Climate Change: We're Doomed

[viniketa]

The same thing can be said about what you and Viniketa have put forth.

Could you please point to something I have put forth that appears to be a quarter or half truth?

Thank you.

[pueraeternus]

The same thing can be said about what you and Viniketa have put forth.

Could you please point to something I have put forth that appears to be a quarter or half truth?

Admittedly most of that is pointed towards Kim. I do have issues with the characterization that our stance is doom and gloom. To me, that is not an accurate characterization, since we (or at least, I) are not saving that there is absolutely nothing to be done, but rather that based on the current trajectory and geopolitical realities, a great deal more needs to be done, and the green movement alone is not going to effect any change. Huseng, greentara and I have alluded to the structural problem of the current global economic model, and the stranglehold of the tripartite of corporate, military and political powers, that will ensure consumption beyond capacity to preserve their short-term interests.

[viniketa]

... based on the current trajectory and geopolitical realities, a great deal more needs to be done...

No problem with this statement, as it can be backed-up and is absolutely accurate.

... the green movement alone is not going to effect any change....

Totalizing statements such as this, however, cannot be accurate. I would agree that the "green movement" alone is unlikely to be enough to deflect the current trajectory, but it is already resulting in some change.

... structural problem of the current global economic model, and the stranglehold of the tripartite of corporate, military and political powers, that will ensure consumption beyond capacity to preserve their short-term interests.

No doubt, the "tripartite" will do its best to ensure we stay beyond capacity, and it is likely to succeed, which is not the same as a foregone conclusion they will succeed.

I suppose my biggest objection is that statements along the lines of "there's nothing we can do" or "it'll happen no matter what we do" are all too often used as excuses to actually not try to do anything. I don't know the future, but I do know that if we give in to such self-fulfilling prophecies, it is definite no change will take place.

[Kim O'Hara]

The same thing can be said about what you and Viniketa have put forth.

Could you please point to something I have put forth that appears to be a quarter or half truth?

Admittedly most of that is pointed towards Kim (1). I do have issues with the characterization that our stance is doom and gloom. To me, that is not an accurate characterization, since we (or at least, I) are not saving that there is absolutely nothing to be done (2), but rather that based on the current trajectory and geopolitical realities, a great deal more needs to be done, and the green movement alone is not going to effect any change. Huseng, greentara and I have alluded to the structural problem of the current global economic model, and the stranglehold of the tripartite of corporate, military and political powers, that will ensure consumption beyond capacity to preserve their short-term interests.

(1) Okay - identify it for me.
(2) Huseng is saying exactly that - look at the thread title - and you are supporting him. I don't remember anything you have posted earlier in this thread which is not pure 'doom and gloom' but says, 'Hey, we can get out of this,' or 'It isn't really going to be all that bad," If there was something like that, can you find it for me while you're looking for my quarter-truths?


Kim

Edit: fixed typo

[Nemo]

What makes me Mr. Doom is that I knew all this was in the cards when I was and environmentalist in the 1980's. Back then it would have been easy. Many of today's "solutions" could have worked and billions of humans would have been sacrificed to live in perpetual poverty. It was a deal with the devil but the world would be saved. Before globalization and the corporate power grab that destroyed journalism and localized participatory democracy. I watched as powers actively mobilized to stop environmentalism. They won so easily. Watching them gloat for 25 years may have jaded my sentiments.

This cynical old bastard did save some of your ozone layer, prevented a fair bit of North American water pollution and saved a few whales though. But this late in the game eating vegan and replacing your light bulbs is frivolous. Today anything less than a Sea Shepherd level of resolution is insignificant.

[Kim O'Hara]

What makes me Mr. Doom is that I knew all this was in the cards when I was an environmentalist in the 1980's.

Thank you, Nemo.
I am sad for you that your experiences have made you so pessimistic, but I am glad that you realise the origin of your pessimism is not factual but psychological - or at least more psychological than factual.
I too have been involved in environmental action for decades, although never full-time, and I have seen my share of lost battles. But I choose not to become a Mr Doom. It's a very conscious choice based on two propositions which I'm sure you will understand, even if you can't share them.
(1) The problem is not by any means monolithic. This isn't a twenty-ton boulder falling from on high which will either miss me completely or splatter me completely. Rather, it is a slow-moving tide of sand which I can try to outrun or shovel aside or call on friends to help build a wall against or ... lots of palliative things. And every little thing that every little person does, does make our future a little more positive.
(2) If I give in, the bastards have won.

never-give-up-frog.jpg (36.2 KiB) Viewed 338 times

Kim

[Nemo]

I am glad that you realise the origin of your pessimism is not factual but psychological - or at least more psychological than factual.
(2) If I give in, the bastards have won.

It's actually based on personal observations and scientific data. To be so unrealistically optimistic now is more self serving than naive. Most non-activist scientists hold views similar to my own based solely on their research. I know because I protested with them this summer. They were being fired by our ultraright wing parliament and our environmental regulations gutted because the truth conflicts with those powers that took the reins. There is a point where naivete becomes clinging to childish things that no longer work. Your solutions are ridiculous at this point. They may have worked when they were first proposed 25 years ago but it originally stipulated that billions stay in poverty and undeveloped.

[pueraeternus]

... the green movement alone is not going to effect any change....

Totalizing statements such as this, however, cannot be accurate. I would agree that the "green movement" alone is unlikely to be enough to deflect the current trajectory, but it is already resulting in some change.

Oh I think such "totalizing statements" are certainly accurate, since I said the "green movement alone"is not going to effect any change. It is not going to effect any change because the green movement on its own, is still operating under the current monetary economic system, which calculates economic progress by consumption.

... structural problem of the current global economic model, and the stranglehold of the tripartite of corporate, military and political powers, that will ensure consumption beyond capacity to preserve their short-term interests.

No doubt, the "tripartite" will do its best to ensure we stay beyond capacity, and it is likely to succeed, which is not the same as a foregone conclusion they will succeed.

What do you mean? They are already succeeding and yet you do not see it. The fact that they are succeeding doesn't mean things can never change and they get defeated, but this will have to involve a much greater effort on areas outside the green movement. In fact, this effort has to be so great that if it occurs, it will have to be revolution on a global scale that has never ever happened before in the history of mankind.

The funny thing is that this revolution will certainly occur, under two possible situations - either forced upon the whole human race due to the utter collapse of our ecological, cultural and socio-political spheres (but there won't be much left and it will take a long time for the remaining few million humans to emerge from the ruins of our world wars), or before ultimate disaster happens, humanity realize the iron cage it has lived under and forcefully overturn the current power structures.

I suppose my biggest objection is that statements along the lines of "there's nothing we can do" or "it'll happen no matter what we do" are all too often used as excuses to actually not try to do anything. I don't know the future, but I do know that if we give in to such self-fulfilling prophecies, it is definite no change will take place.

Personally, I am not saying that "there's nothing we can do", but rather to change the course, a huge shift will have to occur and it will be extremely difficult to carry it out. This is not excuse for anything, but rather a necessary exercise in correctly understanding what we are dealing with - before any effective change can be carried, this is the crucial first step, which I think Kim (and maybe you?) here is not seeing eye to eye with us (no problem - that is why we are discussing this). This green movement mentality can actually be harmful - since it can blind one to the actual causes of the problem, and end up spending all that effort and time towards something that is not going to prevent the slide towards catastrophe.

[viniketa]

A number of folks seem to be reading things into what few statements I've contributed this thread that are not there. I've two major objections to the tone of this thread.

#1 - Society is inherently evil and can be no other way because people are inherently evil

#2 - There is only ONE POSSIBLE outcome to our current energy crunch/crises which is the total collapse of society and a return to some legendary "good old days".

[pueraeternus]

Admittedly most of that is pointed towards Kim (1).
(1) Okay - identify it for me.

I already did - please see my responses to Viniketa. In summary - this wedge-theory and all that is not going to change anything, and to me that can be characterized as a half/quarter truth, based on your criteria of criticizing Huseng's statements as "wheelbarrows full of half/quarter truths". He provided a lot of hard facts, and your assertion that his claims are not credible and not of expert opinion are laughable, considering the same can be easily said of your positions.

(2) Huseng is saying exactly that - look at the thread title - and you are supporting him.

I qualified myself by saying "at least, I" - I think Huseng's thread title is just to catch the eye.

...' but says, 'Hey, we can get out of this,' or 'It isn't really going to be all that bad," If there was something like that, can you find it for me while you're looking for my quarter-truths?

To me, your optimism is misguided. Just as what I said earlier to Viniketa, and what Nemo said just now is very succinct, so I will quote him here:

To be so unrealistically optimistic now is more self serving than naive. Most non-activist scientists hold views similar to my own based solely on their research. I know because I protested with them this summer. They were being fired by our ultraright wing parliament and our environmental regulations gutted because the truth conflicts with those powers that took the reins. There is a point where naivete becomes clinging to childish things that no longer work. Your solutions are ridiculous at this point. They may have worked when they were first proposed 25 years ago but it originally stipulated that billions stay in poverty and undeveloped.

[pueraeternus]

A number of folks seem to be reading things into what few statements I've contributed this thread that are not there. I've two major objections to the tone of this thread.

#1 - Society is inherently evil and can be no other way because people are inherently evil

Objection: my view (can't speak for the others) is that the current system we live under in inherently destructive and unsustainable. To me, people are not inherently evil, but rather samsaric people are full of afflictions, hence their actions tend to concerned with self-interests, and we do live in an era where the environment is not conducive or supportive of encouraging virtues.

#2 - There is only ONE POSSIBLE outcome to our current energy crunch/crises which is the total collapse of society and a return to some legendary "good old days".

Objection: One VERY VERY LIKELY outcome, unless there is concerted effort at overturning the current power structures, and changing light bulbs and planting trees in the city parks are not going to cut it.

[pueraeternus]

Not to belabor the so-called "doom and gloom", but here's another interesting article from Der Spiegel:
Humanity Is Still on the Way to Destroying Itself

[treehuggingoctopus]

You'll quote yours, I'll quote mine:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/1 ... ?mobile=nc

Back to lurking.
Great to have you here, Kim and Viniketa.

[anjali]

One good article deserves another: http://ecowatch.org/2012/scientists-pre ... -collapse/

From the article,

The authors note that studies of small-scale ecosystems show that once 50-90 percent of an area has been altered, the entire ecosystem tips irreversibly into a state far different from the original, in terms of the mix of plant and animal species and their interactions. This situation typically is accompanied by species extinctions and a loss of biodiversity.

Currently, to support a population of 7 billion people, about 43 percent of Earth’s land surface has been converted to agricultural or urban use, with roads cutting through much of the remainder. The population is expected to rise to 9 billion by 2045; at that rate, current trends suggest that half Earth’s land surface will be disturbed by 2025. To Barnosky, this is disturbingly close to a global tipping point.

If you would like to read more about scientific meaning of a tipping point, check out this article: http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... ate-change

There is a point of no return--a tipping point. As children are often prone to ask on a long road trip, Are we there yet?

[Kim O'Hara]

One good article deserves another: http://ecowatch.org/2012/scientists-pre ... -collapse/

From the article,

The authors note that studies of small-scale ecosystems show that once 50-90 percent of an area has been altered, the entire ecosystem tips irreversibly into a state far different from the original, in terms of the mix of plant and animal species and their interactions. This situation typically is accompanied by species extinctions and a loss of biodiversity.

Currently, to support a population of 7 billion people, about 43 percent of Earth’s land surface has been converted to agricultural or urban use, with roads cutting through much of the remainder. The population is expected to rise to 9 billion by 2045; at that rate, current trends suggest that half Earth’s land surface will be disturbed by 2025. To Barnosky, this is disturbingly close to a global tipping point.

If you would like to read more about scientific meaning of a tipping point, check out this article: http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... ate-change

There is a point of no return--a tipping point. As children are often prone to ask on a long road trip, Are we there yet?

Thanks for joining the conversation, anjali, especially with such a useful resource.
That article presents a position that I have been characterising as 'mainstream' and agree with myself: that we face serious problems but we are not doomed unless we do nothing. I will pull out quotes from it which make that position clear (emphasis in each case is mine)

A prestigious group of scientists from around the world is warning that population growth, widespread destruction of natural ecosystems and climate change may be driving Earth toward an irreversible change in the biosphere, a planet-wide tipping point that would have destructive consequences absent adequate preparation and mitigation.

The authors of the Nature review ... argue that, although many warning signs are emerging, no one knows how close Earth is to a global tipping point, or if it is inevitable.

They concluded that there is an urgent need for global cooperation to reduce world population growth and per-capita resource use, replace fossil fuels with sustainable sources, develop more efficient food production and distribution without taking over more land, and better manage the land and ocean areas not already dominated by humans as reservoirs of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

“My view is that humanity is at a crossroads now, where we have to make an active choice,” Barnosky said. “One choice is to acknowledge these issues and potential consequences and try to guide the future (in a way we want to). The other choice is just to throw up our hands and say, ‘Let’s just go on as usual and see what happens.’ My guess is, if we take that latter choice, yes, humanity is going to survive, but we are going to see some effects that will seriously degrade the quality of life for our children and grandchildren.”

Your question, anjali, (Are we there yet?) is not as sensible as it looks because it implies that there is one particular tipping point for the whole world and that it is clearly enough defined that we can locate it.
That isn't so. Rather, there are lots of tipping points - one for each species facing extinction, for instance, and one for each patch of grassland facing desertification, and one for each low-lying coastal area facing flooding from sea-level rise - and most of them are not clear-cut. (For instance, has an 'extinction' tipping point been reached when the species can no longer survive in the wild, or when the last breeding population is small enough for inbreeding to be a problem, or when the last breeding pair dies?)
Each of these tipping points is to some extent a separate battle. Winning any of these battles will often help in other battles but losing one is not a tipping point for the whole world.
As I said to Nemo, "The problem is not by any means monolithic. This isn't a twenty-ton boulder falling from on high which will either miss me completely or splatter me completely. Rather, it is a slow-moving tide of sand which I can try to outrun or shovel aside or call on friends to help build a wall against or ... lots of palliative things."


Kim

[Indrajala]

In fact, this effort has to be so great that if it occurs, it will have to be revolution on a global scale that has never ever happened before in the history of mankind.

It would also mean voluntarily accepting poverty and giving up a lot of our toys. In a world where a lot of people are unaware of or unconvinced of climate change, they're not going to stay poor or become poor.

Like I keep saying, countries like Indonesia, China and India will not give up economic growth and to hell with environmental consequences.

The idea of sacrificing for the sake of the planet is generally limited to a segment of the First World I suspect.

[Indrajala]

#2 - There is only ONE POSSIBLE outcome to our current energy crunch/crises which is the total collapse of society and a return to some legendary "good old days".

I mentioned a dark age complete with environmental destruction and a vast population reduction.

There's nothing good about that. But that's kaliyuga ... it only gets worse over time.

[anjali]

Like I keep saying, countries like Indonesia, China and India will not give up economic growth and to hell with environmental consequences.

Is this really true? For example, I've heard horror stories about large scale environmental degradation in China. If this is true, then China is headed for a train wreck at some point. Over the years I've followed the work of Lester Brown at the Earth Policy Institute. I think he is a good guy with good information about the realities of where we are at. For example, we don't hear much about the global fresh water deficit, but it is real and problematic: http://www.earth-policy.org/book_bytes/2011/wotech2_ss2. "If business as usual continues, the question for each country overpumping its aquifers is not whether its food bubble will burst, but when—and how the government will cope with it. For some countries, the bursting of the bubble may well be catastrophic. And the near-simultaneous bursting of several national food bubbles could create unmanageable food shortages, posing an imminent threat to global food security and political stability."

You can read the whole book he wrote, World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse, here: http://www.earth-policy.org/books/wote. Also, take a look at the slideshow here: http://www.earth-policy.org/books/wote/ ... esentation. It's very informative.

I'm not a gloom and doom kind of guy, but I am pragmatist. There are nasty trends in motion that show no signs of abating. In particular, the link between diminishing water supplies and ever increasing land cultivation (per my previous post) is enough to give anyone pause. Of course there are solutions--that's never has been the issue. The issue is the sheer magnitude of the problem and the limited time to do anything globally game-changing.

[Indrajala]

The issue is the sheer magnitude of the problem and the limited time to do anything globally game-changing.

Well the recent climate change summit in Doha amounted to a lot of hot air. They might implement something in eight years, maybe not... Anything they say can be ignored. You can't force China and India to halt industrial development.

Carbon emissions actually increased this year as I pointed out above. The growing economies of Asia have slowed down somewhat, but industrial development rapidly continues.

Earlier Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty and sacked a bunch of government scientists who were the last line of formal warning in respect to environmental problems. Now the government can do anything it wants and if any private scientists voice their concerns they can be safely ignored. So there's one nominally liberal-minded and kind of green country throwing environmental concerns out the window for short term gains. Did people object? Sure, but the government still got away with it (they're actually not legitimate because of election fraud, but that seems to be a non-issue now).

Actually the problem with Canadians, like most people, is that while they claim to be concerned about the environment, it doesn't really matter to them provided the immediate effects remain out of their yard. That's why there is minimal political will to do anything substantial about climate change except for hosting expensive meetings in air conditioned conference centers where everyone flies in from other continents.

[Kim O'Hara]

Huseng, Nemo, peterpan,
Food for thought for you: http://www.alternet.org/environment/are-koch-brothers-single-biggest-obstacle-preventing-disastrous-climate-change
Which side are you on?


Kim