Why Climate Emergency Institute?
In a word because there is a climate and oceans planet emergency vacuum. 

The biggest new reason is the 2015 UN Paris Agreement. Though Paris is welcomed by most parties​​ the non binding national intended emissions targets (INDCs) lead to a more emissions in 2030 (UN Climate Secretariat INDCs) . A post Paris Climate Sec Update of May 2016 showed Paris did nothing- emissions will still be higher in 2030. 

The continued almost universal support for the certain planet 2C policy target, not only denies any emergency but writes off our future. The 1.5C option for billions of the most vulnerable continues to be delayed by pointless expert reviews. ​​

There are just a few climate change planetary emergency organizations or project. ​​

No government has recognized the global climate and oceans planetary emergencys, and only a few NGOs.

The only scientist to do so ​​​is James Hansen (2009 and 2012) - the inspiration for this site and project.

The dangerous climate change denial campaign started in the US ​​ in 1989 with  Global Climate Coalition (GCC), closely followed by the Climate Council and the Information Council on the Environment (ICE). Incredibly
the campaign ​is still managing to sabotage climate change policy to reduce emissions in the US and the UN.  

It is so important to collect all the science that proves climate change and ocean change are real and really dangerous, and which which proves after 25 years of icreasing emissions that we are all in a dire planetary emergency. 

March, 2010 Dealing In Doubt Greenpeace The climate denial industry and climate science - a brief history of attacks on climate science, climate scientists and the IPCC.

March 29015 ​Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists


The planetary emergency basis and proof is today's already total committed global warming, climate ​that ​change, ocean warming and ocean acidification. This site is the only source for basing climate and ocean change assessment on our already committed global warming. 

​Scientists know that we cannot now avoid a global warming far above 2C and so by the 2C limit definition we are in a state of planetary emergency. The 2C policy limit was set by the EU to minimize (not exclude) the risk of runaway climate change, making today's planetary emergency a most dire situation. 

​​We are definitely in a state of planetary emergency, by any definition, due to already committed global and climate change- the evidence is now overwhelming.


​​Yet there is no general acknowledgement of the fact, no emergency mitigation plan, and no emergency preparation.

​​In general, though leading individuals have acknowledged the emergency, it is being denied or ignored by governments and our leading institutions.

There is not one international scientific organization ​​that presents climate change as an emergency.

There is not one international ​​ environmental or social justice organization saying we are in a state climate emergency.

​​​There is no organization investigating the state of the planet as a planetary emergency.

This is really incredible but there must be some reason.

​​Organizations may be afraid of being accused of 'alarmism' - a notion put about by the dangerous climate change denial campaign. Scientists are particularly sensitive of this. 


There is a long established general policy amongst scientists (several notable ​​leading exceptions) not to define what a  'dangerous' climate situation would be which originates with the terms of reference of the IPCC. The reason given is that 'dangerous' is a value judgement  scientists cannot make 'value judgements'.

According to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), however, deciding what constitutes dangerous climate change is a value judgement beyond the remit of the IPCC and perhaps of science itself.

​http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/055.htm



​​​​As a global climate planetary emergency is the most extreme expression of dangerous, scientists in general avoid getting involved and avoid language such as 'disastrous' or 'catastrophic' or 'emergency' that they call 'value judgements'. 

​​"The IPCC does not determine risks and does not define what would constitute dangerous interference with the climate system. The IPCC says that defining the dangerous climate change is a value judgement that only the policy makers can make ... although nobody knows what that means."

(The website Steven Schneider (late) long time lead author of the IPCC)
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Policy/CliPolFrameset.html).

It is perhaps unlikely that the international organizations who we would expect to raise the alarm of a planetary emergency are aware that this is considered a no-go zone for the scientific organizations.
​They are probably waiting for the scientific organizations to pronounce the situation to be an emergency.

​​However most of these organizations have a policy on avoiding sounding the alarm to the public, and this is shared by most scientists. This policy is based on an extraordinary assumption that the public cannot be told anything about global climate change of a potentially catastrophic nature, because the public would be overwhelmed by such an idea and this would be counter-productive. There is no evidence for this assumption and all the evidence is against it.

​​The public is completely unaware of this general avoidance of talking about or warning about the risk of global climate catastrophe and the planetary emergency.

​​The great exception to the above is world leading climate change expert James Hansen whose book Storms of My Grandchildren was published in 2009. The full title of the book is Storms of My Grandchildren The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and our Last Chance to Save Humanity.





Read more about the science behind the need for emergency action.
CLIMATE EMERGENCY INSTITUTE

The Health and Human Rights Approach to Climate Change