market. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), owner of two aging reactors near San Luis Obispo, has already admitted it could replace both with renewable energy while burning no more coal, oil, or gas. If Green New Deal activists are to make a dent in our aging nuclear fleet, they’ll have to make sure the slew of reactors about to close is replaced by renewables, not the fossil fuels the utilities still own and love.

Finally, along with nuke power, the question of how to fund the Deal will be center stage. Mainstream proposals will focus on a new range of taxes.

But outspoken peace groups like CODEPINK are eager to move the money out of the military and into the social/infrastructure programs that can rebuild the nation. High-profile campaigns led by activists including Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin were integral to the shocking defection of seven Republican Senators to deny the Trump Administration funding to support the Saudi war in Yemen.

Activists must now argue the trillion-plus dollars we spend annually on arming the Empire should instead fund those wind turbines and solar panels at the heart of the Green New Deal.

Harvey Wasserman

Harvey “Sluggo” Wasserman’s prn.fm podcast is Green Power & Wellness. His show, California Solartopia broadcasts at KFPK-Pacifica 90.7FM Los Angeles. His books include the forthcoming The Life & Death Spiral of US History.

ON THE WEB:

http://prn.fm/


Subscribe to our newsletter

Anita Hill To Receive the PEN Courage Award


Deborah K. Wilson, Chief Development Officer, PEN America

PEN announced professor, lawyer, equal rights advocate and chair of The Hollywood Commission on Eliminating Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality Anita Hill will receive this year’s PEN Courage Award. The award will be conferred in recognition of her singular role in challenging sexual harassment in the workplace and the attendant abuse of power, and a career spent combating the silencing force of sexism. The award, which honors dauntless exercises of free expression, will be presented May 21 at the 2019 PEN America Literary Gala at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

Deborah Wilson is the Chief Development Officer at PEN America.

By Deborah K. Wilson, Chief Development Officer, PEN America

“Anita Hill stepped alone into the glare of the public spotlight to call out abuses that others insisted be forgotten or overlooked. She has devoted her life since then to teaching, writing and speaking out — in the process, helping to catalyze a global movement that is essential to the achievement of equality,” said Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America.

“The award will be conferred in recognition of her singular role in challenging sexual harassment in the workplace and the attendant abuse of power, and a career spent combating the silencing force of sexism.” Deborah K Wilson

Deborah Wilson is the Chief Development Officer at PEN America.
Deborah Wilson is the Chief Development Officer at PEN America.

In her career as a university professor and scholar, Hill has been a steadfast champion of women’s rights. She is the author of two books (1997’s Speaking Truth to Power and 2011’s Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race, and Finding Home) and numerous opinion pieces (including a New York Times piece entitled How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right.) In December 2017, Hill was appointed Chair of The Hollywood Commission on Eliminating Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality, where she is leading an industry-wide effort to identify and establish best practices and solve problems related to harassment, bias, equality, and diversity in the entertainment community. Find out more about Anita Hill’s advocacy here »

At our May Gala, we are also honoring women’s rights champions and Saudi writer-activists Nouf Abdulaziz, Loujain Al-Hathloul, and Eman Al-Nafjan, imprisoned for opposing the male guardianship system in Saudi Arabia and the female driving ban in the region, with the 2019 PEN/Barbey Freedom to Write Award. We are recognizing peerless investigative journalist Bob Woodward with the Literary Service Award and Scholastic Chairman and CEO Richard Robinson for his outstanding leadership in publishing. Comedian and political commentator John Oliver will host this year’s event. Find out more about the 2019 PEN America Literary Gala here »

In 1991, Hill served as a witness during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She gave her testimony before a Senate Judiciary Committee of 14 white men and a global television audience. She described numerous instances of sexual harassment while working for the soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Other women who had made similar allegations against Thomas were not called to testify. 

In her career as a university professor and scholar, Hill has been a steadfast champion of women’ rights. She joined the faculty of Brandeis University in 1998 and in 2015 was named University Professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women’s Studies. She is the author of two books (1997’s Speaking Truth to Power and 2011’s Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race, and Finding Home) and numerous opinion pieces (including a New York Times piece entitled “How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right,” published during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh). In December 2017, Hill was appointed Chair of The Hollywood Commission on Eliminating Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality, which was established by a coalition of Hollywood studios, television networks, streaming services, music companies, talent agencies, trade associations, and unions. In this role, she is leading an industry-wide effort to identify and establish best practices and solve problems related to harassment, bias, equality, and diversity in the entertainment community.

In addition to Hill, PEN America will honor other women’s rights champions at its May Gala: Saudi writer-activists Nouf Abdulaziz, Loujain Al-Hathloul, and Eman Al-Nafjan, imprisoned for opposing the male guardianship system in Saudi Arabia and the female driving ban in the region, will receive the 2019 PEN/Barbey Freedom to Write Award. Additionally, PEN America will recognize peerless investigative journalist Bob Woodward with the Literary Service Award and Scholastic Chairman and CEO Richard Robinson for his outstanding leadership in publishing. Past Courage Award honorees include student activists against gun violence (2018) and organizers of the Women’s March (2017). The Gala raises essential funds that fuel PEN America’s free expression advocacy efforts. Comedian and political commentator John Oliver will host this year’s event.

We hope you’ll join us on Tuesday, May 21 at the PEN America Literary Gala, and consider supporting our dynamic cultural programming and critical free expression advocacy work. If you are unable to attend in person, please consider making a donation to support this inspiring event and our salient work.

ON THE WEB:

https://pen.org


Subscribe to our newsletter

What’s The Matter With Harvard?


Dorothy Reik

Special To Topanga Journal

When people think of Harvard they think of John F. Kennedy, not Henry Kissinger – but war criminal Kissinger, the architect of US regime change and genocide worldwide, is still on the faculty of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.  And the Koch Brothers are major funders of the School of Government named after JFK.   Is it any wonder that Sean Spicer, Corey Lewandowski and Betsy DeVos were offered visiting fellowships while the fellowship offer to Chelsea Manning – who might actually teach the students something – was withdrawn! 

Dorothy Reik, President of the Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains

By Dorothy Reik

There is, of course, a cabal of conservative professors encouraging these people along their paths to this radical right wing mindset – especially the sexist 85 year old Harvey Mansfield and economist Marty Feldman who is currently predicting a recession – about that he is probably right!  The others cited are Greg Makiw, Ruth Wisse and Peter Berkowitz.  How can five professors create so much chaos?  

“With these professors it’s no wonder Harvard graduates plenty of radically conservative wingnuts who “serve” in the Senate, the House and on the Supreme Court where they wreak havoc on the lives of women, children, the poor, the sick and anyone who is in need of help the government might provide.” Dorothy Reik

With these professors it’s no wonder Harvard graduates plenty of radically conservative wingnuts who “serve” in the Senate, the House and on the Supreme Court where they wreak havoc on the lives of women, children, the poor, the sick and anyone who is in need of help the government might provide. They think abortion is murder, ketchup is a vegetable and if you are sick and can’t afford care that is your personal problem. 

The most visible of the Senators is Ted Cruz who filibustered the Senate by reading Green Eggs and Ham in an effort to shut down the government to stop the Affordable Care Act. Everybody hates him except the voters of Texas!  Running a close second is Tom Cotton who is single handedly is trying to stop the criminal justice reform act that could finally come up for a vote in the Senate. They are joined by Senator Ben Sasse,  who said he would not support Trump – but then he did,  Pat Toomey who won the seat once held by Arlen Specter after failing to defeat him previously when he charged that Specter was not conservative enough and Mike Crapo whose name tells the whole story.

And then there is the Congress where we find David Vitter – the evangelical who consorted with prostitutes but was re-elected anyway in a precursor to the election of adulterer Donald Trump with evangelical support. He is joined by fellow Harvard alums and back benchers Dan Sullivan and Elise Stefanik.  

Finally we have to look at the Supreme Court where Harvard radicals follow the lead of the late Antonin Scalia, another proud Harvard alum. Right now we have Neil Gorsuch who ruled that a truck driver should die rather than abandon his rig to seek help, and John Roberts who oversaw the dismantling of Voting Rights Act. Nice going guys! 

But I would be remiss if I ended this article without mentioning Harvard’s latest investment – California water! Harvard is busy buying up low lying vineyards with lots of underground water – a good investment for their 39 billion dollar endowment!  Maybe that’s what’s wrong with Harvard – too much money! Stay tuned and pray for rain! 

ON THE WEB:

https://medium.com/@dorothyreik


Subscribe to our newsletter

IPCC Special Report: “The Next Few Years Are Probably The Most Important In Our History.”


Special To Topanga Journal

In 2015, the Paris Agreement set a target of no more than 2°C global warming above pre-industrial temperature levels. A secondary target of no more than 1.5°C global warming was also set as an aspirational goal. Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C above pre-industrial levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C per decade, according to The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report released October 8, 2018. This means we’re half way to the catastrophic number of 2°C warming we as a human race have been warned about. The most significant part of the report is we’ve already as a global community reached a dangerous point with just the 1°C warming. We’re already seeing the effects on our global climate from a single degree of global warming pre-industrial levels. 

Kriss Perras headshot by Alan Weissman

By Kriss Perras

“One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I, in the IPCC statement on the Special Report.

“You have an opportunity to make a difference in people’s lives, and you pout behind your privileged existence by using a $39 jacket to voice your displeasure. What a coward…” Lance Simmens

The authors of the landmark report said, warming greater than the global average has already been experienced in many regions and seasons, with average warming over land higher than over the ocean. Most land regions are experiencing greater warming than the global average, while most ocean regions are warming at a slower rate, say the writers of the IPCC Special Report. Depending on the temperature dataset considered by the Report’s authors, 20-40 percent of the global human population live in regions that, by the decade 2006-2015, had already experienced warming of more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial in at least one season. 

“Temperature rise to date has already resulted in profound alterations to human and natural systems, bringing increases in some types of extreme weather, droughts, floods, sea level rise and biodiversity loss, and causing unprecedented risks to vulnerable persons and populations,” warns the writers of the IPCC report. “The most affected people live in low and middle income countries, some of which have already experienced a decline in food security, linked in turn to rising migration and poverty. Small islands, megacities, coastal regions and high mountain ranges are likewise among the most affected. Worldwide, numerous ecosystems are at risk of severe impacts, particularly warm-water tropical reefs and Arctic ecosystems.”

According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Global Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet, encapsulated in tree rings, ice cores and coral reefs are the global average temperatures over long periods of time. Those tree rings, ice cores and reefs show our temperatures have been very stable over our planet’s life, reports NASA. 

“They also show even the smallest change in temperature showed enormous changes in the environment,” reports NASA. “One such change was at the end of the last Ice Age when the Northeast United States was covered in more than 3,000 feet of ice, average temperatures were only five to nine degrees cooler than today.”

The second dire warning in the report is we have just 12 years left to keep 1.5°C warming from happening and avoiding environmental breakdown. Like dominoes, some things fall in an environmentally interdependent relationship, as in the jellyfish example. When the jellyfish’s predator disappeared due to warming oceans caused by climate change, jellyfish blooms started in those certain areas of the world. Science in the Special Report shows global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing the CO2 from the air, the Special Report warns. 

“Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics, but doing so would require unprecedented changes,” said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III, in the widely released statement from the IPCC on the Special Report.

The kind of changes the report speaks to are sci-fi in nature right now. Some the human community is already working on. Others are blueprint concepts that if these new technologies were brought out of the prototype stage and into working reality they’d be able to put unemployed people to work. Most Star Trek fans remember when the communicators looked like flip phones. They were just a prop and thought to be far-fetched futuristic ideas. Today we have flat touch screen phones far beyond the idea of a flip phone, technology arriving just a few years after the flip phone. It’s not such a huge step to bring some of these CO2 reducing concepts out of the blueprint stage and put them into practice. 

“The good news is that some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C are already underway around the world, but they would need to accelerate,” said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair of Working Group I, in the widely released statement from the IPCC on the Special Report.

Scrubbing carbon out of the atmosphere is one solution among many possible solutions. It works on the principal of a sink, as in carbon sinks and pumps. It absorbs CO2 from the  atmosphere in a process called carbon capture, which is a method capable of removing more than 90 percent of CO2 from the atmosphere around power plants and industrial facilities like cement factories, according to the Center For Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). 

“The report makes clear we need to use all the tools at hand,” said Bob Perciasepe President of C2ES. “Even as we continue pushing as hard as we can on renewables and efficiency, we’ll need to rely heavily on other available and developing technologies, including nuclear and carbon capture, to achieve carbon neutrality. It’s not a competition – we need them all. Only through rapid innovation and deployment can we replicate in transportation and industry the encouraging progress achieved in the power sector.”

According to C2ES, there are almost two dozens commercial scale carbon capture projects operating in the world with 22 more in development. 

Pathways to keep warming below 1.5°C require net annual CO2 emissions to peak and decline to near zero or below, several sections of the IPCC Special Report state. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero would mean keeping cumulative CO2 emissions stable or making concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere fall. Merely stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations would result in continued warming beyond the stated limit. A dire warning in the report states, if starting emission reductions is delayed until temperatures are close to the proposed lower 1.5°C warming limit, pathways to keep warming below 1.5°C necessarily involve much faster rates of net CO2 emission reductions combined with rapid reductions in non-CO2 forcing, which also means the planet reaches the 1.5°C limit much sooner. 

According to the IPCC Special Report authors, “There is no definitive way to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This Special Report identifies two main conceptual pathways to illustrate different interpretations. One stabilizes global temperature at, or just below, 1.5°C. Another sees global temperature temporarily exceed 1.5°C before coming back down. Countries’ pledges to reduce their emissions are currently not in line with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.” 

The Special Report pointed out past emissions stating they alone are unlikely to raise global-mean temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, but past emissions do commit to other changes, such as further sea level rise.

The Special Report’s authors warn, “If all anthropogenic emissions, including aerosol-related, were reduced to zero immediately, any further warming beyond the 1°C already experienced would likely be less than 0.5°C over the next two to three decades, and likely less than 0.5°C on a century timescale, due to the opposing effects of different climate processes and drivers. A warming greater than 1.5°C is therefore not geophysically unavoidable: whether it will occur depends on future rates of emission reductions.” 

The authors of the report tell the world “climate adaptation” refers to the actions taken to manage impacts of climate change by reducing vulnerability and exposure to its harmful effects and exploiting any potential benefits. 

A survey released in September by the United States Conference of Mayors and C2ES in San Francisco points to mayors as a key force behind U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions responsible for the growing effects of climate change, said Alec Gerlach, C2ES Media contact, in a statement. The survey found 57 percent of cities responding are planning for new climate actions in the coming year. 

“The effects on their cities, public health concerns, and cost savings are making low-carbon transitions an increasingly attractive option for cities – a bright spot for climate leadership despite the U.S. announcement of its intended withdrawal from the Paris Agreement,” said Gerlach.

The Special Report defines adaptation as taking place at international, national and local levels. 

“Subnational jurisdictions and entities, including urban and rural municipalities, are key to developing and reinforcing measures for reducing weather- and climate-related risks. Adaptation implementation faces several barriers including unavailability of up-to-date and locally-relevant information, lack of finance and technology, social values and attitudes, and institutional constraints. Adaptation is more likely to contribute to sustainable development when polices align with mitigation and poverty eradication goals,” according to the Report’s authors.

“Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II, in the IPCC’s statement on the Special Report.

ON THE WEB:

UN SR15 Report Take Action Page


Subscribe to our newsletter

Topanga Journal
This site uses cookies. Close

Contact