Greetings, intelligent viewers. On today’s program, we’ll go to the media to review, degree by degree, climate change impact scenarios of the future that necessitate urgent drastic action today. Then, we’ll look at two more articles on how effective mitigation can and must take place.

At the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference that just ended in Cancún, Mexico, leaders focused on the goal of keep the global average temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius to avoid most serious climate change impacts. This includes the 0.7 degrees increase already reached since pre-industrial times.

Others, however, called for even stronger greenhouse gas reduction goals to keep warming below 1.5 degrees. Researchers tell us that we are on track to a 4 degree temperature rise by 2060 and 6 degrees by 2100. What do these temperature increases mean? How do they translate to changes we can see around us?

Award winning British author Mark Lynas is a specialist on climate change who wrote three books on the subject: “High Tide: News from a Warming World,” “Carbon Calculator,” and “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet.”

Mr. Lynas’s book “Six Degrees” won the prestigious Royal Society Prize for Science Books and, along with “High Tide,” are listed on the “Environment top 25 of all time” bestseller list. “Six Degrees” was also the basis of a television documentary by National Geographic.

The following is Mr. Lynas’ article which was written for “The Guardian,” a UK-based major newspaper, on April 14, 2009, a slightly updated précis of the book, “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet.” The article is titled, “Climate Change Explained: The Impact of Temperature Rises.”

“Less than 2C Arctic sea icecap disappears, leaving polar bears homeless and changing the Earth’s energy balance dramatically as reflective ice is replaced during summer months by darker sea surface. Now expected by 2030 or even earlier.

Tropical coral reefs suffer severe and repeated bleaching episodes due to hotter ocean waters, killing off most coral and delivering a hammer blow to marine biodiversity. Droughts spread through the sub-tropics, accompanied by heatwaves and intense wildfires. Worst-hit are the Mediterranean, the south-west United States, southern Africa and Australia.

2C-3C Summer heatwaves such as that in Europe in 2003, which killed 30,000 people, become annual events. Extreme heat sees temperatures reaching the low 40s Celsius in southern England. Amazon rainforest crosses a “tipping point” where extreme heat and lower rainfall makes the forest unviable – much of it burns and is replaced by desert and savannah.

Dissolved CO2 turns the oceans increasingly acidic, destroying remaining coral reefs and wiping out many species of plankton which are the basis of the marine food chain. Several meters of sea level rise is now inevitable as the Greenland ice sheet disappears.

3C-4C Glacier and snow-melt in the world’s mountain chains depletes freshwater flows to downstream cities and agricultural land. Most affected are California, Peru, Pakistan and China. Global food production is under threat as key breadbaskets in Europe, Asia and the United States suffer drought, and heatwaves outstrip the tolerance of crops.

The Gulf Stream current declines significantly. Cooling in Europe is unlikely due to global warming, but oceanic changes alter weather patterns and lead to higher than average sea level rise in the eastern US and UK.

4C-5C Another tipping point sees massive amounts of methane – a potent greenhouse gas – released by melting Siberian permafrost, further boosting global warming. Much human habitation in southern Europe, north Africa, the Middle East and other sub-tropical areas is rendered unviable due to excessive heat and drought.

The focus of civilization moves towards the poles, where temperatures remain cool enough for crops, and rainfall – albeit with severe floods – persists. All sea ice is gone from both poles; mountain glaciers are gone from the Andes, Alps and Rockies.

5C-6C Global average temperatures are now hotter than for 50m years. The Arctic region sees temperatures rise much higher than average – up to 20C – meaning the entire Arctic is now ice-free all year round. Most of the topics, sub-tropics and even lower mid-latitudes are too hot to be inhabitable. Sea level rise is now sufficiently rapid that coastal cities across the world are largely abandoned.

6C and above Danger of “runaway warming,” perhaps spurred by release of oceanic methane hydrates. Could the surface of the Earth become like Venus, entirely uninhabitable? Most sea life is dead. Human refuges now confined entirely to highland areas and the polar regions. Human population is drastically reduced. Perhaps 90% of species become extinct, rivaling the worst mass extinctions in the Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history.

With each added degree of temperature, the impacts compound in the range and extent of devastation. Changes can occur abruptly. How can we stay within safe limits of planetary warming?

Ecological economists at Dalhousie University in Canada have undertaken one of the most holistic analyses to date on the effect of dietary choices on the environment, and point to an important factor in minimizing temperature rise.

The following is an excerpt of Reuters’ report on the new study, by Gerard Wynn, London-based journalist who has helped coordinate Reuters global coverage of green business and environmental markets. Mr. Wynn’s article, as published on October 4, 2010, is titled “Meat Diets Pose Environmental Danger: Report.”

“People will have to cut meat from their diets if the world is to stay within safer limits of planet-warming greenhouse gases, nitrate pollution and habitat destruction, according to a journal article published on Monday. Experts agree that eating plant products can be better for the environment, because eating meat involves consuming animals which are themselves raised on plants, a less efficient process.

But there is some controversy about just how far people should shun meat for vegetables and grains to curb damage to the environment, partly because of wide disagreement about exactly what those impacts are.

Monday's paper used coarse estimates to argue that, on current trends, livestock farming on its own -- disregarding all other human activity – - would push the world near danger levels for climate change and habitat destruction by mid-century.

"We suggest that reining in growth of this sector should be prioritized," said the authors from Canada's Dalhousie University, in their article titled "Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000-2050."

The paper described "a profound disconnect between the anticipated scale of potential environmental impacts associated with projected livestock production levels and even the most optimistic mitigation strategies." Solutions to the problem included using best practice such as substituting manure for nitrogen fertilizers, and increasing agricultural productivity, said the paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

But efficiency gains would not be enough. Per capita meat consumption would have to be cut. "Across the board reductions in per capita consumption of livestock products should ... be a policy priority," it said.”

The new Canadian study clearly stated that animal product consumption must be significantly reduced as a policy priority. But how far should we go if we were to avoid the dangerous climate change scenarios?

Forbes Magazine’s Senior Editor Matthew Herper explored the issue through an interview with US Stanford University biochemist Dr. Patrick O. Brown. The article, which appeared in the global business magazine’s “Thought Leaders” section, had the catchy headline: “Drop That Burger: Biotech whiz Pat Brown makes the global-warming case against animal farming.” The following is an excerpt:

“Over the next 18 months Brown, 55, will take a break from his normal scientific work (finding out how a small number of genes are translated into a much larger number of proteins) in order to change the way the world farms and eats…

Brown, who has been a vegetarian for more than 30 years and a vegan for 5, notes that while livestock accounts for only 9% of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions, it accounts for 37% of human-caused methane (most of it emanating from the animals' digestive systems) and 65% of human-caused nitrous oxide, according to the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Both are far better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, meaning that cows, chickens and their ilk have a larger greenhouse effect than all the cars, trucks and planes in the world. …Brown brings scientific clout to the debate – he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences and an investigator for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute – and a realization that the arguments for change need to be economic, not just ethical.

Growing crops to feed animals requires a lot more land, energy and fertilizer than growing them to feed people, he says… "There's absolutely no possibility that 50 years from now this system will be operating as it does now," says Brown.

"One approach is to just wait, and either we'll deal with it or we'll be toast. I want to approach this as a solvable problem." Solution: "Eliminate animal farming on planet Earth."

On July 29, 2010, “The Guardian” published the observation of American journalist Joseph Mayton, who is based in Cairo, Egypt, that “Vegetarianism is Not Contrary to Arab Culture.” Mr. Mayton explained that giving up meat in the Middle East could solve economic and environmental challenges, such as climate change-caused food insecurity. Here, Egypt represents many other countries in a similar situation.

“In Egypt, for example, we see that hundreds of thousands of cattle are imported into the country for slaughter; lentils, wheat and other staples of the Egyptian diet are also imported. That all costs money. If Egypt were to promote and incorporate vegetarianism into its economic policy, the millions of Egyptians who struggle and complain about the rising costs of meat could be fed.

It takes around 16kg of animal feed to produce one kilo of meat for consumption. That's a lot of money and food that could serve the hungry population. According to Hossam Gamal, a researcher at the Egyptian agriculture ministry, "the exact amount of money that could be saved by reducing meat production is unknown, but I have estimated it to be in the billions [of dollars]".

…By reducing the need for meat, he argues, "we could, simultaneously, increase health of people, feed more and increase our local economies through the use of farmland for crops that we are currently importing, such as lentils and beans."

We appreciate the journalists and media groups around the world informing us of the urgency of climate change as well as the necessary and most effective solutions. Thank you for joining us on today’s program. Please stay tuned to Supreme Master Television for Words of Wisdom, next after Noteworthy News. Blessed be your courage and wisdom, imbued with love.

To read the full articles presented, please visit the following websites: “Climate Change Explained: The Impact of Temperature Rises”

“Meat Diets Pose Environmental Danger: Report”

“Thought Leaders: Drop That Burger”

“Vegetarianism is Not Contrary to Arab Culture”