Crowdfunding Countercurrents

Submission Policy

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Defend Indian Constitution




CC Youtube Channel

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis


AfPak War

Peak Oil



Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections


Latin America









Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence


India Elections



About Us


Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter


Search Our Archive

Our Site



Order the book

A Publication
on The Status of
Adivasi Populations
of India




G7 Pledge Of  Zero Emissions By 2100 Masks Worsening Climate Emergency
And Need For Urgent Action

By Dr Gideon Polya

10 June, 2015

The June 2015 G7 pledges of  (a) zero emissions by 2100 and (b) avoidance of a plus 2 degrees C  temperature rise were greeted as “the end of fossil fuels”. Unfortunately (a) the World will exceed its Terminal Carbon Budget for a 75% probability of avoiding plus 2 degrees C in about 3 years, and (b) a plus 2 degrees C temperature  rise is disastrous for Humanity and the Biosphere, yielding at equilibrium  sea levels “at least  6 to 8 metres higher” according  Dr James Hansen of NASA.

The agreement of the June 2015 G7 meeting in Germany to (a) zero emissions by 2100 and (b) avoidance of a plus 2 degrees C  temperature rise was  reported thus by the ABC (Australia's equivalent  to the UK BBC): “The [G7] leaders stressed that "deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions" were required with "a decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century". The G7 also reaffirmed the goal of limiting global warming in the 21st century to 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels, first agreed at a 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen” [1].

This agreement has been welcomed as “the end of fossil fuels” and “the end of the fossil  fuel age” but this enthusiasm  is seriously  misplaced because  (a)  the G7 meeting excluded the major greenhouse gas (GHG) polluters Russia and China, and (b) it is now very unlikely  that the world will avoid a catastrophic plus 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise.

The G7 meeting excluded Russia because of its arms-supply support for pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine after the US-backed neo-Nazi coup in Kiev, and its accession to an overwhelming  vote of Crimeans to return to Russia. However all of the G7 countries have dirty records of actually invading other countries in the 21st century, specifically Canada (Afghanistan), France (Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, Somalia, Syria), Germany (Afghanistan), Italy (Iraq, Libya), Japan (Afghanistan), UK (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria), and the US (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen). While casualties in the US-backed civil war in the Ukraine now total about 6,000, Western invasion of Muslim countries in the last 25 years  have involved 25 million Muslim refugees and 13 million Muslim  deaths from Western violence or violently-imposed deprivation, notably in Afghanistan  (6 million), Iraq (4.6  million),  Somalia (2.2 million), Syria (0.2 million),and  Libya (0.2 million) [2, 3].

G7 member Japan gave token armed support for America's ongoing Afghan Genocide but the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has an appalling record of minimizing Japanese wartime atrocities (notably, 40 million Chinese killed, 1937-1945) and notoriously stated that the 200,000 sex-slave “comfort women” who serviced the  Japanese military in WW2 did so voluntarily: "There was no evidence to prove there was coercion as initially suggested. That largely changes what constitutes the definition of coercion, and we have to take it from there” [4]. G7 member Great Britain is  much more subtle by simply ignoring its present war crimes and indeed its WW2 war crimes, notably the  1942-1945 Bengali Holocaust in which the British with Australian complicity deliberately  starved 6-7 million Indians to death for strategic reasons, this atrocity being associated with the military and civilian sexual abuse of as many as 300,000 starving women  and girls [3, 5-7].  

Below  is  a succinct  summary of expert  scientific  opinion yielding the following conclusions at variance with the G7 assertions: (1) at current rates of GHG pollution the world  has only 3 years to go to zero emissions to avoid a 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise; (2) a 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise would be disastrous; and (3) it is now likely that a 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise is inevitable.

(1).  The world  has only 3 years to go to zero emissions to avoid a 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise.

The sheer implausibility  and dishonesty of the “zero emissions by 2100” G7 commitment (made with considerable  reluctance on the part of Canada and Japan) is shown by the annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution of these countries which is as follows (tonnes CO2-e per person per year in parentheses; 2005 data,  ignoring  land use):  Canada (23), France (9), Germany (12), Italy (10), Japan (11), UK (11), and the US (24). However the corresponding data for 2000 are much the same: Canada (22), France (9), Germany (12), Italy (9), Japan (11), UK (11), and the US (24) [8, 9].  As set out below, pigs may fly before we see zero emissions from these endlessly mendacious, war criminal and  climate criminal countries.

A more exacting  analysis derives from the notion of a Terminal Carbon Budget permitted each country before zero emissions  in 2050.  The 2009 Report of the German Scientific Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU, Wissenshaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen) was entitled “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach” and crucially stated: “The budget of CO2 emissions still available worldwide could be derived from the 2 degree C guard rail. By the middle of the 21st century a maximum of approximately 750 Gt CO2 (billion metric tons) may be released into the Earth's atmosphere if the guard rail is to be adhered to with a probability of 67%. If we raise the probability to 75%, the cumulative emissions within this period would even have to remain below 600 Gt CO2. In any case, only a small amount of CO2 may be emitted worldwide after 2050. Thus, the era of an economy driven by fossil fuels will definitely have to come to an end within the first half of this century” [10].

The consequences of this declaration of less than 600 Gt CO2 in emissions for a 75% chance of avoiding 2 degree C temperature rise are profound. Thus, would you board a plane if it had a 25% chance of crashing? Further, the average world population in the period 2010 and 2050 will be 8.321 billion according to the UN Population Division. Accordingly, the per capita share of this terminal CO2 pollution budget is less than 600 billion tonnes CO2/8.321 billion people = less than 72.1 tonnes CO2 per person.

Using data for the annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) (including land use change) for every country in the world in 2000 [8], one can determine how many years left at current rates of GHG pollution (in units of CO2-e or CO2-equivalent i.e. taking other GHGs into account) before a given country uses up its “fair share” of the Terminal Carbon Budget. Thus for the US with an annual  per capita GHG pollution of 22.9 tonnes CO2-e per person per year in 2000 (with land use  included) [8],    72.1 tonnes CO2-e per person / 22.9 tonnes CO2- per person per year in 2000 = 3.1 years left relative to 2010 (noting that this analysis does not take into account historical pollution of the atmosphere) i.e. relative  to 2010,  the US used up its “fair share” of the Terminal Carbon Budget in 2013 i.e. 2 years ago [11].

The same analysis has been done for the other G7 countries,  yielding years left (relative to 2015) for achieving zero emissions as follows: Canada (- 2 years), France (3.3 years ), Germany (0.9 years), Italy (2.8 years), Japan (1.7 years ), UK (1.6 years), and the US (-1.9 years). The direst prediction for the World as a whole is that it has only about 3 years left at the upper estimate of current rates of GHG pollution before it exceeds the whole World's Terminal Carbon Budget [12].

(2).  A 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise would be disastrous.

While most governments  worldwide have accepted a 2 degree C temperature limit, Island nations  and mega-delta countries like Bangladesh are already suffering the consequences of a plus 0.8 degrees C, specifically  elevated sea levels, increased tropical storm intensities and storm surges. Indeed at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, Island nations argued for a plus 1.5 degree C ceiling.  A 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise would be disastrous for Humanity and the Biosphere as made apparent by the following expert opinions.

Dr Andrew Glikson (a paleoclimate scientist and earth scientist, ANU, Canberra, Australia) (2008),  “For some time now, climate scientists warned that melting of subpolar permafrost and warming of the Arctic Sea (up to 4 degrees C during 2005–2008 relative to the 1951–1980) are likely to result in the dissociation of methane hydrates and the release of this powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (methane: 62 times the infrared warming effect of CO2 over 20 years and 21 times over 100 years) The amount of carbon stored in Arctic sediments and permafrost is estimated as 500–2500 Gigaton Carbon (GtC), as compared with the world's total fossil fuel reserves estimated as 5000 GtC. Compare with the 700 GtC of the atmosphere, which regulate CO2 levels in the range of 180–300 parts per million and land temperatures in a range of about – 50 to + 50 degrees C, which allowed the evolution of warm blooded mammals. The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO2 levels to 387 ppm CO2 to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO2 levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres. There is little evidence for an extinction at 3 Ma. However, by crossing above a CO2 level of 400 ppm the atmosphere is moving into uncharted territory. At this stage, enhanced methane leaks threaten climate events, such as the massive methane release and fauna extinction of 55 million years ago, which was marked by rise of CO2 to near-1000 ppm” [13].

Dr. T. Goreau (President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance, an international NGO for restoration of coral reefs, and a member of the Jamaican delegation to UNCCC;  previously Senior Scientific Affairs Officer at the United Nations Centre for Science and Technology for Development, in charge of Global Climate Change and Biodiversity issues, where he contributed to the original draft of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2009):  “The long-term sea level that corresponds to current CO2 concentration is about 23 meters above today's levels, and the temperatures will be 6 degrees C or more higher. These estimates are based on real long term climate records, not models … Current “targets” for CO2 being discussed by UNCCC are way too high to prevent the extinction of coral reefs (which can take no further warming, since most corals have died in the last 20 years from heat shock) and the disappearance of all low lying islands and coastlines where billions of people live. Even a target of 350 ppm is unacceptable if we are to avoid dangerous interference with the Earth climate system, causing inconceivable ecological, environmental, and economic disaster. Global warming must not be allowed to continue as would happen by stabilizing CO2 and temperature at present levels. Greenhouse gas buildup must be reversed, and CO2 reduced to levels of around 260 ppm, below Pre-Industrial levels” [14].  

Dr James Hansen ( a leading US climate scientist, former  head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at 101-Nobel-Laureate Columbia University, first warned the US Congress about the danger from man-made climate change over 20 years ago, and  published “Storms of My Grandchildren” in 2009) (2015):  “2 degrees is actually a prescription for disaster. That's actually well understood by the scientific community. We know that the prior interglacial period about 120,000 years ago – its called the Eemian in Europe – was less than 2C warmer than pre-industrial conditions and sea level was a least 6 to 8 metres higher, so it's crazy to think that 2 degrees Celsius is a safe limit… make the  price of fossil fuels honest” [15].

Dr James Hansen and numerous colleagues (2013): “A cumulative industrial-era limit of ~500 GtC fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted. Cumulative emissions of ~1000 GtC, sometimes associated with 2°C global warming, would spur “slow” feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4°C with disastrous consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth's energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Responsible policymaking requires a rising price on carbon emissions that would preclude emissions from most remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase down emissions from conventional fossil fuels... Thus our objective is to define what the science indicates is needed, not to assess political feasibility. Further, it is not obvious to us that there are physical or economic limitations that prohibit fossil fuel emission targets far lower than 1000 GtC, even targets closer to 500 GtC. Indeed, we suggest that rapid transition off fossil fuels would have numerous near-term and long-term social benefits, including improved human health and outstanding potential for job creation” [16].

Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany)  (2008): “It is a compromise between ambition and feasibility. A rise of 2oC could avoid some of the big environmental disasters, but it is still only a compromise…It is a very sweeping argument, but nobody can say for sure that 330ppm is safe. Perhaps it will not matter whether we have 270ppm or 320ppm, but operating well outside the [historic] realm of carbon dioxide concentrations is risky as long as we have not fully understood the relevant feedback mechanisms" [280 ppm is the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2  concentration; it is now 400 ppm CO2 ] [17].

(3) It is now likely that a 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise is inevitable.

World governments and the G7 governments are sticking with the spin-driven myth that a plus 2 degrees C temperature rise is avoidable. However according to expert opinion as exampled below,  it is now unlikely that a 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise can be avoided.

Oliver Geden (a senior research fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), a think tank that provides analysis on foreign policy issues to the German federal government and the parliament, and the author of the recently published SWP study "Modifying the 2°C target: climate policy objectives in the contested terrain of scientific policy advice, political preferences, and rising emissions") (2013): “ It is highly doubtful that the international community will be able to agree on a treaty that would commit all industrialised countries and emerging economies to binding emissions reduction targets by the end of 2015. With global emissions still rising, it is even more unlikely that such an agreement would be compatible with the overarching target of international climate policy: to limit the global mean temperature increase to 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which is considered to be the threshold to "dangerous climate change". Nobody really wants to talk about the coming failure of the 2°C target. But from a political point of view it is pretty clear that a target that is considered to be unattainable cannot fulfill either a positive symbolic function or a productive governance function. Thus, the 2°C target will have to be modified eventually. Such a process is not only risky for the EU as a global climate policy leader; it also entails troubling consequences for scientific policy advice… In the process of modifying the 2°C target, climate policy will tend to "politicize" while climate science will tend to "scientise". The EU will no longer be able to count on climate scientists to support its international climate policy preferences. At the same time, climate scientists will have to accept that their relatively privileged status will be limited to the areas of media access and research funding, whereas their political influence will be no greater than the influence of scientists in other policy areas” [18].

Professor  Sanjeev Ghotge (formerly Professor at the Centre for Applied Systems Analysis in Development ,  Pune and later Senior Fellow and Head, Climate and Sustainability Policy at the World Institute of Sustainable Energy, Pune, India) (2015): “The first row of the table, taken from IPCC 2007, shows that a CO2 concentration of 400 ppm will result in an equilibrium temperature between 2.0 and 2.4 deg C   i.e. higher than 2 deg C. Since the CO2 concentration reached 400 ppm  last year (2014), this means that the earth's atmosphere will eventually heat up by 2 deg C, since we have no proven and tested technologies for decarbonizing the atmosphere. The deceptive aspect arises because there is a time lag, estimated between 35-40 years, between reaching a particular concentration level and reaching the corresponding equilibrium temperature. In other words, we can expect a temperature rise of 2 deg C by around 2050. When that temperature is reached, the land component of the earth system will stop absorbing net CO2 from the atmosphere, instead becoming a net emitter … Roughly speaking, we are on course to reach 2 deg C by 2050, 4 deg C by 2100 and 6 deg C by 2150. A few years this way or that will hardly matter or disprove the basic science. Another set of statements emanating recently from IPCC sources seem to claim that there is as yet a global “carbon budget” available before the 2 deg C threshold is breached. As the above table indicates clearly, this is simply incorrect in terms of the current knowledge and position taken by IPCC itself in 2007.The above table indicates that the carbon budget is now effectively zero; all that IPCC seems to be doing is buying time for the power elites of the world , by keeping alive false hopes” [19].

The Global Risk and Opportunity Indicator (which provides measures of how serious the climate emergency is based on data from the latest UN IPCC AR5 report, 2013) describes itself thus: “You can use it to calculate and visualize the risk our planet is facing with regards to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Choose parts per million (PPM) of greenhouse gases in the menu to the left, and the average temperature rise in degrees Celsius in the menu to the right. In the third menu you can compare the probability for climate change with other events, such as fatal flight accidents, and display them both on the meter”. Thus, for example, the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers (2014) offers a RCP2.6 scenario  that will “limit greenhouse gas concentrations to low levels (about 450 ppm CO2-eq, likely to limit warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels)”. However, using  the Global Risk and Opportunity Indicator one finds that the Exceedance Probability for a  2°C temperature rise with an equilibrium greenhouse gas (GHG)  concentration of 450 ppm CO2-eq is 58.4% , and that if this were the  annual probability of fatal flight accidents there would be 17,520,000  fatal flight accidents per year instead of 30 per year. Similarly, the Exceedance Probability for a  2°C temperature rise with an equilibrium greenhouse gas (GHG)  concentration of 500 ppm CO2-eq is 72.5% , and that if this were the  annual probability of fatal flight accidents there would be 21,750,000  fatal flight accidents per year instead of 30 per year [20]. Unfortunately Professor Ron Prinn (Professor of Atmospheric Science at 83-Nobel-Laureate MIT) reports that an atmospheric 478 ppm CO2-eq was already attained by 2013 [21].

The IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has released a succession of 5 key reports, the latest being the Fifth Assessment Report, AR5 , 2013) states (2014): Emissions ranges for baseline scenarios and mitigation scenarios that limit greenhouse gas concentrations to low levels (about 450 ppm CO2-eq, likely to limit warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels) are shown for different sectors and gases in Figure SPM.14. Key measures to achieve such mitigation goals include decarbonizing (i.e., reducing the carbon intensity of) electricity generation (medium evidence, high agreement) as well as efficiency enhancements and behavioral changes, in order to reduce energy demand compared to baseline scenarios without compromising development (robust evidence, high agreement)” [22]. Unfortunately the IPCC Summary argues for a limitation of temperature rise to 2oC through limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution of the atmosphere to 450 ppm CO2-equivalent but hard evidence  says that we have already reached 478 ppm CO2-equivalent [21, 23].

Professor  Michael E. Mann (Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University,  contributor to the International Panel on Climate Change work that received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and author of  “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines” (Columbia University Press, 2012)) (2014): "Although the earth has experienced exceptional warming over the past century, to estimate how much more will occur we need to know how temperature will respond to the ongoing human-caused rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. Scientists call this responsiveness “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS). ECS is a common measure of the heating effect of greenhouse gases. It represents the warming at the earth's surface that is expected after the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles and the climate subsequently stabilizes (reaches equilibrium).The preindustrial level of CO2 was about 280 parts per million (ppm), so double is roughly 560 ppm… When all the forms of evidence are combined, they point to a most likely value for ECS that is close to three degrees C. And as it turns out, the climate models the IPCC actually used in its Fifth Assessment Report imply an even higher value of 3.2 degrees C… for an ECS of three degrees C, our planet would cross the dangerous warming threshold of two degrees C in 2036, only 22 years from now… These findings have implications for what we all must do to prevent disaster. An ECS of three degrees C means that if we are to limit global warming to below two degrees C forever, we need to keep CO2 concentrations far below twice preindustrial levels, closer to 450 ppm. Ironically, if the world burns significantly less coal, that would lessen CO2 emissions but also reduce aerosols in the atmosphere that block the sun (such as sulfate particulates), so we would have to limit CO2 to below roughly 405 ppm. We are well on our way to surpassing these limits. In 2013 atmospheric CO2 briefly reached 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history—and perhaps for the first time in millions of years, according to geologic evidence. To avoid breaching the 405-ppm threshold, fossil-fuel burning would essentially have to cease immediately. To avoid the 450-ppm threshold, global carbon emissions could rise only for a few more years and then would have to ramp down by several percent a year” [24].

V. Ramanathan  and Y. Feng (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego) conclude that the world is already committed to a warming of 2.4°C (2008): “The observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) since the preindustrial era has most likely committed the world to a warming of 2.4°C (1.4°C to 4.3°C) above the preindustrial surface temperatures. The committed warming is inferred from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of the greenhouse forcing and climate sensitivity. The estimated warming of 2.4°C is the equilibrium warming above preindustrial temperatures that the world will observe even if GHG concentrations are held fixed at their 2005 concentration levels but without any other anthropogenic forcing such as the cooling effect of aerosols. The range of 1.4°C to 4.3°C in the committed warming overlaps and surpasses the currently perceived threshold range of 1°C to 3°C for dangerous anthropogenic interference with many of the climate-tipping elements such as the summer arctic sea ice, Himalayan–Tibetan glaciers, and the Greenland Ice Sheet. IPCC models suggest that ˜25% (0.6°C) of the committed warming has been realized as of now. About 90% or more of the rest of the committed warming of 1.6°C will unfold during the 21st century, determined by the rate of the unmasking of the aerosol cooling effect by air pollution abatement laws and by the rate of release of the GHGs-forcing stored in the oceans. The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries. Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4°C” [25].

Expert analysts Todd Sanford (Union of Concerned Scientists),  Peter Frumhoff (Union of Concerned Scientists), Amy Luers (Skoll Global Threats Fund) and  Jay Gulledge (Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2014):    “It is time to acknowledge that global average temperatures are likely to rise above the 2 °C policy target and consider how that deeply troubling prospect should affect priorities for communicating and managing the risks of a dangerously warming climate” [26].

Summary and conclusions.

The G7 governments have access to the very best scientific  advice but their latest pronouncements of  (a) zero emissions by 2100 and (b) avoidance of a plus 2 degrees C  temperature rise are at variance with expert scientific advice that  (1) at current rates of GHG pollution the world  has only 3 years to go to zero emissions in order to avoid a  2 degree Centigrade temperature rise; (2) a 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise would be disastrous; and (3) it is likely that a 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise is inevitable.

The G7 pronouncement can be seen as simply  more of the mendacious spin that is de rigeur for  the  warmongering, war criminal, state terrorist and climate criminal countries of the US Alliance. This G7 spin hides the Awful Truth that greed-driven, neoliberal policies are inescapably linked to 17 million avoidable deaths from deprivation each year [3], 7 million deaths each year from air pollution (mostly from carbon burning)  [27, 28], and a worsening climate genocide that may see 10 billion deaths this century (an average of 100 million deaths per year)  due to failure to urgently and requisitely  tackle climate change [9]. The key word here is “urgency”. The G7 – and indeed all countries – should be committing to massive GHG pollution cuts now rather than to an unspecified course of cuts over the coming century.  Science indicates that it is now unlikely that the world will avoid a catastrophic 2 degrees  C temperature rise [23, 29, 30] and Humanity  must urgently act to make the future “less bad” for future generations. Indeed a 2010 Open Letter by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Laureates, stated of climate change action: “Delay is not an option” [31] and the Synthesis Report of the March 2009 Copenhagen Scientific Climate Change Conference stated: “Inaction is inexcusable” [32].

To return to a safe planet for all peoples and all species we must achieve the following: (1) a  change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying; (2) an urgent reduction of atmospheric CO2  to a safe level of about 300 ppm CO2 as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists [33]; and (3) a rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth.

Ordinary folk – Ninety Nine  Percenters as opposed to the neoliberal One Percenters running the G7 and the world – are substantially disempowered but can at least (a) inform everyone they can, and (b) urge and apply Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against  all people, politicians, parties,  collectives, corporations and countries  disproportionately  complicit in the worsening climate emergency and in the worsening climate genocide.  


[1]. Mary Gearin, “G7 meeting: world leaders pledge to act on climate change, phase out fossil fuels by end of century”, ABC News, 9 June 2015:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-09/g7-leaders-pledge-to-phase-out-fossil-duels-by-end-of-century/6530838 .

[2]. “Muslim Holocaust Muslim Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ .

[3]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, that includes a n avoidable mortality-related history  of all countries since Neolithic times and is  now available for free perusal on the web: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/  .

[4]. Colin Joyce, “Japanese PM denies war-time “comfort women” were forced”, ”, The Telegraph, 3 March 2007: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1544471/Japanese-PM-denies-wartime-comfort-women-were-forced.html .

[5]. Gideon Polya (1998), “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2008 edition that is now available for free perusal on the web: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/  .

[6]. Gideon Polya (2011), “Australia and Britain killed 6-7 million Indians in WW2 Bengal Famine”,  Countercurrents, 29 September, 2011: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya290911.htm  .

[7]. “Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Bengal Famine) writings of  Gideon Polya”, Gideon Polya: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/bengali-holocaust .

[8]. “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita .

[9]. “Climate Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/ .

[10]. WBGU, “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach”: http://www.ecoequity.org/2009/10/solving-the-climate-dilemma-the-budget-approach/ .

[11]. Gideon Polya, “Years left to zero greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution relative to 2013", Carbon Debt Carbon Credit:  https://sites.google.com/site/carbondebtcarboncredit/years-left-to-zero .

[12]. Gideon Polya,  " Doha climate change inaction. Only 5 years left to act", MWC News, 9 December 2012: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/23373-gideonpolya-climate-change.html .

[13]. Andrew Glikson, “The Methane time bomb and the triple melt-down [Triple stands for: (1) ice sheets; (2) global economy; (3) trust in governments.]", Countercurrents, 10 October 2008: http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm .

[14]. T. Goreau, “What is the right target for CO2?: 350 ppm is a death sentence for coral reefs and low-lying islands, the safe level of CO2 for SIDS [Small Island Developing States] is 260 parts per million”, Scientific & Technical Briefing To the Association of Small Island States United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen, Denmark, December 7-18 2009: http://www.globalcoral.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/aosis_briefing_2009.pdf .

[15]. Dr James Hansen interviewed by ABC RN's Fran Kelly, “Two degrees of global warming is not “safe”: Hansen”,   ABC RN Breakfast, 5 May 2015: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/two-degrees-of-global-warming-is-not-safe/6444698 .

[16]. James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Frank Ackerman, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Shi-Ling Hsu, Camille Parmesan, Johan Rockstrom, Eelco J. Rohling, Jeffrey Sachs, Pete Smith, Konrad Steffen, Lise Van Susteren, Karina von Schuckmann, James C. Zachos, “Assessing “dangerous climate change”: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and Nature”, 8 (12), 3 December 2013: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648 .

[17]. Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber quoted by David Adam, “Roll back time to safeguard climate, expert warns”, Guardian, 15 September 2008 : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions .

[18]. Oliver Geden, “Climate change – what next after the 2C boundary?”, Guardian, 11 June 2013: http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jun/11/science-policy1 .

[19].  Sanjeev Ghotge, “Climate Change – Too Late To Halt?”, Countercurrents, 4 May, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/ghotge040515.htm .

[20]. Global Risk and Opportunity Indicator: http://global-risk-indicator.net/ .

[21].  Ron Prinn, “400 ppm CO2? Add other GHGs and its equivalent to 478 ppm”, Oceans at MIT, 6 June 2013: http://oceans.mit.edu/featured-stories/5-questions-mits-ron-prinn-400-ppm-threshold .

[22]. The IPCC, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, Approved Summary for Policy Makers”, 1 November 2014: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf .

[23]. Gideon Polya, “International consensus-based IPCC Summary For Policymakers (2014) downplays acute seriousness of Climate Crisis”, Countercurrents,  12 November, 2014: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya121114.htm .

[24]. Michael Mann, “Earth will cross the climate danger threshold by 2036”,Scientific American, 18 March 2014: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/ .

[25].  V. Ramanathan  and Y. Feng, “On avoiding dangerous interference with the climate system: formidable challenges ahead”, PNAS, 17 September 2008: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/16/0803838105.abstract .

[26]. Todd Sanford, Peter C. Frumhoff, Amy Luers & Jay Gulledge, “The climate policy narrative for a dangerously warming world”, Nature Climate Change 4, 164–166 (2014): http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2148.html  (Figure 1: “Observed and projected trends in global CO2 emissions under four RCP scenarios”:  http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/fig_tab/nclimate2148_F1.html ).

[27]. DARA, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor. A guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet”, 2012, Executive Summary pp2-3: http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/ .

[28]. World Health Organization (WHO), “7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution”: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/ .

[29]. “Are we doomed?”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/are-we-doomed .

[30]. "Too late to avoid global warming catastrophe": https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/too-late-to-avoid-global-warming .

[31]. 2010 Open Letter by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, “Open Letter: climate change and the integrity of science”, Guardian, 6 May 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/06/climate-science-open-letter  .

[32]. Synthesis Report of the March 2009 Copenhagen Scientific Climate Change Conference: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport .

[33]. “300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm CO2”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm .

Dr Gideon Polya has been teaching science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003). He has published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contributions “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/australian-complicity-in-iraq-mass-mortality/3369002#transcript ) and “Ongoing Palestinian Genocide” in “The Plight of the Palestinians (edited by William Cook, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html ). He has published a revised and updated 2008 version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (see: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/social-economic-history/listen-the-bengal-famine ). When words fail one can say it in pictures - for images of Gideon Polya's huge paintings for the Planet, Peace, Mother and Child see: http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/gideonpolya/


Gideon Polya

Climate Change










Share on Tumblr



Comments are moderated