Archive for the Copenhagen Category

Disturbing Anti-Global Warming,climate change (anti-human life video): blowing up children

Posted in climate change, Climategate, Copenhagen, Global Warming with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 4, 2010 by saynsumthn

WARNING- VIDEOS are Graphic !!!

This offensive video from the environmental group 10:10 was released on 9/30/2010 and then retracted on 10/1/2010.
Furor has erupted over the new 10:10 UK campaign video involving a school teacher (played by Gillian Anderson) who asks her children what they are doing for climate change and blows up her uncooperative students.

Conservatives are rabid. Progressives are embarrassed. It is not clear how many children have been frightened into cutting down their carbon emissions… likely very few.

FULL VIDEO- VERY DISTURBING !!!!

UK’s Eugenie Harvey, director of the 10:10 campaign, says it’s all about “sending signals to our leaders” that emission cuts are attainable and worth pursuing. “The campaign is about amending both behaviour and attitudes. We had a massive surge of members at the beginning, and it has been steadily rising ever since. Globally, we’ve had around 3,000 businesses sign up and 80,000 individuals. In the UK, around 45% of all councils have now signed up, too.” She states, “Somewhat perversely, the failure at Copenhagen actually emboldened us, proving we were not redundant.”

“What a Horrible Woman!”, Jack Cafferty on CNN Blasting Pelosi regarding Global Warming trip to Copenhagen calls it “A Disgrace!”

Posted in Copenhagen, Left Wing, Liberal, Pelosi with tags , , , , , , , , , , on January 26, 2010 by saynsumthn

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/
How much does Congress feel Americans’ pain in recession?

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Times are tough – very tough – for millions of Americans… but you could never tell by watching the way Congress spends our tax dollars on themselves.

CBS News has a stunning report on the all-expense paid trip at least 20 members of Congress made to the Copenhagen climate summit last month.

The bipartisan delegation led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so large – it needed three military jets – two 737s and a Gulfstream Five. Some members brought along their spouses, children… plus there were also senators and staff members who made the trip to Denmark – most of them flying commercial.

Pelosi wouldn’t answer any questions about costs or where they all stayed – even though she was the one who decided who went. Her office says only that it will “comply with disclosure requirements.”

CBS puts the cost of military jet flying time at nearly $170,000 plus the cost of dozens of commercial flights… hundreds of hotel stays, many at the five-star Marriott… and tens of thousands of dollars in meals.

This is a disgrace – the national unemployment rate is at 10-percent, with employers cutting more jobs than expected last month. People are suffering. In California, Pelosi’s home state is faced with a $20-billion deficit. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s budget plan would force 200-thousand children off low-cost medical insurance… end in-home care for more than 300,000 sick and elderly citizens… and cut income assistance to hundreds of thousands more.

This nation is hurting – but Nancy Pelosi can use three military jets for a December trip to Copenhagen and then refuse to answer any questions about it.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CBS STORY:

Copenhagen Summit Turned Junket?

(CBS) Few would argue with the U.S. having a presence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. But wait until you hear what we found about how many in Congress got all-expense paid trips to Denmark on your dime.

CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that cameras spotted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the summit. She called the shots on who got to go. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and embattled Chairman of the Tax Committee Charles Rangel were also there.

They were joined by 18 colleagues: Democrats: Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee, Ryan, Butterfield, Cleaver, Giffords, and Republicans: Barton, Upton, Moore Capito, Sullivan, Blackburn and Sensenbrenner.

That’s not the half of it. But finding out more was a bit like trying to get the keys to Ft. Knox. Many referred us to Speaker Pelosi who wouldn’t agree to an interview. Her office said it “will comply with disclosure requirements” but wouldn’t give us cost estimates or even tell us where they all stayed.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an “opposing view.”

“They’re going because it’s the biggest party of the year,” Sen. Inhofe said. “The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar.”

Our investigation found that the congressional delegation was so large, it needed three military jets: two 737’s and a Gulfstream Five — up to 64 passengers — traveling in luxurious comfort.

Along with those who flew commercial, we counted at least 101 Congress-related attendees. All for a summit that failed to deliver a global climate deal.

As a perk, some took spouses, since they could snag an open seat on a military jet or share a room at no extra cost to taxpayers. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was there with her husband. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) was also there with her husband. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) took his wife, as did Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Congressman Barton — a climate change skeptic — even brought along his daughter.

Until required filings are made in the coming weeks, we can only figure bits and pieces of the cost to you.

# Three military jets at $9,900 per hour – $168,000 just in flight time.
# Dozens flew commercial at up to $2,000 each.
(CBS)

# 321 hotel nights booked – the bulk at Copenhagen’s five-star Marriott.
# Meals add tens of thousands more.

Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, wasn’t against a U.S. presence. But he said, “Every penny counts. Congress should be shaking the couch cushions looking for change, rather than spending cash for everybody to go to Copenhagen.”

Nobody we asked would defend the super-sized Congressional presence on camera. One Democrat said it showed the world the U.S. is serious about climate change.

And all those attendees who went to the summit rather than hooking up by teleconference? They produced enough climate-stunting carbon dioxide to fill 10,000 Olympic swimming pools.

Which means even if Congress didn’t get a global agreement – they left an indelible footprint all the same.

Founder of The Weather Channel speaks out against global warming, 2010 has record freezing temps

Posted in climate change, Climategate, Copenhagen, Global Warming, Left Wing, Liberal with tags , , , , , , , on January 5, 2010 by saynsumthn

The founder of The Weather Channel speaks out against global warming. See coverage of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in The New American magazine:
http://thenewamerican.com

John Coleman slams global warming , ice caps are not going to melt, food supplies will be safe, none of these things are going to happen.

ATTN: Al Gore – watch this and weep : A Cold U.S. Forecast



EXTREME Weather SNOW WARNING for Central – South England

Freeze Warnings in Florida

Snowing in Dallas Texas

Feminists Silent On Call For Global One-Child Policy

Posted in Abby Johnson, China One Child Policy, climate change, Copenhagen, Eugenics, forced abortion, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Violence against women with tags , , , , , , , , on December 24, 2009 by saynsumthn

Thanks to this Blogger for posting this story: Very Insightful:

by Rachel Campos-Duffy (Subscribe to Rachel Campos-Duffy’s posts) Dec 23rd 2009 11:00AM

In a recent op-ed in the Canadian National Post, editor-at-large Diane Francis calls on world leaders, especially those attending the UN’s Copenhagen Conference, to consider the environmental virtues of China’s one-child policy. According to Francis, only government mandated policies restricting women’s rights to reproduce will save the planet from what she believes will be an unsustainable global population of 9 billion by the year 2050.

[ MY NOTE Read My Post: Inconvenient Eugenicist, forced abortions and population control pushed in Copenhagen for more details on the article and other stories on China’s One Child Policy Push !

During an interview conducted by Laura Ingraham (filling in for FOX News personality Bill O’Reilly), Francis attempted to distance herself from China’s draconian methods for controlling its population, which include forced abortions, sterilization and even infanticide. Francis claims that she prefers financial penalties, and despite some pointed questioning by Ingraham, she failed to see the irony of a self-proclaimed pro-choice feminist promoting government interference or restrictions on reproduction. So much for those colorful slogans like “keep your hands off my uterus!” or even the movement’s most effective moniker, “pro-choice,” emphasis on choice.

As a mom of soon-to-be six kids, I am always fascinated and concerned by environmental fundamentalism and its propensity to see and treat children of large families as environmental “terrorists” guilty of violating some arbitrary carbon footprint quota. (You wouldn’t believe how many moms I know who have been accosted by strangers and scolded for having a big brood.)

But even more difficult for me to swallow as a pro-life feminist is the deafening silence coming from the feminist establishment itself with regard to this outrageous op-ed. To date, despite the attention Francis’ comments have received in both the Canadian and the U.S. media, I could not find a single statement from any of the prominent national women’s organizations specifically denouncing Francis or her scandalous position. And while the Center for Reproductive Rights has addressed China’s dehumanizing reproductive policies, it’s list of accomplishments is almost entirely devoted to expanding abortion rights — especially abroad — and makes no mention of any work on China’s one-child policy. Meanwhile, the Web site for the National Organization for Women actually has a “Media Hall of Shame” section, but there’s nothing about Francis’ comments. However, Burger King gets a mention for racy Internet commercials, as does Law and Order for an episode where a murdered abortion doctor is referred to as a “baby killer.”

Right now, both organizations are heavily invested in the national health care debate. Specifically, they are very actively fighting amendments in the health care bill that would restrict government funding of abortion. The message these groups send women is that reproductive freedom and the energy and resources of the organizations charged with protecting those freedoms can only be counted on when what’s in jeopardy is the freedom to kill one’s child (or have the government pay for it). When it comes to the freedom to procreate without government or societal reprobation, these supposedly “pro-women” groups send a very clear message to women, and mothers in particular: In this battle, you are on your own.

Author – Blogger here: http://www.parentdish.com/2009/12/23/feminists-silent-on-call-for-global-one-child-policy/

Alex Jones : Government Health Care and Copenhagen

Posted in Abortion, Alex Jones, Copenhagen, Health Care, New World Order, Obama with tags , , , on December 21, 2009 by saynsumthn

Ingram to Diane Francis on China’s One Child Forced Abortion Policy “Save the Planet-Abort the Babies”

Posted in Abortion, birth control, China One Child Policy, Civil Rights, climate change, compulsory birth control, Copenhagen, Eugenics, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization with tags , , , , , , , on December 17, 2009 by saynsumthn

Book Reveals Fetal Soup Served in Chinese Restaurants
The Seven Sorrows of China gives heart-wrenching accounts of the brutality of China’s one-child policy

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

February 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Dr. Mark Miravalle’s sobering book, The Seven Sorrows of China, gives, in heart-wrenching detail, accounts of the brutality of the one-child policy and its effects on the Chinese people.

Dr. Miravalle’s account of his often intense experiences as he travels through modern China provides a disturbingly realistic picture of life outside of Beijing.

The following is an excerpt from Part III of Dr. Miravalle’s book, entitled The Third Sorrow: Abortion Without Conscience: The Indoctrination of a Nation:

“The most alarming,” he writes, “the most depressing, the most Copernican revelation of all that I have been exposed to (including the yet more grisly examples to follow), is the repeated refrain that the great majority of the people in China have lost any concept that there is anything at all wrong with having an abortion. It is considered less significant than a flu shot, a minor procedure like going to the dentist, a simple solution to a simple problem that doesn’t merit any soul searching for any alternative plans.

“China has become a nation who without conscience aborts their own future generations. And this is Satan’s ultimate victory here. Is this conscience loss regarding the transcendent dignity and inherent right of human life to be blamed exclusively on atheistic Communism? Have not the recent influences of Western morals of secular humanism, materialism, hedonism, and ultimately unmitigated egoism, also contributed to this Chinese terrorism of the womb? In any case, the combination amounts to self-inflicted Chinese genocide, which so saddens the God that creates and loves the ethnical uniqueness of China.

“New macabre manifestations of this conscienceless abortion mentality include the recent opening of five restaurants in the region of X, which began serving ‘fetal soup’ at the price of 300 Yuan (approximately $40) a bowl! Recent medical publications have praised the exceptional health benefits for the consuming of ‘fetal remains’ (this jargon allows them to overlook what this really is-unborn baby bodies). Therefore, local entrepreneurs jumped on the opportunity to distribute this new health breakthrough to the chosen few who could afford the price. So evil and scandalous is this fetal soup trade that the Government shut down the Web sites advertising the restaurants, in fear that they would scandalize the reputation of the People’s Republic to outside countries and businesses.

“Is it possible that the abortion holocaust and its rejection of life’s sacred dignity has also contributed to the recent practice of ‘ghost wives,’ as recently reported in Chinese news sources? This is the practice of providing a woman’s dead body to be buried with a deceased man so that the man will have company in the ‘next life.’ Distributors of the dead bodies of women found that men were willing to pay much more for a ‘new’ dead body of a woman, rather than one previously preserved. Murder of women from out-of-the-way places ensued to fill the new demand for the fresh ghost wives.

“When human life in the womb is not safe, no human life is safe. How can China regain the natural law dictates of conscience that tells every human heart that it is always wrong to directly kill an innocent human being, regardless of race, religion, health, age or location, including the womb (historically man’s most secure location, and now his most dangerous)? Through God, through prayer, through education, and through the witness of individual heroes, saving one person, one unborn child, at a time.

This part of the book also goes on to describe more of the process of the one-child policy:”A certificate of permission is required to have a baby in a Chinese hospital. The government tells you how many children you can have and when. In the city, married couples are limited to one child. In the farming regions a family, if the first child is a girl, can sometimes be permitted to try for a boy as a second child because of the need for boys on the farm. Even in this case, the government will control when they can try for the boy, with the requirement that it be at least five years after the first child. The government also uses psychological pressure to keep the policy. If a couple in the country have only one child, then this child will probably be able to have two children. The policy varies from region to region.

“A couple must go to the hospital with their permission certificate to deliver their child. If they arrive at the hospital without the permission certificate, hospital officials contact the Population Police. At this point, the Police decide, based on the circumstances of the family and the history of the couple, what is to be the fate of the family. The child will be injected with poison on the spot. Or the couple will be fined and their home burnt down. Or the couple could lose their jobs, and in some cases, cause the loss of their employees’ jobs (one teacher told me that if his wife didn’t abort her second child, he and the school principal would both lose their jobs). One Protestant woman refused to abort her second child and lost her own job at the hospital she worked at. Still another possibility is that the child does not receive official recognition that it exists and does not receive the ‘Chinese Social Security Card.’ The child therefore is not technically a citizen, nor can he or she go to school or participate in any right of a citizen. One remedy is to try to find a retired and sympathetic midwife who can deliver the child at home. This saves the baby’s life, but does not guarantee his registration”.

The Seven Sorrows of China by Dr. Mark Miravalle is available from the publisher: Queenship Publishing Company (http://www.queenship.org/productdetails.cfm?sku=3102), other online booksellers, and Christian book stores.

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

Posted in Abortion, birth control in water, Black Genocide, Black History Month, Civil Rights, climate change, Climategate, Copenhagen, Eugenics, Holdren, Maafa21, New World Order, Obama, Planned Parenthood, Socialism, Sterilizing agents in Drinking Water, Uncategorized, United Nations with tags , , , , , , on December 15, 2009 by saynsumthn

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.”

With the recent Copenhagen push for Population Control and the embraceable of China’s One Child Policy – could Holdren have predicted the increase of taxing children?

READ THIS FOR MORE DETAILS Inconvenient Eugenicist, forced abortions and population control pushed in Copenhagen

In the 1970’s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion.

Holdren stated officially that one of his mentors was a Professor he had by the name of Paul Harrison.

Harrison suggested that infanticide was a legitimate form of population control when he wrote this in his book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, from page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past.

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…

In an article entitled: The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects: by Holdren, Ehrlich and Gretchen C. Daily

It appears that Holdren and his company are suggesting that you can sacrifice some humans to save the “environment” ”

From the Footnotes: 7. Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).

This is no surprise to me and I fully expect that in the push to save “Mother Earth” all “Human Mothers” will be vilified ! Population Control, Eugenics, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, all run together and all seem to attract the same type of people.

SOME HISTORY :

Many people are not aware of the fact that State GOVERNMENTS within the United States openly supported Eugenics. In fact, as early as 1907 Indiana had established the first GOVERNMENT “eugenics court” and the last GOVERNMENT Eugenics court was not closed until 1984, that was in Oregon. These Eugenics Courts, were GOVERNMENT Boards and they required the poor, the infirmed, “feebleminded” and minorities, which, included a large population of black people to appear before them to decide who could and could not pro-create. Remember, Eugenics Boards and GOVERNMENT Boards – were one in the same. Many of these underrepresented people groups were forcibly sterilized and coerced into birth control clinics in order to keep their GOVERNMENT welfare! Recently a well-documented film, called, Maafa21, produced by Life Dynamics in Denton, Texas, has exposed much of this abuse. You can get a copy here: http://www.maafa21.com. You can also google Eugenics in North Carolina, and read the GOVERNMENT documents which that state has opened up and get just a sneak peak of what a run-away GOVERNMENT board with this kind of power can do to people.

Preview of Maafa21:

One other important fact you may not be aware of is the history of the founding of the first group who fought for the legalization of Euthanasia. Most people are not aware that many of the exact same people who originally founded the idea of legalized euthanasia in the US, were the same ones who were on the Board of Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL). To examine this closer – all you have to do is get a copy of the New York Times from January 17,1938.

In 1938, just a few years prior to the American Birth Control League (ABCL) changing it’s name to Planned Parenthood, which today is the largest abortion provider in the nation, a group of American Eugenics Society Members and Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL) members got together and formed the National Society for the Legalization of Euthanasia. Heading this pro-euthanasia panel was a man by the name of Charles F. Potter who, in 1938 was also on the ABCL Committee for Planned Parenthood according to a February 1938, New York Times story. Potter was the leader of the First Humanist Society and organized this entire pro-euthanasia group.

Also on this pro-euthanasia board was: Sidney Goldstein who sat on the American Birth Control League’s National Council and later was on Planned Parenthood’s Board of Directors. Another member was Frank H. Hankins who was a managing editor for Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger’s newsletter called the Birth Control Review. Hankins was also an American Eugenics Society member. Another more famous name who was sat on the advisory board of this pro-euthanasia panel, was Julian Huxley, who was a later recipient of a Planned Parenthood award.

Mrs. F. Robertson Jones was also on this panel, she was an ABCL President, wrote for Sanger’s Birth Control Review , was an honorary board member of Planned Parenthood-World Population and a Board of Director of Planned Parenthood. ABCL Citizen’s Committee for Planned Parenthood member, Dr. Foster Kennedy, was also on the pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society Member, Clarence Cook Little, who was the President of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), at the same time he was on this pro-euthanasia panel. American Eugenics Society founder and friend to Margaret Sanger, Leon Whitney, also sat on this panel. Whitney advocated forced sterilization, was published in Sanger’s Birth Control Review, and openly praised Adolf Hitler for his Nazi effort. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger was not on this panel, but she was a member of the American Eugenics Society and many of their members were on this panel. Sanger admitted that she gave a speech to the Klu Klu Klan and in her autobiography , she bragged that she received a dozen invites from the Klan for further speeches. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest Population Control and some would say “Eugenics Control” organization and they receive millions of dollars from the US GOVERNMENT. Care to ask why????

It is important to know this because the “population Control” , “Zero Population Growth”, “Planned Parenthood” crowds are buzzing around this administration and have been heavily involved in government decision making for years. In fact, Sanger’s Planned Parenthood organization receives over $1 million dollars a day from the Government to sterilize and abort this so-called over-populated society. Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute , reports that Black Minorities receive 5 abortions to every 1 white baby aborted in this nation. Is this coincidence or a form of racist and eugenic targeting? ( Special Note: Alan Guttmacher was a Planned Parenthood President and was also a Vice President of the American Eugenics Society. ) Remember that when they removed the GOVERNMENT Eugenics Courts, they appear to have replaced them with Federal Funding of Population Control Groups, like Planned Parenthood.

Do you really believe that if we can form GOVERNMENT Eugenics Boards which forcibly sterilized thousand of Americans, murder 50 million unborn children through abortion with the blessing and funding of the GOVERNMENT to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, and form euthanasia panels to legalize the act, that we would never have GOVERNMENT death panels? Then…think again !

PS – Holdren wasn’t the first to advocate adding sterilizing agents to the food and water supplies: Watch this clip from Maafa21

More: Fewer Kids, More Abortions, Better Environment

Also View: Robert Reich: Honest about Death Panels? “If you are very old – we’re gonna let you die !”

Elaine Riddick- Forcefully sterilized at the age of 14, full interview from the film: Maafa21:


America’s State of the Climate June 19,2009

Living in Earth – Interview with Obama Science Czar: John Holdren

CURWOOD: From the Jennifer and Ted Stanley studios in Somerville, Massachusetts, this is Living on Earth. I’m Steve Curwood.

YOUNG: And I’m Jeff Young.

Back in 2007 it took a court order to get the Bush administration to follow a congressional mandate and issue a comprehensive report about climate change. But the Obama administration has embraced the opportunity enthusiastically.

Its 192-page report is called “The Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” It’s heavy on the science, but it lays out the challenges in dramatic, accessible language.

Thirteen government agencies collaborated on the effort, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is headed by Jane Lubchenco.

LUBCHENKO: First and foremost, human induced climate change is a reality not only in remote polar regions and in small tropical islands, but every place around the country in our own backyards. Climate change is happening and it’s happening now.

CURWOOD: Today the levels of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere are setting us on a course to make our planet hotter than it’s been in 800,000 years.

And the new report warns that if we do nothing the average surface temperature of the planet will continue to get even hotter, by as much as eleven degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

President Obama’s top science advisor, John Holdren, presented the report at the White House. Dr. Holdren is a noted climate expert who in this administration holds the same rank as the President’s National Security Advisor. In a far-ranging conversation, John Holdren was both cautious and upbeat about the future.

HOLDREN: Well I would say the report is clear – the climate is changing – that the impacts are already being felt. In that sense it is a stark report. And in the sense that the projections show all of these adverse impacts getting steadily worse over time, if climate change proceeds unabated, it’s a stark report. But it’s optimistic in the sense that it tells us that if we take appropriate actions to reduce the emissions of the heat trapping pollution that is the main driver of this problem, we can greatly reduce the amount of climate change and the damage from it that occur in the future. And the report is optimistic as well because it is showing the way to steps we can take to adapt to climate change in ways that will reduce the harm over time.

CURWOOD: If the world and the United States doesn’t address climate change, can you give me a couple of examples where people will really notice this.

HOLDREN
: Well first of all I would say we’re already noticing it. People are noticing changes in the growing seasons. They’re noticing the increased frequency of wildfires, the increased frequency of floods in the United States. So the place to start is that we really are already experiencing adverse effects of climate change. What we will see if climate change continues unabated is all of these kinds of symptoms that I’ve described will become more severe. I would say that people in the West are likely to notice increasing difficulties with water shortages. In the longer run, one of the most noticeable effects is likely to be the increase in sea level that comes from a warming world and that we’re already experiencing at a rate that is about twice the rate of sea level rise in the 20th century. You would have in some parts of the country where there might be ten or twenty days a year over 100 degrees Fahrenheit now, you would in the future with these large increases in average temperature, you might have 100 or 150 days a year that exceed what you might call the threshold of very, very hot that would have large impacts on agriculture.

Climate change will mean more droughts in the U.S. West, with some places likely to experience more than 100 days per year with temperatures higher than 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

CURWOOD: Impacts on agriculture? What do you mean?

HOLDREN: I mean the productivity of food crops would go down. You wouldn’t be able to grow as much corn or wheat on an acre of land as you can grow today because the heat stress on the plants would be damaging their capacity to grow and bear grain.

CURWOOD: Some people say look, we’re on this path, climate change is inevitable, we’re in it now, it’s simply gonna get worse and the sense comes up that it may just be too late to do anything. How accurate is that?

HOLDREN: I absolutely disagree that it’s too late to do anything. What the science shows above all is that the more climate change we get the more difficult it’s going to be to cope with it. And we have opportunities by acting now and in the future to drastically reduce the amount of climate change we’re gonna be experiencing. I mean this is a very simple proposition: more is worse, less is better. And we have the opportunity, by taking action, to make it less – that’s what we ought to be doing.

CURWOOD: What do we need to do?

HOLDREN: We need to be reducing the emissions of heat trapping pollution and above all that’s carbon dioxide from burning the fossil fuels from which we get most of our energy today, that is from burning coal and oil and natural gas. What we need to do is to use those fuels more efficiently so we don’t have to burn so much of them to get the goods and services that we need from energy. What we need to do is change the technologies we use to burn them so that we can capture a substantial part of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released and sequester it away from the atmosphere. We need to use more renewable technologies which don’t emit carbon dioxide or as in the case of sustainably grown biofuels, only emit as much carbon dioxide when they’re burned as they removed from the atmosphere when they were grown. We need to see if we can address the obstacles that have impeded the expansion of nuclear energy in this country and elsewhere because nuclear energy too is a way to get electricity that does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And we need to take steps to slow down and halt deforestation and other land use practices that are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere along with the burning of fossil fuels.

CURWOOD: Tell me: what are our range of options here? You’ve outlined how difficult things will be if we do nothing. If we do everything, do we still get to avoid more warming here?

HOLDREN: There is nothing that we can to do stop climate change in its tracks. There’s a tremendous amount of momentum built into the climate system. We are not yet experiencing the full consequences of the heat trapping gases we’re already added to the atmosphere, because of time lags in the way the global system responds. So we will see some continuing increase in global surface temperature and regional increases in surface temperatures no matter what we do. But, we have a big opportunity to minimize the amount of change we will experience. The aim that most scientists who study this matter have agreed is one that is still within reach and is highly desirable, would be to stabilize the concentration of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere at a level that would limit the global average surface temperature increase to about three and a half degrees Fahrenheit above the pre-industrial level. Now, if we do everything right, I think we can achieve that. And to tell you what that means, you really have to look at this, first of all, at the global level, because it is the global concentration of these heat-trapping pollutants that determine how much the temperature goes up.

CURWOOD: Now, as I understand it, between the United States and China, there are about 40 percent of the world’s emissions of carbon right now. And I also understand that you were in China with the negotiating team on the Global Climate Change Treaty recently. What do we need China to do in order to have a reasonable agreement on limiting greenhouse gases for the world?

HOLDREN: Well first of all it is correct that China and the United States are the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, and we do total something in the range of 40 percent of global emissions. And that means that there is no way that the problem can be solved without doing both of us taking very significant actions to reduce our emissions. The United States and China are both already doing a number of things to reduce their emissions but we need to do much more. And it has to be expected because the United States is an advanced industrialized country and China remains a developing country, that the United States along with the other industrial nations is going to have to do more sooner – my personal judgment would be that the United States and the other industrialized nations should peak no later than 2015 and be sharply declining in their emissions after that. And that China and other developing countries need to peak between 2020 and 2025, and be sharply declining after that.

CURWOOD: Assess for me the odds of President Obama going to Copenhagen at the conclusion of the current round of international negotiations on climate change. Will he be there do you think?

HOLDREN: I simply cannot comment on that. I just don’t know at this juncture. It will obviously depend on a whole array of issues in terms of what’s on the President’s plate at the time, and whether it appears that there would be a significant benefit from his going to Copenhagen. And I think it’s much to early to predict how that will come out.

CURWOOD: If the President didn’t go to Copenhagen, it would mean that the negotiations hadn’t worked. How dire would that be for the future of the planet and for those of us here in the United States, living under the conditions of climate change that you outline in your report?

HOLDREN: First of all, I’m not sure that the President not going would mean that negotiations had failed. It might mean the negotiations had succeeded without him and he didn’t need to go. He could simply celebrate the success from Washington. But the second thing I would say is we do need an agreement in Copenhagen. And we’re working very hard with our various international partners to make sure that that happens. But the most important single thing the United States can do is to get its own house in order by passing a comprehensive energy climate bill and having that legislation in place because that will demonstrate that the United States is finally prepared to take the leadership role that the world expects of us in addressing this challenge.

CURWOOD: So, there you are in the Executive Office Building. You’re at the White House. If for a moment, the proverbial magic wand was put in your hand to do anything about this, what would be the first thing you would do.

HOLDREN: The first thing I would do is get enough votes in the House and in the Senate to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill.

CURWOOD: The second thing?

HOLDREN: The second thing I would do is advise the President to sign it.

CURWOOD: And the third thing?

HOLDREN: The third thing I would do is work with industry, government, NGOs, universities and so on to generate the degree of innovation in energy technology that will enable us to meet those targets in the most cost effective possible way.

CURWOOD: As science advisor, what’s the one thing that you’d love to do that you just can’t do?

HOLDREN: Take vacations.

[LAUGHING]

CURWOOD: The climate’s not waiting is it?

HOLDREN: [laughing] The climate is not waiting.

CURWOOD: John Holdren is President Obama’s science advisor. Thank you so much.

HOLDREN: My pleasure. Glad to be with you.

YOUNG: Coming up: the few, the proud, the poisoned– Marine veterans still living with a legacy of contamination. Keep listening to Living on Earth.

Listen to LOE Interviews with Holdren: Here