I look back at the Vostok record and how it always ranged in this constant band for hundreds of thousands of years and then suddenly shot up to double and soon triple the historical high water mark (or carbon mark) and I can’t help but wonder if IPCC-3, Hansen, Gore et al aren’t just being unrealistically optimistic when they say we have 10 years to turn it around. Lovelock is probably the biggest prod to my thinking, and while I don’t yet give a lot of credence to 2050 or thereabouts as the point at which die-off ensues, I nonetheless feel that the match has been lit to the fuse and we are not likely to extinguish it. Buckminster Fuller said humanity had until 1985 to get its act together. I think he might have been right.

That said, the only antidote to despair is to do something positive and to work as if it mattered. And it well still might. We are in uncharted territory, so all outcomes are possible.

I also believe like my friend Alan AtKisson that the one single most hopeful element in this is all that is required is a change of mind, and that can happen instantly (although it only rarely does). The solution is less a material one, more a spiritual one.

The projections of the IPCC (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/projections-of-climate-change.html) indicate that there is still time. If we curb CO2 emissions by 2040, by 2100 or so, CO2 concentrations (concentrations, as distinguished from emissions) will begin to stabilize. True, this will be too late for Bangladesh, small island nations, the U.S. Carolina and Florida coastlines, and other low lying areas affected by sea level rise. Rather, I’m discussing temperature warming here. Which, I think, Albert was, too.

Couple the IPCC projections with agricultural projections (Richard Adams, et al, The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, “A Review of Impacts to U.S. Agricultural Resourcesâ€?) which indicate the dire warming is if we reach around 7.2 degrees F – that’s when crop yields begin to fall significantly. IPCC scenarios A1T and B1 show temperatures remaining below that agricultural doomsday if we control CO2 emissions. (aside: True, the agricultural collapse will be specific by microclime, and the IPCC’s are global averages. But to create an average that means there must be microclimes which don’t get that extreme – but this is all getting too detailed for this small-space discussion.)

Recent high visibility new items (BBC et al, I wrote about it at http://legacyla.net/transformation/?p=8) gain headlines with the attention-getting “highest CO2 levels ever!” Please note that the specific parts-per-million statistics contained in these alarmist mainstream news articles are right on the IPCC projection curves!! i.e. we’re exactly where world scientists anticipate, AND we’re still in line for IPCC scenarios A1T and B1! We’re still in the zone where we can DO SOMETHING, rather than just bemoan humanity’s demise.

We sustainability/permaculture/energy descent activists really cannot succumb to “no survival” thinking. Now is the time for action. Many places in the world are receptive to change, and these are the places we must take action. Read the online chapter of Alan AtKisson’s book Believing Cassandra, his Amoeba of Cultural Change (http://www.atkisson.com/pubs/Cassandra-Ch9.pdf). Understand the dynamic of human change. Learn where your efforts can have the most impact. Courageously go forward, despite the nay-sayers, and create the change we know is necessary and possible.

I agree with Rob that this film is intended for those who are not that familiar with the issues of climate change. And, when cast in this role, I think the film does an exceptional job. People who are new to this, leave the film wanting to do something, urgently.

I have heard that it is now being shown on air flights (aside: isn’t this an oxymoron? showing a global warming film on an airflight, where one of the solutions should be STOP FLYING!). The person who told me this said “and you know, I’m from a red-state”. I was delighted at the ingenuity of the Gore team to have gotten the film onto flights, where they have a captive audience and can present to people who would not otherwise intentionally seek it out at a theatre!

People here are thinking and talking and acting. Shortly after “An Inconvenient Truth” roared through town, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a 15minute documentary short on climate change in California, just in time to get California legislature to pass the Global Warming Solutions Act which includes greenhouse gas limitations for California. ( http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/AB-32-as-passed-fact-sheet.pdf ) When our federal government still refuses to get on board, “An Inconvenient Truth” most certainly paved the way for this important state-level legislative move. And when California’s legislation is considered in conjunction with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (7 northeastern U.S. states) it amounts to a substantial portion of our country’s emissions now covered by some form of ghg limitation.

As far as on-the-ground action, there is now significant interest in solar power, green power elections, and efficiency-hybrid automobiles here in Southern California, even among those who one previously would not have thought of as “green”. I know, I know, these are all techno-solutions and a long way from true energy descent, but it has been a powerful and rapid surge in interest, a very good start.