The International Youth Delegation, a group of nearly five hundred young activists from all over the world, attended the UN Climate Conference in Poznan, Poland this week. Members report that the proposed measures are insufficient to guarantee universal national survival in the face of climate change.

The youth delegates have been asking delegates from all countries attending the talks to sign a pledge promising to “safeguard the future of all countries and peoples”—and our friends at 350.org and SustainUS have been doing their part to get the word out.

Survival means doing more, faster, to curb C02 emissions. As our advisory board member Bill McKibben suggests, a target of 350 parts per million is the safe line for our global climate.

Breaking news from Bill:
“Giving the climactic speech at the Poznan global warming conference, Al Gore set the new bottom line for action on global warming, right where we’ve been suggesting: 350 parts per million. The old goal of 450 parts per million is “inadequate,” he said. We “need to toughen that goal to 350 parts per million.”

The line, which drew the longest applause of the day, was a remarkable repudiation of established targets that have driven the climate debate for more than a decade. Now the world’s leading scientific authority on global warming and the world’s leading political authority on global warming have said the same thing: 350 is the target we have to hit. Let’s get to it.”

Dispatches from the international youth climate movement have been nothing short of inspirational:over 80 countries have endorsed the “Survival Pledge.” We’re looking forward to the next year leading up to the Copenhagen climate talks.

We’re glad to see that Bank of America, our partner for the Brighter Planet Visa, has taken some significant steps to become even more environmentally responsible.

They’ve recently announced that they will:

1) phase out loans to companies that do mountaintop removal for coal production. (BoA Coal Policy)

2) give $1 million to the Harvard Center for the Environment for a study on capturing the greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal.

3) continue to adopt the Carbon Principles. These are guidelines about the risks of investing in greenhouse gas emitting- public utility projects like coal plants.

In the bigger picture, Bank of America has made a broad environmental commitment of $20 billion over the next ten-years. The money will be used to advance sustainability across the board– in its operations, through its lending and investing, and in new products and services.

There’s room for eco-improvement in nearly every organization, but these are important steps for BoA and we at Brighter Planet applaud their efforts.

This is our fourth Q&A with our esteemed advisor, Bill McKibben. He spoke near my childhood home a few nights ago, and has been almost continuously on the road raising awareness about the importance of the number 350 and building a movement to fight climate change.

If you have a question for Bill, please do send it along to askbill [AT] brighterplanet [DOT] com.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has stressed that the financial crisis should not “weaken our resolve on climate change.” As organizations, companies, and individuals face a blue economy, does “going green” still make sense?

I fear it makes more sense than ever. It’s true it’s going to be harder to raise the money for it. On the other hand, it’s the only plausible big new source of jobs for a depressed economy–you can’t send your house to China to get the solar panel stuck on top–and it’s ultimately the best way to really save some money. i.e., once you’ve got the solar panel, the sun is free.

What is the most urgent environmental message to send to Congress under a new Obama Administration this winter?

Cut our emissions fast–but then also concentrate on building the kind of international program that offers real hope of reaching a global bargain when the world comes together to set a new treaty in December of 2009.
(This is the work Bill and his team are engaged in at 350.org)!

Does carbon pricing affect the price of gasoline?

Yes–it will go up, so people will use less. But we can rebate the money back to people so the price signal remains intact without bankrupting anyone. Here’s a good link that explains the basic idea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/18/AR2008101801537.html

If you want to read the other Q&As with Bill, click here.

–Carolyn

This is our third Q&A with our advisor, Bill McKibben. Last time I spoke with Bill, he was in China participating in a teleconference for the G8 meetings in Japan. Now he and a teammate from 350.org are meeting with groups from all parts of China that are doing their own organizing to raise awareness and build a movement to fight climate change. The hope is that 350.org can unify all of these actions into one large global movement!

If you have a question for Bill, send it along to askbill AT brighterplanet DOT com. We’re eager to hear from you!

I read “The End of Nature” to prepare for an Environmental Ethics class I was helping teach at San Francisco State. One major concept I drew upon from the book is the idea that there is a 50-year lag from the “global warming” effects we are feeling from excess carbon, so that even if we stopped dead in our tracks (as if that were possible) we can expect dire consequences from what we have already done. Is that assessment still true today or has it accelerated or changed in some other way?

Russel Kilday-Hicks

Thank you, Russell. Your understanding is, sadly, correct. We’re not going to “stop global warming”. We’ve already warmed the planet a degree, and there’s another degree and a half in the pipeline from carbon we’ve already emitted. What we’re talking about now is just trying to prevent absolute catastrophe from crossing the real tipping points–check out 350.org for the latest science.

I am very concerned about what’s happening to bee colonies with colony collapse disorder (CCD). I’m sure you’ve heard the quote that was attributed to Einstein: “No more bees, no more pollination…no more men!” Do you think this CCD phenomenon - which could threaten our agricultural base (and is now also affecting bats, our beloved mosquito-eaters) is related to climate change?

Emily Fano, Holistic Moms Network

Climate seems to be one part of the equation here, but there are also pesticides implicated, and the general folly of treating bees as industrialized workers, shipping them across the continent every month. The answer here is clear, I think, we need a sustained, steady move in the direction of low-input local agriculture. Which means, among other things, that we need more farmers!

Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of climate change. I am trying to make a difference in my own community and hope to be as bold as you have been. Like many people, I feel great despair over the impending future of our planet and what it will mean to the natural world, including the human race. I fear for my children and their children. What is the thought that you keep in your mind, to give you hope?

Julie Buck, Castle Rock, CO

Julie, thanks for that question. I find that action is the best antidote to despair, for young people as well as old. The inspiring pleasure of organizing a couple of thousand demonstrations across the country at StepItUp, and now of trying to do the same thing globally at 350.org, keeps me from fixating on the darker possibilities. I’m not convinced we’ll win in the end (I did, after all, write a book with the cheery title “The End of Nature”), but I am convinced that we can put up a fight, and that that’s important, and that if we do there’s a chance we’ll have some real effect.

Bill McKibben, Brighter Planet friend and advisor extraordinaire, is back to answer your questions. Remember, if you’d like to ask Bill a question of your own, send it to askbill AT brighterplanet DOT com. We look forward to featuring your questions in upcoming editions!

And if you missed the first edition, check it out.

I think many people would like to have an auto that emits minimal pollutants and I see that Tesla Motors has come out with an auto like this…but it’s $60,000. Way out of the range of the average consumer. This is such a frustrating situation. It’s the same with adding solar to one’s home. The price is such that many people will not even consider it or actually afford it. What can we do to bring about a situation where your average person can afford these devices that will make the world better for all of us?

Rita Childers, Kenab, Utah

Happily, there’s nothing most of us need that costs $60 grand. If you can financially buy a new car, then buy a small hybrid; if you can’t, then work to limit trips and take advantage of public transit. But here’s the really good news: getting politically involved doesn’t cost anything. And if we can win the battles at the highest levels that we’re righting at 350.org, then all of a sudden you’ll find many more choices for each of us in our daily lives.

In your view, what would you say the role of spirituality, especially that of organized Christianity, if any, us in curbing climate change & enhancing sustainability?

Matt Young, St. Lawrence ‘09

I’d say it’s one of the most important developments in the last few years that organized religion seems finally to have joined in this fight. I’m particularly glad that evangelical Christians have broken sharply with the Bush administration orthodoxy and begun putting real political pressure on Washington for a solution. Look — religious institutions are among the last forces in our society that can still posit some reason other than material accumulation for human existence. They are therefore potentially highly subversive. Let’s hope they live up to that Gospel imperative.

Most recommendations to reduce global warming ignore a vital component: meat. The bloody business of meat is greatly implicated in the production of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, the three leading greenhouse gases.

How can we get to 350, or lower, without sharply reducing meat production and consumption, given that the livestock industry produces more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation industry?

Dan Brook, Sociology Dept San Jose State University

I don’t think we can get to 350 with the whole world eating an American diet, heavy in grain-fed beef. We need real changes in diet in the rich world (because we also can’t afford the heath consequences of eating like we do). But replacing factory beef with factory soybeans isn’t the answer, and actually does less for greenhouse emissions than you’d think. We need to head in the direction of local agriculture, and of treating meat, if we eat it at all, the way most of the world’s cuisines do — as a flavor, not a big honking slab.