Creating a world powered on clean energy to save ourselves from climate catastrophe is a central challenge of our time, and requires a revolutionary transition in our economies. We can't wait for our leaders to solve this problem; unless they feel serious public pressure, they will never go far enough or fast enough. Revolutions start with people, not politicians.

To survive the 21st century, we must discover the sense of common purpose that has driven revolutionary change through history, building a mass movement to stretch what our politicians believe is possible. We must lead, not follow, and bring leaders with us.

In the years leading up to 2014, as the gap between what the science demanded and our politicians delivered widened, fatalism began to creep into parts of the climate movement. Then a handful of organisers took a major bet on the power of people calling for the largest climate change mobilisation in history to kick-start political momentum.

And wow, did it work. The People's Climate March in September last year was, without any doubt, a game-changer. Nearly 700,000 of us took to the streets, by far the largest climate mobilisation ever. The marches were hopeful, positive, inclusive. Amazingly, around the world, not a single person was arrested. Thousands of organisations, from environmental activists to faith groups to labour unions, came together, showing that climate change is no longer a '��green' issue, it'��s an everyone issue now.

The impact on politicians was palpable. Dozens of top cabinet ministers actually joined the march, as well as UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon. As the roar of the crowd washed over them, I saw the realisation on their faces that they were witnessing history. At the UN summit the next day, leader after leader cited the marches and their intention to be more ambitious.


In the months that followed, experts told us that there was no way that Europe would adopt a target of 'at least 40%' carbon emissions reduction by 2030. But with steady campaigning and the leadership of some of those ministers who attended the march, they did. Then the US and China came out with surprisingly strong emissions commitments, with China committing to peak their emissions by 2030, a massive step. The momentum has continued, with a divestment movement shaming the fossil fuel industry, major corporations embracing clean energy, and the Pope bringing his massive moral credibility to bear on the issue. And the movement has flourished, with thousands of new flowers blooming, and growing direct action activism raising the moral urgency of the issue.

The UN climate summit in Paris this December will be the biggest global climate summit this decade. The national and global stages work in tandem, either dragging each other upward in ambition, or spiralling downward. We must make Paris a moment to seize and build on the momentum. A powerful way to do that would be for the entire world, for the first time, to agree to the goal of a decarbonised global economy powered by clean energy. That would send an immediate signal to clean and dirty energy investors everywhere, accelerating the energy transition that is already underway.

Hope is growing, momentum is with us, but we have been here before. From the Earth Summit in 1992 to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the world has surged forward in the past, only to be knocked back by the toxic politics of the fossil fuel lobby with its junk science and well-funded climate denialism. Each time, the gap between the action we a��re taking and the action our survival requires widens. We need a movement that is built to last, built to win and keep winning, over decades to come.

That is why, on 29 November, the day before world leaders converge in Paris, people will come together again in the streets for the global People's Climate March - to break last year's record for the largest climate change mobilisation in history. In thousands of cities and towns across the planet, we will gather or march for our communities and those already at risk from climate change, for the future of our children and grandchildren, and for a safer world powered by clean energy. We wi��ll show politicians that this is a movement that is here to stay and growing fast. And we wi��ll inspire others to join this 'open source'�� movement with no gatekeepers, no permissions needed - everyone is invited, not just to participate, but to organise and to lead. Because for the climate revolution to change everything, we need everyone.

On 29 November, we march!

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/peoples-climate-march-the-revolution-starts-here

The problem with clean energy/global warming is politics and lack of education on the part of both politicians and the general public. The comment above about the "junk science" of the oil companies is true. It is also true that the "carbon credit" plan of the left is stupid beyond belief.

The real solutions are buried in science and typically politically incorrect.

The only reason nuclear power is expensive is the over regulation of every aspect of construction of a new power plant. Fewer workers have been injured in the nuclear power industry than almost any field. (oil has one of the highest injury rates as does coal) New nuclear power plant designs have addressed virtually every danger and drawback.

With the advent of plug-in hybrid cars, most driving could be done on power derived from the power grid, i.e., nuclear power.

Compressed natural gas vehicles have been around for decades and could cut the cost of driving in half, as well as reducing pollution, but it just doesn't happen. The widespread use of CNG would greatly reduce the impact of Middle East oil and their cartels.

Removal of carbon dioxide from coal power plant stacks has been feasible for years and produces cement in the process, but the cost of adding the equipment is apparently enough to prevent implementation.

Solar cell roof shingles have been around for years and the payback of the energy produced would more than pay the extra cost of the material, but it doesn't happen.

Ground source heat exchangers are FAR more efficient that air/fan based air conditioners but it just hasn't "caught on".

I use the waste heat from my air conditioning to heat my water. My home is super-insulated and zone heated.

Great points there Metalwing.

Although I sympathize with some of your observations and thinking metalwing, you also have a ton of misleading or false statements in your post.

Unfortunately, almost every government regulation of any industry has resulted from someone in that industry committing errors which should have been criminal, but weren't at the time. The regulations aren't always written as well as they ought to be, but whenever they haven't been present, the lure of rapid profits has ALWAYS led someone to take shortcuts with, or entirely ignore safety concerns. IF it is true that the Nuclear industry has significantly fewer human costs, it is likely because that is the one industry which has come into being ENTIRELY within the era of governnment oversight.

Some of the solutions which you and I both favor which have not made as much impact on the world as they might have, has been due more to the fact that we've left such decisions up to the unregulated portions of the capitalist markets. For example, the up-front cost of setting up a nationwide network of natural gas recharging stations and of educating the public well enough that we could switch to that fuel for our vehicles, is what makes it so that gasoline is still more cost effective.

The reason why solar cells aren't more common is capitalism as well. They still aren't as efficient as they need to be, and the technology to store the energy they produce is still wildly more expensive than remaining on the national grid.

Blaming "political correctness" is a very popular straw-man argument these days. It's crap almost every time we hear it. The people who are blamed for "political correctness" haven't had any significant political power in decades. It's private enterprise concerns which cause good things not to happen these days.

I am unaware of any false statements in my post. I have extensive experience in the engineering vs government regulation issues, particularly with those regarding the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant project. Having spent decades dealing with similar issues in other industries, observing the cost impact of unneeded regulation on the "Nukes" was a real eye opener. I doubt you have any real experience.

Back in the sixties, it was "politically correct" to go anti-nuke. Marches and demonstrations, for all practical purposes, shut the industry down by convincing the govt to enact onerous regulation designed to kill the industry. It pretty much did.

Now many of the previous "anti-nuke", green Earth, save-the-planet types have realized that nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, most Earth friendly practical form of power production but are stuck like a tar-baby with the images touted back in the sixties. It's not "politically correct" to want more nukes.

The last thing the oil companies want to do is add natural gas compressors to their service stations (natural gas is available almost everywhere) because there is more profit in petroleum than CNG.

The lack of interest in ground source heat exchangers has more to do with lack of public awareness and available contractors than anything else. The system is very low tech.

The solar shingles are adequately efficient and durable. It would take an effort by the government to use them to create the infrastructure of suppliers and contractors necessary to bleed off business to the general public. Contrary to your remarks, storage is not an issue. The power is simply put into the power grid system. Many solar projects do not have any storage capability.

i take it you have never been to Texas, where thousands of acres of Pecan trees near the old coal plants are just dead from the contaminates they put out? it's very nice and green at glen river nuke plant... nukes have always been the best way to produce energy, no pollutants, well regulated and last a long time...

i just don't see any reason to put them in earthquake, volcano areas...

RROFO
E-85. Brazil did it. Many others have done it. We (Bush)[@merricuhn oil co.] put sanctions on it price it and the vehicles that use it higher and dispersed the very small percentage so far apart you have to use gasoline in between if you even go to where it is.
Biodiesel (cetane 40 vs 45 for most commercially available diesel) burns very dirty comparatively in cars trucks etc designed before it was released on the market, and is still not commonly available locally. Within a 200 mile or so radius there are 2 stations I know of that have or had it. After a $1900 repair bill on my engine that almost died, thank god it was under warranty, I run regular and don't leave black clouds every time I pass someone.
The U.S. Grows more corn than anyone in the world, if all of Brazil can convert to E-85, oh yeah, Dubyah's legacy sanctions, nevermind.
Stop burning coal China!

You are making false assumptions about me, and thereby trying to persuade me to support something I already do support. I have no problem with nuclear power. Just with the claim that the regulations on them are all unnecessary burdens.

http://notrickszone.com/2015/09/14/already-23-papers-supporting-sun-as-major-climate-factor-in-2015-burgeoning-evidence-no-longer-dismissible/

i guess we agree then...

Ahh, the spin begins. I never said ALL the regulations were unnecessary burdens, some specifically were. The way it actually works is the government "targets" an industry like coal. Obama just targeted coal and had the EPA put a "target requirement" of CO2 emissions on coal fired plants that cannot be met with current tech. Instead of gradually increasing the emissions standards like California did with cars, Obama put one huge requirement on the industry in order to kill it. With gradual tightening of standards, an industry can experiment with new tech, such as the one I mentioned, to get the bugs out in pilot programs, before spending the millions to build full scale.

The South Texas Nuclear Plant has three separate cooling systems and the government only recognizes two of them. Most new nukes in the US were stopped by the "permit process".

These are the delusions of the Last Days. False doctrines, delusions, lies of the Devil. Please be wise.

How is that? Would you care to explain how this pertains to this topic?
Or do you randomly preach on any topic without explaining your point of view?