Today many many groups have put together programs to influence government and involve fellow citizens by displaying irrefutable evidence of change happening right now, not in the future.

Still a majority of our fellow humans are either unaware of advance of global warming or simply refuse to be concerned about it. Many of those people are unaware of acceptable alternative practices and technologies to what they are used to. They believe the question is, “Will most of humanity choose to go without electric light?”

The question the new greens are asking is, “How do we replace the coal-burning plants to ensure base power needs are met while cutting deeply into CO2 emissions?”

Stewart Brand, launching his new book Whole Earth Discipline, spoke of the need to “rethink green” and accept the lesser of two evils – small, 4th generation nuclear power that has negligible carbon footprint compared to coal plants.

I was part of a very vocal anti-Nuke group in the 70s, before and after Three-mile Island. I did research in the library of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. I was strongly opinionated. But I’ve also seen and been part of huge advances in technology over the past 30 years. And I’m convinced that coal could destroy us.

So, I hope we will all keep an open mind and get our priorities straight. We don’t have time to argue the fine points for years on end. We need to see and stimulate real action and change.

The American branch of the organization – ICLEI-USA – makes use of the knowledge developed by ICLEI-Global in a program centered around what it calls the Five Milestones. These are the basic building blocks that local governments must commit to achieving to even qualify for membership. Resolutions must be passed by these governments before ICLEI will engage them in the program.

In essence, ICLEI shares and distributes its knowledge about effective local government action by insisting that its clients enroll in its program. Along with the benefits of being guided through the implementation of sustainable and adaptive processes, member governments get to share with their peers the results of their creative efforts. Many of these can be found on the ICLEI-USA web site under Success Stories. An upcoming online community will provide opportunities for more peer-based knowledge exchange.

I tend to think of knowledge sharing as benefitting from informality in conversation, where participants drop pretenses and rely on trust to reveal what they know. Small scale encounters seem to support more open communication. It’s good to know that knowledge sharing can scale to the institutional level where informality is replaced with structure and some prerequisites that demonstrate commitment to learn. If ever we needed to learn as a planet, now is the time.

Adapting to Climate Change: a Business Approach is a document that all businesses – large, small, local and global – should read.

Climate change represents a new and somewhat daunting topic for many businesses. The challenge is compounded by the diverse and uncertain projections of changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, extreme events, and other effects. This paper outlines a sensible business approach to analyzing and adapting to the physical risks of climate change. It focuses on a critical first step in assessing these climate impacts: understanding the potential risks to business and the importance of taking action to mitigate those risks. Not all businesses need to take action now; this paper develops a qualitative screening process to assess whether a business is likely to be vulnerable to the physical risks associated with climate change, and whether a more detailed risk assessment is warranted.

The facts about the climate speak for themselves. But we now have an opportunity to be the generation – the people living on earth at this critical juncture – that can take the actions required to reverse the catastrophic trends. We don’t want a new climate; we want to keep the one that has allowed so much life to thrive on the planet for so long.

Take a look. It’s stirring stuff, straight from the heart.

That report – called by this article in the Business Post, “the first of its type” – was expected to forecast “reasonably significant changes” in the Irish climate by mid-century. Reading the specifics, as quoted below, I’d go along with the “significant” part. Not so sure about the “reasonably” qualifier, though.

The north and west, the reports finds, are likely to become wetter. The climate change models show that average temperatures are likely to increase by 1 to 1.4 degrees by mid-century and by as much as 33.5 degrees by the end of the century. The models tend to move towards greater uncertainty later in the century, as it is unclear how effective efforts to combat climate change will be.

While variations in average temperatures may seem insignificant, small changes can have huge effects on climate. Two degrees of global warming, it has been estimated, would give Finland a climate similar to that enjoyed by the south of France today. The south of France, meanwhile, would end up with a climate like North Africa’s.

Changes in climate are gradual, but they can cause significant differences within a relatively short period of time. For instance, the study finds that Ireland’s winters are no longer as cold as they were half a century ago – there has been an increase in temperature of about half a degree in the last 50 years.

Winter rainfall is expected to increase. The climate modelling predicts that, in the period 2020-2060, winters will be 5-10 per cent wetter than at present. By the end of the century, the increase in rainfall could be as much as 25 per cent above current levels.

Correspondingly, by mid-century, summer rainfall is predicted to decrease by 5-10 per cent, while by 2100, the decrease is expected to be 10-18 per cent.

Average wind speeds are expected to show small increases in the winter months, and slight decreases in the summer months initially, while, by the end of the century a general decline in wind speeds is expected.

Rising sea temperatures will lead to more intense weather systems, though many of these are expected to be at their worst to the north of Ireland. This country will see fewer but stronger storms, the report predicts.

Storm surges and waves at sea will get bigger, particularly on the west coast. An increase in storm surges of over one metre in height and a parallel increase in the height of waves is predicted.

Alaska’s Climate Impact Assessment Committee issued its report on March 17 and a balanced report it was, recognizing the upside of a warmer Alaska along with the downside. Benefiting the state would be increases in tourism, research and commercial shipping. (Not to be negative, but if the tourism and research are increasing because the environment is changing so fast, those benefits may be not only fleeting, but ironic in the extreme.)

On the other hand, global warming continues to threaten dozens of rural communities on or near the coastline, with accentuated erosion problems. The impact of climate change will also be felt in commercial, sport and subsistence fisheries, and sport and subsistence hunting, as well as in the way the insurance industry deals with Alaska, the report said.

The Committee remanded its recommendations to the governor’s new “sub-cabinet for climate change,” and,

recommended that the Legislature consider a coordinated process for village relocation efforts, a review of capital planning statutes to determine if they meet the needs of potential future impacts, and support of federal efforts on mapping, tide stations, U.S. Coast Guard presence and permafrost thaw.

So Alaska, it seems, will be the first state to begin relocation planning to deal with current and expected climate change impacts. Beside loss of permafrost and migrating coastlines due to the softening of terrain, the committee also forecasts changes in migratory patterns of wildlife that will affect indigenous lifestyles around the Arctic Circle and changes in boreal forests that are increasingly threatened by insect infestations due to warmer winters.

And, of course, the insurance industry has recognized the need for changing its policies in light of Alaska’s altered climate.

The insurance industry also will be reviewing insurance regulations, potentially making significant changes that will be necessary as a result of global warming, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the report noted.

…scientists tell us that poor countries in the developing world, particularly in Africa and Asia, are the most vulnerable. They are likely to be hit hardest by climate change, potentially putting hundreds of thousands of people on the move from climate change-related storms, floods and droughts. In such circumstances, outside militaries may be called on to prevent humanitarian tragedies and broader disorder.

Busby is strongly advocating the position that we should be taking protective and preventative action now, rather than waiting until the impacts are upon us.

As Hurricane Katrina showed, investments in risk reduction are likely to be much cheaper than disaster response. I support substantial investment in risk reduction: coastal defenses, building codes, emergency response plans, and evacuation strategies, among other measures. I also recommend enhanced vulnerability assessments to know where the risks are.

People who resist taking preventative action tend to point to the possibility that such actions will cost money and may be unnecessary, but more arguments are being made lately for designing “no regrets” measures that will provide benefits whether or not they turn out to have prevented damage. Here are Busby’s main concrete recommendations:

Internationally, developing countries need tens of billions, yet the U.S. government has done very little to support this agenda. I recommend several activities to help developing countries prepare for climate change, including $100 million (over several years) for military-to-military environmental security workshops. I recommend another $100 million per year to support an African Risk Reduction Pool, a common fund from which Defense, State, and other agencies would draw from to support security in Africa. These expenditures would be part of a broader international risk reduction effort that I argue should be on par with the president’s five-year, $15 billion emergency plan for AIDS relief.

Adaptation alone, he maintains, will not solve this looming problem. We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly around the planet, which will require much smarter diplomacy than we’ve been practicing lately.