Climate Change: We're Doomed

[Huseng]

Recent findings:

• Six massive glaciers in West Antarctica are moving faster than they did 40 years ago, causing more ice to discharge into the ocean and global sea level to rise, according to new research.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153747.htm

[Kim O'Hara]

Recent findings:

• Six massive glaciers in West Antarctica are moving faster than they did 40 years ago, causing more ice to discharge into the ocean and global sea level to rise, according to new research.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 153747.htm

Yep.
We're still not doomed, though.


Kim

[Kim O'Hara]

Excellent interview with Joanna Macy on EcoBuddhism.org: http://www.ecobuddhism.org/wisdom/interviews/jmacy

Eco-philosopher Joanna Macy (b 1929) is a scholar of Buddhism, general systems theory & deep ecology. A respected voice in movements for peace, justice, and ecology, she interweaves her scholarship with four decades of activism.

EB: James Lovelock asserts that America and China will continue to use fossil fuels and compete for the last resources till it is too late. Civilization and most of the great ecosystems will collapse. A human population of a few million might survive around the Arctic Circle.

JM: These are what the Buddha would call “views”. They are based on a lot of scientific evidence, so I take them very seriously. But what it comes down to is that we are here now. So the choice is how to live now. With the little time left, we could wake up more. We could allow this whole experience of the planet, which is intrinsically rewarding, to manifest through our heart-minds—so that the planet may see itself, so that life may see itself. And we can bless it in some way.

EB: From where do you derive the psychic resources to bear witness to all this, while keeping in touch with joy?

JM: There’s a lot of joy in it. I find myself very buoyed by the work I do. I call it the work that re-connects. It involves speaking the truth about what we are facing. I think it’s very hard for people to do that alone, so this work thrives and requires groups.

It needs to be done in groups so we can hear it from each other. Then you realize that it gives a lie to the isolation we have been conditioned to experience in recent centuries, and especially by this hyper-individualist consumer society. People can graduate from their sense of isolation, into a realization of their inter-existence with all.

Yes, it looks bleak. But you are still alive now. You are alive with all the others, in this present moment. And because the truth is speaking in the work, it unlocks the heart. And there’s such a feeling and experience of adventure. It’s like a trumpet call to a great adventure. In all great adventures there comes a time when the little band of heroes feels totally outnumbered and bleak, like Frodo in Lord of the Rings or Pilgrim in Pilgrim’s Progress. You learn to say “It looks bleak. Big deal, it looks bleak.”

Kim

[Zhen Li]

Societal collapse would be marvellous.

[dzogchungpa]

Societal collapse would be marvellous.

What makes you say that?

[Zhen Li]

My keyboard.

[Kim O'Hara]

The IPCC has just released its Working Group 2 report, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
If I had to dumb it all down to one sentence, it would be something like, "We're even more sure of what we've been saying all along, and if we don't change our ways really quickly there will be enormous suffering by the end of this century."
RealClimate discusses the report in a few hundred well chosen words at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -approved/.
But you can read the "Summary for Policy-makers" for yourselves - pdf from http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/ ... proved.pdf. It is fairly long at ~ 40 pages but is not too technical for the average informed reader.


Kim

[Zhen Li]

I don't know why they tease people like that. If they really believe their own words, it's too late.

[Kim O'Hara]

I don't know why they tease people like that. If they really believe their own words, it's too late.

They do really believe their own words and they say it's not too late. See for yourself - read the SPM or even the RealClimate piece I linked to.


Kim

[Zhen Li]

Well, I don't know if we can really know what they believe in their hearts, but just as reputable, and more reputable, resources were claiming it would be too late, around what would now be a decade ago.

[Kim O'Hara]

Well, I don't know if we can really know what they believe in their hearts, but just as reputable, and more reputable, resources were claiming it would be too late, around what would now be a decade ago.

(1) It is too late to avoid harm altogether but it is most assuredly not too late to avoid some of the harm that will come our way if we simply sit on our hands and say it's too late. Defeatism plays straight into the hands of the (mostly fossil-fuel funded) denialists.
(2) Who on earth were your "more reputable resources"? Please identify them so sensible people can judge the validity of your claim.


Kim

[Zhen Li]

1. Who does what to avoid what?
2. James Hansen.

[Kim O'Hara]

1. Who does what to avoid what?

I think you're being deliberately obtuse.

2. James Hansen.

(a) James Hansen is certainly a leading climate scientist. Whether he, by himself, is "more reputable" than a few hundred leading climate scientists cross-checking each others' work in the IPCC is debatable.
(b) Show us where, anyway.


Kim

[Vasana]

I think from the conext of suffering that has not yet ripened for ourselves and others, people should naturally have a concern.It's increasingly difficult for people to encounter teaching and be able practice if the world around them is turbulent.

I also hope climate change is renamed something more appropriate soon with emphasis on the steps required for solution as opposed to simply just watching and talking about it change for so long.

The state of the outer world and our conciousness are one and the same. The more turbulent and unsettled our minds, individually and collectively, the more unsettled the elements will be unless we see the inter-connection and act from it.

[Kaccāni]

Too late to avoid big time change in nature? That it probably is.
Too late to avoid bigger time change? Who knows ...
Will going on like this aggravate it? Likely.

Best wishes
Gwenn

[Kim O'Hara]

Hi, Gwenn,
I think we can be more definite.

Too late to avoid big time change in nature? That it probably is.

Certainly is. We can see the effects already.

Too late to avoid bigger time change? Who knows ...

Certainly isn't. With a bit of collective willpower, we can shift away from fossil fuels faster than we have been doing. We can plant more trees than we have been doing. Etc, etc.

Will going on like this aggravate it? Likely.

If you mean, "Will business as usual aggravate it?" the answer is, unfortunately, "Certainly."
If you mean "Will keeping on talking about it aggravate it?" the answer is, "No." The amount of hot air (even virtual hot air) we create is negligible.


Kim

Edit: fixed typo

[Zhen Li]

Assuming that reducing fossil fuel usage will stop (?), or slow (?) climate change (which I don't grant), the question is whether having will power is enough to have any impact on the political momentum of China's current energy policy, let alone those of less polluting nations. Fundamentally this feels to me like groping in the dark. Suppose everyone paid the price of regressing in standard of living for decades, frantically planting trees and doing with either shortages of electricity or no electricity, and the climate cools—is that really worth more than adapting to the warmer world? I definitely believe that there is an irresponsible amount of scaremongering going on about the effects of a climate that is warmer by 1-3 degrees. The world isn't going to end, we can easily adjust to different shorelines and more northerly farming regions. Remember a few years ago when the mainstream media (which you believe is trustworthy) claimed that an increase in 3 degrees would kill all marine life? Some of these people are either seriously scaremongering as best they can, are crazy, or live on a different planet (haven't they ever studied marine palaeontology?).

[Kim O'Hara]

Assuming that reducing fossil fuel usage will stop (?), or slow (?) climate change (which I don't grant), the question is whether having will power is enough to have any impact on the political momentum of China's current energy policy, let alone those of less polluting nations. Fundamentally this feels to me like groping in the dark. Suppose everyone paid the price of regressing in standard of living for decades, frantically planting trees and doing with either shortages of electricity or no electricity, and the climate cools—is that really worth more than adapting to the warmer world? I definitely believe that there is an irresponsible amount of scaremongering going on about the effects of a climate that is warmer by 1-3 degrees. The world isn't going to end, we can easily adjust to different shorelines and more northerly farming regions. Remember a few years ago when the mainstream media (which you believe is trustworthy) claimed that an increase in 3 degrees would kill all marine life? Some of these people are either seriously scaremongering as best they can, are crazy, or live on a different planet (haven't they ever studied marine palaeontology?).

Before I respond to this, where's that James Hansen quote I asked for?

Assuming that reducing fossil fuel usage will stop (?), or slow (?) climate change (which I don't grant),

Okay, you are beginning by rejecting the advice of virtually the whole climate science community. Not a good start.

the question is whether having will power is enough to have any impact on the political momentum of China's current energy policy, let alone those of less polluting nations. Fundamentally this feels to me like groping in the dark.

You are out of date. China is trying hard to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, precisely because it knows the problems (pollution now, climate change soon) they bring. China is a world leader in renewables.Other countries, mostly in Europe, are doing well - see (e.g.) http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/13/3-e ... ver-guess/

Suppose everyone paid the price of regressing in standard of living for decades, frantically planting trees and doing with either shortages of electricity or no electricity, and the climate cools—is that really worth more than adapting to the warmer world?

Once again, you're behind the times - a long way behind. Nicholas Stern told us in 2006 that dealing with climate change is going to throw the world into a decades-long recession if we don't act to avoid it. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

I definitely believe that there is an irresponsible amount of scaremongering going on about the effects of a climate that is warmer by 1-3 degrees. The world isn't going to end, we can easily adjust to different shorelines and more northerly farming regions. Remember a few years ago when the mainstream media (which you believe is trustworthy) claimed that an increase in 3 degrees would kill all marine life? Some of these people are either seriously scaremongering as best they can, are crazy, or live on a different planet (haven't they ever studied marine palaeontology?).

Please read the IPCC report, or even one of the summaries of it instead of relying on "I definitely think", which is code for "Last time I looked at the evidence, I concluded".


Kim

[Zhen Li]

We've been through this before, and everyone has an answer for everything. I just happen to think the answers against APGH make more sense than those for - I have no particular interest in this being the case, and haven't received any money for holding this opinion, I just scrutinise every argument I'm presented with and balance it against opposing arguments. At best (measured in terms of how pro-APGH I would be) I can at times be agnostic, but at most I tend to oppose. Personally, you sound a bit like a Minister for the Environment to me.

Prominent pro-APGH climate scientists say this stuff all the time, you can find it everywhere. Here's millionaire vested-interest-doc Hansen's simply for an instance, since you asked,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... nsen-obama

[Kim O'Hara]

Prominent pro-APGH climate scientists say this stuff all the time, you can find it everywhere. Here's millionaire vested-interest-doc Hansen's simply for an instance, since you asked,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... nsen-obama

Thanks. But he doesn't say that doing nothing in (e.g.) Obama's second term will not improve the outcomes, whether or not Obama showed the leadership he (Hansen) wanted. Your quote therefore does not support your claim.

We've been through this before, and everyone has an answer for everything. I just happen to think the answers against APGH make more sense than those for - I have no particular interest in this being the case, and haven't received any money for holding this opinion, I just scrutinise every argument I'm presented with and balance it against opposing arguments. At best (measured in terms of how pro-APGH I would be) I can at times be agnostic, but at most I tend to oppose.

I said before that "I definitely think" is code for "Last time I looked at the evidence, I concluded". I will add "I just scrutinise every argument I'm presented with and balance it against opposing arguments" to the list, since "opposing arguments" are your existing beliefs.
Thank you for agreeing that you have nothing useful to add to the discussion.


Kim