Why Has There Been No Global Climate Emergency Declaration?
The many dangers of global climate change which result from global warming climate disruption and ocean acidification from greenhouse gas global pollution are being made far worse because the resulting state of emergency is being in general ignored.
Only Al Gore (2006) and several of the most longstanding emminent climate change scientists have issued public warnings that the climate situation is beyond being dangerous and that we are in a state of global climate change planetary emergency.
The climate science makes the continuation of constant greenhouse gas pollution inherently dangerous and catastrophically so. Twenty per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions last in the atmosphere for 1000 years. The two days global average temperature increase is already absolutely committed by the climate science to increased two or three fold and to last for over 1000 years.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the highest in 15,000,000 years.
Nevertheless no nation, no scientific organization, and no large civil society (NGO) has a position on the record that the world is past 'dangerous interference with the climate system' (1992 UN climate convention term).
This means that with the no organization has a submitted a statement to world governments or the U.N. climate negotiations stating that the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases are dangerous under the terms of the 1992 U.N. climate convention. By any ethical standard there can be no question from the evidence that the climate situation is far beyond dangerous.
The convention clearly defines these dangers as damages to natural ecosystems and to human agricultural systems beyond their capacity of resilience and the adverse effects on the most climate change vulnerable populations on their food and health security.
None of the above have a position on the record that a state of global climate change or planet three emergency exists with respect to these populations and indeed to all future generations.
The reason for this denial by the responsible and concerned nations and organizations is quite bizarre.
The intergovernmental panel on climate change and the scientific organizations in general have explained on the record and in published papers that science cannot even define dangerous climate change is on the basis that this is a value judgment and scientists are on able to make.
This is clearly absurd to common sense and it is incorrect by the science.
In the science of a risk assessment danger is quantified by risk and risk is estimated by a simple standard formula. The formula is that risk equals the probability of a consequence multiplied by the magnitude of the consequence.
Risk = Probability X Magnitude
This is a precautionary formula that increases the level of risk with the magnitude of the consequence even if that consequence is deemed of low probability. Risk like danger therefore is values based, on the assumption that we are averse to the risk of disastrous or catastrophic consequences. The IPCC accepts this formula but does not apply it.
The IPCC assessment does not assess risk (as is on the record by Stephen Schneider). It is an assessment of probability and no matter how great a potential consequence low probabilities are excluded from the published assessment.
The greatest dangers to the survival of life on earth from global climate change is additional carbon feedback methane emissions from falling permafrost and melting ocean floor frozen solid methane hydrates. In fact the IPCC 2007 assessment omitted all inevitable additional carbon emissions resulting from carbon feedbacks to global warming and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations on the basis that the scientific research cannot so far accurately estimate the probabilities.
There is no reason that the scientific academies and organizations should follow these unscientific constraints that governments have applied to the operations of the IPCC but they do. The last international climate change conference was the March 2009 Copenhagen climate science Congress that was held specifically to update the years science of the 2007 IPCC assessment which covered the published science up to January 2006. Oh either in the synthesis report the scientific Congress Committee stated that the scientists could not make a statement or conclusion on dangerous interference with the climate system because this was a value judgment that scientists cannot make and must be made by society as a whole,
It is even more bizarre that the example of the IPCC is followed by all the civil society nongovernmental organizations. After all the civil society ngos represent society as a whole in such matters. The reason given by the executive directors and staff of the environmental ngos goes as follows.
They say that the sociologists and advise them not to warn of the year general public of the risks of catastrophic abrupt all the reversible impacts from global climate disruption on the basis that this would overwhelm the general public who would respond with despair and as a result not engage consoles in the global climate change issue at all and not take any mitigate if measures.