Climate Change: We're Doomed

[Kim O'Hara]

... To remedy our problems requires reducing industry ...
We need to consume less altogether...

Yay!

Thank you, Huseng!

There is a way out. We are not doomed!!
Now let's work on the details.



Kim

[Thrasymachus]

You have serious problems if you think you have the power or agency to make any significant impact. It seems that you manifest this in a nasty way by badgering people with more realistic views about how rosy things are, and that because of the allegedly negative things say, they promote passivity. The chances are dismal for the largely unconsidered prospects of making any significant structural change. What you are doing Kim is promoting delusion.

There are people even now who live very sustainable lives, the problem is they are small band or tribal societies and they are endangered. The affluent societies that everyone is posting from, are totally unsustainable and predicated on unnatural, man-made technical domination over nature, and even the environmentalists are different only in that they consume perhaps slightly less than their peers and that they may engage in activism. This has been well known for a long-time, the conquest theory of the state, here is an excerpt from The State written in 1908:

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

... The State may be defined as an organisation of one class dominating over the other classes. Such a class organisation can come about in one way only, namely, through conquest and the subjection of ethnic groups by the dominating group. ...

...

... A sound sociology has to recall the fact that class formation in historic times, did not take place through gradual differentiation in pacific economic competition, but was the result of violent conquest and subjugation.

...
... Everywhere we find some warlike tribe of wild men breaking through the boundaries of some less warlike people, settling down as nobility and founding its State. In Mesopotamia, wave follows wave, state follows state - Babylonians, Amoritans, Assyrians, Arabs, Medes, Persians, Macedonians, Pathians, Mongols, Seldshuks, Tartars, Turks; on the Nile, Hyksos, Nubians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks; in Greece, the Doric States are typical examples; in Italy, Romans, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Franks, Germans; in Spain, Carthaginians, Visigoths, Arabs; in Gaul, Romans, Franks, Burgundians, Normans; in Britain, Saxons, Normans. In India wave upon wave of warlike clans has flooded over the country even to the islands of the Indian Ocean. So also is it with China. In the European colonies, we find the selfsame type, wherever a settled element of the population has been found, as for example, in South American and Mexico. Where that element is lacking, where only roving huntsmen are found, who may be exterminated but not subjugated, the conquerors resort to the device of importing from afar masses of men to be exploited, to be subject perpetually to forced labour, and thus the slave trade arises.

Our whole society is built on violence against natural systems and the indigenous people who were once stewards of such systems. For so called First Nations, before European colonial contact, our level of disunity and separation from nature was impossible. This trajectory will never be changed easily or trivially. It will take a cataclysm for those who live by domination, likely they will have to die by it too, and even then they will clutch onto it in their dying moments.

[Kim O'Hara]

You have serious problems if you think you have the power or agency to make any significant impact. It seems that you manifest this in a nasty way by badgering people with more realistic views about how rosy things are, and that because of the allegedly negative things say, they promote passivity. The chances are dismal for the largely unconsidered prospects of making any significant structural change. What you are doing Kim is promoting delusion.

Hi, Thrasymachus,
I would say, 'and welcome to the conversation' except that you begin by saying I'm powerless, nasty, unrealistic and promote delusion. Oh, and I have serious problems.

By implication, you and Huseng are none of the above and do none of the above.

On the other hand, my position is the mainstream position, as I have demonstrated several times, and your is ... not.
Can you support your position with verifiable references? I have asked Huseng to do so, and he hasn't; I have asked peterpan to do so, and he hasn't; but perhaps you can.
If you don't, I will be inclined to believe you can't.


Kim

[Indrajala]

Can you support your position with verifiable references? I have asked Huseng to do so, and he hasn't; I have asked peterpan to do so, and he hasn't; but perhaps you can.

I already pointed to sources above. Don't misrepresent me.

[Kim O'Hara]

Can you support your position with verifiable references? I have asked Huseng to do so, and he hasn't; I have asked peterpan to do so, and he hasn't; but perhaps you can.

I already pointed to sources above. Don't misrepresent me.

I'm sorry - I must have missed them. Can you give us links to the posts they were in, to save us looking back over ten pages?

Thanks,
Kim

[Indrajala]

Can you support your position with verifiable references? I have asked Huseng to do so, and he hasn't; I have asked peterpan to do so, and he hasn't; but perhaps you can.

I already pointed to sources above. Don't misrepresent me.

I'm sorry - I must have missed them. Can you give us links to the posts they were in, to save us looking back over ten pages?

Thanks,
Kim

See this:

viewtopic.php?f=42&t=6973&start=160#p141503


Let's bring out the graph again:



What this means is that as fossil use production decreases (particularly light sweet crude) we'll be using the dirtier more polluting stuff (tar sands, etc...) from far out regions (like the Arctic or deep sea) and probably mass producing nuclear reactors to make up for diminishing coal, gas and oil.

[Fruitzilla]

Anyway, you haven't undermined any of my arguments nor really addressed them with anything substantial. Your optimism and hope are fine, but I prefer realism and knowing cold hard limits of energy and food. When you put climate change and peak oil together the result is a dark future ahead of us filled with vast misery and pain.

Welcome to kaliyuga. Welcome to saṃsāra.

To start of, I'd like to ask the question why negative slants on things are always presented as cold hard facts, and optimism is widely disregarded as rose colored glasses. I've seen this phenomenon for as long as I can remember, and franky, it's quite an annoying trait.....

When I read this I was reminded of an article by Toby Hemenway of permaculture fame, which is about Peak-oil doomerism, and offers some nice insight into the western mind (of which all of us here are in possesion it seems ) : http://www.patternliteracy.com/130-the-origins-of-peak-oil-doomerism

I'll quote a few soundbites, it's really a good read!

Many people in the Peak Oil community chafe at the label of doomer, but a lot of us do have an apocalyptic bent. Although plenty of Peak Oil commentary is sober analysis, a survey of the major websites and books quickly brings up apocalyptic titles like dieoff.org, oilcrash.com, The Death of the Oil Economy, The End of Suburbia,and The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. Peak Oil writings are sprinkled with predictions that billions will die, civil order will collapse, and even that civilization will end. Scientists, too, aren’t immune.

I now believe that Peak Oil catastrophism is largely a manifestation of our primary cultural myth: that all things end with suffering, death, and then resurrection. Belief in apocalypse is programmed into western civilization. Given our heritage, “the end is nigh” is the nearly unavoidable personal and collective response to times of uncertainty and rapid change.

America’s apocalyptic tendencies peak in hard times. In the 1830s, the rise of the anti-slavery movement coincided with a resurgence of doomsday sects and prophets. William Miller, an abolitionist minister with 50,000 followers and perhaps a million more sympathetic to his message, predicted that Judgement Day would arrive on October 14, 1844.

And finally:

I’m not arguing here for or against a Peak Oil collapse, because that’s a futile debate that won’t end until we enter that future.

The article which spurned the one mentioned is this one. Aptly titled: Apocalypse, not : http://www.patternliteracy.com/114-apocalypse-not

[Kim O'Hara]

Anyway, you haven't undermined any of my arguments nor really addressed them with anything substantial. Your optimism and hope are fine, but I prefer realism and knowing cold hard limits of energy and food. When you put climate change and peak oil together the result is a dark future ahead of us filled with vast misery and pain.

Welcome to kaliyuga. Welcome to saṃsāra.

To start of, I'd like to ask the question why negative slants on things are always presented as cold hard facts, and optimism is widely disregarded as rose colored glasses. I've seen this phenomenon for as long as I can remember, and franky, it's quite an annoying trait.....

When I read this I was reminded of an article by Toby Hemenway of permaculture fame, which is about Peak-oil doomerism, and offers some nice insight into the western mind (of which all of us here are in possesion it seems ) : http://www.patternliteracy.com/130-the-origins-of-peak-oil-doomerism

I'll quote a few soundbites, it's really a good read!

Many people in the Peak Oil community chafe at the label of doomer, but a lot of us do have an apocalyptic bent. Although plenty of Peak Oil commentary is sober analysis, a survey of the major websites and books quickly brings up apocalyptic titles like dieoff.org, oilcrash.com, The Death of the Oil Economy, The End of Suburbia,and The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. Peak Oil writings are sprinkled with predictions that billions will die, civil order will collapse, and even that civilization will end. Scientists, too, aren’t immune.

I now believe that Peak Oil catastrophism is largely a manifestation of our primary cultural myth: that all things end with suffering, death, and then resurrection. Belief in apocalypse is programmed into western civilization. Given our heritage, “the end is nigh” is the nearly unavoidable personal and collective response to times of uncertainty and rapid change.

America’s apocalyptic tendencies peak in hard times. In the 1830s, the rise of the anti-slavery movement coincided with a resurgence of doomsday sects and prophets. William Miller, an abolitionist minister with 50,000 followers and perhaps a million more sympathetic to his message, predicted that Judgement Day would arrive on October 14, 1844.

And finally:

I’m not arguing here for or against a Peak Oil collapse, because that’s a futile debate that won’t end until we enter that future.

The article which spurned the one mentioned is this one. Aptly titled: Apocalypse, not : http://www.patternliteracy.com/114-apocalypse-not

The bit I bolded is something that has been bugging me, too.
Frankly, I think it betrays an "I've made up my mind already so don't bother me with facts" mindset.


Kim

[Kim O'Hara]

See this:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=6973&start=160#p141503
[which linked to
http://www.alternet.org/story/154055/pr ... ly_screwed
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ge-certain ]

Let's bring out the graph again ...

Thanks, Huseng,
Yes, I did miss them - I saw them when I had no time to read them, and they were buried deep in the discussion by the time I got back; sorry. I have read them now, and they are actually quite good. On the other hand, they don't prove your core claim: they say, as I do, that we are in deep trouble and will have to try much harder if we are to get out of it with our civilisation reasonably intact.
From the first link:

Each year of 3% emissions growth made achieving the temperature limit even less likely and ever more costly. It would require a rapid shift to greener energy and even net negative emissions in the future, where more CO2 is taken out of the air than added.

From the second (emphasis added):

Most of the media pays remarkably little attention to what’s happening. Coverage of global warming has  dipped 40%  over the last two years. When, say, there’s a rare outbreak of January tornadoes, TV anchors politely discuss “extreme weather,” but climate change is the disaster that dare not speak its name.
And when they do break their silence, some of our elite organs are happy to indulge in outright denial. Last month, for instance, the Wall Street Journal published  an op-ed  by “16 scientists and engineers” headlined “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” The article was easily  debunked. It was nothing but a mash-up of long-since-disproved arguments by people who  turned out  mostly not to be climate scientists at all, quoting other scientists who immediately said their actual work showed just the opposite.
It’s no secret where this denialism comes from: the fossil fuel industry pays for it. (Of the 16 authors of the Journal article, for instance, five had had  ties to Exxon.)  Writers from  Ross Gelbspan  to Naomi Oreskes  have made this case with such overwhelming power that no one even really tries denying it any more. The open question is why the industry persists in denial in the face of an endless body of fact showing climate change is the greatest danger we’ve ever faced. ...
Telling the truth about climate change would require pulling away the biggest punchbowl in history, right when the party is in full swing. That’s why the fight is so pitched. That’s why those of us battling for the future need to raise our game. And it’s why that view from the satellites, however beautiful from a distance, is likely to become ever harder to recognize as our home planet.

Your EROEI chart is interesting, I guess, for those who haven't come across the concept before (and for some who have but have then ignored it). The wikipedia article in which it appears is a reasonable starting point - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested But the problem with the concept is, as that article notes:

Measuring the EROEI of a single physical process is unambiguous, but there is no agreed-upon standard on which activities should be included in measuring the EROEI of an economic process. ... How deep should the probing in the supply chain of the tools being used to generate energy go? For example, if steel is being used to drill for oil or construct a nuclear power plant, should the energy input of the steel be taken into account, should the energy input into building the factory being used to construct the steel be taken into account and amortized? Should the energy input of the roads which are used to ferry the goods be taken into account? What about the energy used to cook the steelworker's breakfasts? These are complex questions evading simple answers. A full accounting would require considerations of opportunity costs and comparing total energy expenditures in the presence and absence of this economic activity.

This brings us back to the economists' famous 'externalities' and, by implication, to including the CO2 emissions of energy production as the cost to society which they undoubtedly are.
And your fossil fuel reserves graph? Nothing new, nothing surprising. Yes, it's a worry - but it's a worry to which there are easily-seen solutions, most of which centre on leaving as much of it in the ground for as long as possible: replacing current consumption with renewables as quickly as possible, and simply reducing current consumption.

Your references seem to me to support my position rather than yours, Huseng, so (1) thank you and (2) where do you go from here?


Kim

[pueraeternus]

And your fossil fuel reserves graph? Nothing new, nothing surprising. Yes, it's a worry - but it's a worry to which there are easily-seen solutions, most of which centre on leaving as much of it in the ground for as long as possible: replacing current consumption with renewables as quickly as possible, and simply reducing current consumption.

Your references seem to me to support my position rather than yours, Huseng, so (1) thank you and (2) where do you go from here?

Your optimism is astoundingly naive. It is merely a "worry"?

Huseng's references are in no way supportive of your positions. A few of us have brought up the point that you are still operating within the current economic and socio-political paradigms that are predicated on endless consumption. An appropriate analogy might be this: an alcoholic is drinking himself to death by consuming 10 bottles of vodka a day, and your solution is ask him to switch to red wines.

[Thrasymachus]

What some people here are arguing is laughable. Let us say a new cleaner fuel is discovered or even if everyone switches to solar? So what? What will that even achieve? Cleaner fuel for disgusting parasitic humans to do the same or more work against the environment so they can transform most everything into man-made structures, live ensconced in climate controlled bubbles, never have to walk more than a few hundred feet at once, etc. However, even that is not the case, as we switching to a worse case scenario of dirtier fuels like coal and oil rendered from tar sands.

It is so arrogant, ignorant and imperialistic to pray and wait for technical fixes by the priests of technological society: the scientists and engineers. There are so many concurrent societies living in sustainable, life affirming ways. We are just killing them off or penning them up into less and less land, and ignoring their message and value. The solution has already been known so long ago: stop so called progress. Be comfortable with less, live simpler lives. Back to conquest theory, on a podcast, I heard about a new book: The Unconquered: In Search of the Amazon's Last Uncontacted Tribes.

Our society's essence has to be totally destroyed, no technical fix can exit the predicament, on the contrary that can only exacerbate or postpone the issue. The society of dominators scared to just be in nature, will destroy it to make themselves comfortable. It will only end when we destroy ourselves in the process.

[greentara]

"India is systematically ditching its wonderful ancient culture and values,and replacing it with all the superficial western ways with the eye's focus on short term expediency to the exclusion of all else,,,but at best so far they can only come up with a shoddy imitation,which makes it look like a sad parody.,,they rather have all these walmarts,instead of stamping out the practice of hundreds of millions using the country as an open toilet.,,or burning their garbage in the open instead of using landfills.,,or doing more for basic public health,,,or allocating resourses in such a way that lifts a huge chunk of the population out of crushing desperate conditions,,,,,or winding back the religious economy,which fabulously serves temple functionaries,but is an impost on all those paying big darshan fees to commune with their deity,,,or really practice ahimsa by showing more compassion to animals,,,or provide drinkable water,,,or simply just tone down the in built hubris borne of one's station in life.and the contempt felt and displayed towards the lesser fortunate........but then walmart might have the solution and remedy to all these ills,,,,,,but more likely the farce and parody will continue as long as the multinationals can fatten their major share holders courtesy of the so called local middle class,with their insatiable propensity for ostentatious lurid and garish consumption,while most of their countryfolk barely able to fill their belly.....happy days"-
R.D.

[Kim O'Hara]

And your fossil fuel reserves graph? Nothing new, nothing surprising. Yes, it's a worry - but it's a worry to which there are easily-seen solutions, most of which centre on leaving as much of it in the ground for as long as possible: replacing current consumption with renewables as quickly as possible, and simply reducing current consumption.

Your references seem to me to support my position rather than yours, Huseng, so (1) thank you and (2) where do you go from here?

Your optimism is astoundingly naive. It is merely a "worry"?

Huseng's references are in no way supportive of your positions. A few of us have brought up the point that you are still operating within the current economic and socio-political paradigms that are predicated on endless consumption. An appropriate analogy might be this: an alcoholic is drinking himself to death by consuming 10 bottles of vodka a day, and your solution is ask him to switch to red wines.

Hi, peterpan,
You haven't answered my questions (all the way back here - http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=6973&start=180#p141612 - yet), so I don't know why I should bother with yours but still ...
My optimism is not naive. I don't believe everything is under control and a wave of the hand will fix all our problems.
My optimism is purely pragmatic:
I believe that if everyone does as much as they can we can ameliorate enough of the problems sufficiently that we can achieve a softer crash-landing - tens of thousands of deaths due to sea level rise, for instance, rather than tens of millions.
I believe that if we sit on our hands and do nothing, we are neglecting our duty of compassion towards other sentient beings alive now and in the future.
And I believe that anyone proclaiming doom-and-gloom scenarios as you, Huseng, Nemo and Thrasymachus are doing, is actively contributing to the outcome they are predicting, and adding to the suffering of themselves (if they live long enough) and others by doing so.


Kim

[Indrajala]

And your fossil fuel reserves graph? Nothing new, nothing surprising. Yes, it's a worry - but it's a worry to which there are easily-seen solutions, most of which centre on leaving as much of it in the ground for as long as possible: replacing current consumption with renewables as quickly as possible, and simply reducing current consumption.

Right, and how is that going to happen? Every reserve has been marked for extraction. China is bringing online a new coal fired plant every few weeks. The global infrastructure depends on oil, gas and coal. There are no easily-seen solutions. This is why the world's powers are scrambling for new reserves like in the South China Sea and Arctic.

Solar and wind don't pack the same reliable punch as fossil fuels. Renewables are good for keeping the lights on and maybe the water hot, but you can't run an industrial society on them (highways are built with diesel powered machines, not little electric scooters).

Reducing current consumption voluntarily won't work. As I keep trying to tell you, decadent First World citizens might think "reduction" means recycling and taking the bus, that doesn't negate the fact that their whole infrastructure that they rely on is power hungry (just stop and consider how asphalt roads are made), and that the rest of the world is not going to voluntarily stay poor. You are not presenting any solutions. You talk about "simply reducing" current consumption. That will not happen for political and economic reasons, especially in the Third World.

In India for instance staying poor means not having ambulance services, hospitals, schools and clean water. The reason economic growth is so important in that part of the world is because people want said things, but they only come with heavy industrialization.

[Indrajala]

However, even that is not the case, as we switching to a worse case scenario of dirtier fuels like coal and oil rendered from tar sands.

In North America they're building continent-wide pipelines just to transport that muck from the tar sands. There will probably be another built directly to the west coast to ship the oil to Asia. Despite protests from the people, it'll probably go forward.

It is so arrogant, ignorant and imperialistic to pray and wait for technical fixes by the priests of technological society: the scientists and engineers.

In many ways it is the scientists and engineers who enabled our capacity to be so destructive and parasitic on the environment. They like to be credited with fixes, but their fixes often just create new problems. Decades ago it was noted that fossil fuels were finite and that nuclear energy would be a plausible alternative, and look at that mess.

Now some intellectuals are talking about solving our problems with "geo-engineering" ... so we get to consume and burn, and just offset the effects by intentionally tampering with the weather. China is already doing this with cloud seeding.

[Kim O'Hara]

Once again a barrow-load of unsupported statement, once again recycled with additions in bold for balance and clarification.

And your fossil fuel reserves graph? Nothing new, nothing surprising. Yes, it's a worry - but it's a worry to which there are easily-seen solutions, most of which centre on leaving as much of it in the ground for as long as possible: replacing current consumption with renewables as quickly as possible, and simply reducing current consumption.

Right, and how is that going to happen? It won't happen tomorrow, but if enough of us act individually and team up to act collectively we can slow down emissions. Every reserve has been marked for extraction, but it is still underground right now. China is bringing online a new coal fired plant every few weeks [and you somehow forgot to mention its enormous wind generation programme]. The global infrastructure depends on oil, gas and coal and wind and nuclear and solar and geothermal power. Many of them are small but they are growing fast. There are no easily-seen solutions. I can see them. I did not say they were easily-implemented. This is why some of the world's powers are scrambling for new reserves like in the South China Sea and Arctic while others, like Germany and Denmark, sit back and enjoy clean power from solar and wind projects.

Solar and wind don't pack the same reliable punch as fossil fuels. I MW = 1 MW wherever it comes from. Renewables are good for keeping the lights on and maybe the water hot, but you can't run an industrial society on them. Why not? I MW = 1 MW wherever it comes from. (strawman alert! highways are built with diesel powered machines, not little electric scooters ).

Reducing current consumption voluntarily won't work. Sorry to rain on your parade, but consumption is already being reduced voluntarily in Australia. As I keep trying to tell you, decadent First World citizens might think "reduction" means recycling and taking the bus, that doesn't negate the fact that their whole infrastructure that they rely on is power hungry (strawman alert! just stop and consider how asphalt roads are made), and that the rest of the world is not going to voluntarily stay poor. You are not presenting any solutions. To quote Huseng to Huseng: I have. Don't misrepresent me. You talk about "simply reducing" current consumption. That will not happen for political and economic reasons, especially in the Third World. Sorry to rain on your parade, but consumption is already being reduced voluntarily in Australia.

In India for instance staying poor means not having ambulance services, hospitals, schools and clean water. The reason economic growth is so important in that part of the world is because people want said things, Agreed but they only come with heavy industrialization Not agreed - in fact a very dubious proposition Can you justify it?.

Now:

My optimism is not naive. I don't believe everything is under control and a wave of the hand will fix all our problems.
My optimism is purely pragmatic:
I believe that if everyone does as much as they can we can ameliorate enough of the problems sufficiently that we can achieve a softer crash-landing - tens of thousands of deaths due to sea level rise, for instance, rather than tens of millions.
I believe that if we sit on our hands and do nothing, we are neglecting our duty of compassion towards other sentient beings alive now and in the future.
And I believe that anyone proclaiming doom-and-gloom scenarios as you, peterpan, Nemo and Thrasymachus are doing, is actively contributing to the outcome they are predicting, and adding to the suffering of themselves (if they live long enough) and others by doing so.

Do you have any moral justification for the consequences of your position?
If so, I would love to see it.


Kim

[Nemo]

Why does truth need a moral justification?

You are getting old and are going to die. Plan accordingly.

The environmental degradation of our planet is at or near a very dramatic tipping point. The problems are systemic and the results will be global.Plan accordingly.

[Kim O'Hara]

Huseng,
Please read this before trotting out the 'renewables won't do it' line again: http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/09/14/no-breakthroughs-necessary-95-percent-renewable-energy-possible-2050


Kim

[Kim O'Hara]

Why does truth need a moral justification?

It doesn't, but your actions do.
Feel free to respond to my question to Huseng.

You are getting old and are going to die. Plan accordingly.

I'm doing so: lightening my karmic burden (slightly ) by doing the best I can for other sentient beings, and making the world I may come back to a (slightly) less-bad place than it would be without my efforts.
What about you?


Kim

[Kim O'Hara]

Huseng,
Please read this before trotting out the 'renewables won't do it' line again: http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/09/14/no-breakthroughs-necessary-95-percent-renewable-energy-possible-2050


Kim

Oh, and this one, too (sheesh! it's hard to keep up with progress on renewables) - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-13/government-boosts-solar-research-by-83m/4425824


Kim