Robert Scribbler likes EVs, especially the new Tesla. He thinks that these vehicles will help reduce emissions and thereby reduce the effects of a changing climate. I agree. But they won't make as much difference as many of us hope in the bigger picture. Where they make the most difference is in how we as individuals can pass on responsibility for the future by 'doing our bit'.
George doesn't like EVs so much. Perhaps more accurately, he isn't keen on the social/environmental pathway implied by a continuing commitment to personal vehicles and thinks that there are better ways to do things. As usual, he has a point, but in common with most (all?) thinkers about the future, he struggles with finding the best way to get from here to there; I don't disagree with many of the things he says or proposes, but there is a disconnect between the present state of affairs and the desired endgame position (his views on re-wilding also struggle with this).
Elon has put his money where his mouth is; making (and very successfully promoting) stuff which doesn't spew out toxins (directly), in large volume. But as George points out, when it is resource exploitation which is a part of the problem, more resource exploitation can't really be the solution.
More critically, Elon's solution (EVs) only works under one condition; the means of generating the energy required to operate them must be exclusively either renewable or nuclear, otherwise, EVs merely move the emissions problem rather than solving it.
And all of these need to be put into context. The BIG Carbon problem is Energy. We have created a society which depends utterly on the readily available supply of cheap energy with which everything else in our society is possible. Personal transportation is a problem and doing something about this particular problem is a good thing, no doubt, but it is only a small part of the problem, and an even smaller part of the solution.
Energy isn't the only very important societal/environmental problem, though. Pollution, deforestation, waste, inefficiency and biodiversity busting all represent problems which are already biting us and will continue to do so. In some cases, there is no connection between these and the energy problem, but in many cases, there are underlying connections which can be addressed, most specifically, the way in which we perceive our World, our lives and our needs.
This is the big target of George's issues with EVs; it isn't that EVs can't help some, but that seeking solutions like this don't address deeper and more difficult problems, such as why we need personal vehicles in the first place, and why we keep imagining that we can fix the problems caused by overexploitation by doing some more exploitation, only differently.
In my next post I'll propose some ideas for breaking the energy log jam. Meantime, I'll make a simple point. Electric, Hybrid or low-emissions cars are a good way forward in dealing with the problem of energy and emissions related specifically to cars - they're better than what we have at the moment, IF and ONLY IF they source their power for the batteries from renewable sources. That's a small plus and a move in the right sort of direction, but it ain't gonna save the World.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Tuesday, 8 August 2017
Sunday, 2 July 2017
How to be a moral actor on climate change
Clear the air: Individual action in itself is not enough, corporate action or system-scale action to mitigate and adapt to climate change is needed. And yet, 'what is the ocean but a multitude of drops?' - every bit of energy left unused (Carbon left unreleased) is a gain, every bit wasted is a loss.
Some people I know have complex relations with climate change action. They want to be 'good' about it, often for the sake of their own children, but also in a more general context, for the avoidance of harm to unknown others. (Are we all not siblings?)
There is no obligation for any given individual to act such as to reduce their carbon impact. This is and will always be a personal choice. It is essential that individuals are allowed to retain the right to their own opinions, regardless of our personal opinions of their opinions.
If you are one of those people who believe, or, more generally 'feel' that it is right for you to at least try to make an effort on the side of not making things worse than they already are, then you may, like the aforementioned friends, want to know what is a good way to act, what are the useful actions, and which the 'greenwash'. For you, here is a list of suggestions:
1.1 Buy less stuff.
1.2 Buy less plastic stuff.
1.3 Avoid buying c**p.
1.4 Educate yourself on which necessary products and goods are more or less environmentally sound. Product labels do not tell the whole story, but can sometimes help.
Summary: Be a mindful consumer.
2.1 Waste less stuff.
2.2 Try to get the full use out of a product, rather than replacing it for fashion, vanity or victim-consumer habits. Stuff does wear out, some quicker than others (see 1, above). It's okay to replace stuff, but a new computer, phone or tv every years or so is NOT necessary in most cases.
2.3 When you get stuff, if you spend wisely, you can the spend your time appreciating the stuff you have, rather than worrying about what you don't have. Example: I recently bought a classical guitar. I spent more on it that I possibly should. However, it will cherish it until my dying day, it will always be as good as any guitar I could have bought, and it will return its cost in both value and utility for as long as I could want.
2.4 Instead of throwing away stuff you don't need or want any more, but which is still useable, try giving it away, or selling it. This allows the carbon cost of a product to be spread over a longer period, avoids material wastage, and allows other people to share the pleasure you once had when the thing was new to you.
Summary: waste is a state of mind, which is often careless, thoughtless. Be a mindful chucker-out of stuff.
3.1 Try to learn how to fix, repair, maintain or care for the stuff you have. Even keeping some things clean can extend their life by months, even years. Two generations ago, every poor bachelor or young woman was taught how to sew, stitch, make do and mend.
3.2 There are things which can no longer serve their original purpose. This does not mean they are useless. Some things can be repurposed, adapted, adjusted or slightly altered to suit another purpose. When something 'breaks', think about what alternative use it might have. Example: a Wellington boot with a hole in it is not much use as a Wellington boot, but makes a useful 'plant pot'.
Summary: the longer that stuff has an utility, the less waste there is, and the less need there is to use up even more resources. be creative.
4.1 Don't beat yourself up for what you can't change.
4.2 If you do even a little bit of the stuff above, which is only a starter list, then you are 'doing good'.
4.3 You have a carbon footprint. Get over it. It is commensurate with your lifestyle, occupation, the world around you as it is, and other things. You can't eliminate it completely, but you can make it earn its place.
Summary: You don't have to live in a cave to do something good. Every small effort is a net good in itself, and the avoidance of a net bad - a double-win.
Final thoughts: If you want to be a moral actor in a modern world, you mainly need to be more thoughtful and less lazy about your actions, choices and decisions. It's mostly a state of mind which needs to change to get into 'better' habits. Is it worth it? You are one of seven billion. If a small percentage of the people who say they want a change in attitude did some of the above, and other things, this would, in collective consequence, represent a revolution. It would change the markets, undermine the worst excesses of the corporate system, and cause a reconsideration of the relationship between people and stuff.
This is a taster. There's a million more things to be offered, but let's start easy.
Some people I know have complex relations with climate change action. They want to be 'good' about it, often for the sake of their own children, but also in a more general context, for the avoidance of harm to unknown others. (Are we all not siblings?)
There is no obligation for any given individual to act such as to reduce their carbon impact. This is and will always be a personal choice. It is essential that individuals are allowed to retain the right to their own opinions, regardless of our personal opinions of their opinions.
If you are one of those people who believe, or, more generally 'feel' that it is right for you to at least try to make an effort on the side of not making things worse than they already are, then you may, like the aforementioned friends, want to know what is a good way to act, what are the useful actions, and which the 'greenwash'. For you, here is a list of suggestions:
1.1 Buy less stuff.
1.2 Buy less plastic stuff.
1.3 Avoid buying c**p.
1.4 Educate yourself on which necessary products and goods are more or less environmentally sound. Product labels do not tell the whole story, but can sometimes help.
Summary: Be a mindful consumer.
2.1 Waste less stuff.
2.2 Try to get the full use out of a product, rather than replacing it for fashion, vanity or victim-consumer habits. Stuff does wear out, some quicker than others (see 1, above). It's okay to replace stuff, but a new computer, phone or tv every years or so is NOT necessary in most cases.
2.3 When you get stuff, if you spend wisely, you can the spend your time appreciating the stuff you have, rather than worrying about what you don't have. Example: I recently bought a classical guitar. I spent more on it that I possibly should. However, it will cherish it until my dying day, it will always be as good as any guitar I could have bought, and it will return its cost in both value and utility for as long as I could want.
2.4 Instead of throwing away stuff you don't need or want any more, but which is still useable, try giving it away, or selling it. This allows the carbon cost of a product to be spread over a longer period, avoids material wastage, and allows other people to share the pleasure you once had when the thing was new to you.
Summary: waste is a state of mind, which is often careless, thoughtless. Be a mindful chucker-out of stuff.
3.1 Try to learn how to fix, repair, maintain or care for the stuff you have. Even keeping some things clean can extend their life by months, even years. Two generations ago, every poor bachelor or young woman was taught how to sew, stitch, make do and mend.
3.2 There are things which can no longer serve their original purpose. This does not mean they are useless. Some things can be repurposed, adapted, adjusted or slightly altered to suit another purpose. When something 'breaks', think about what alternative use it might have. Example: a Wellington boot with a hole in it is not much use as a Wellington boot, but makes a useful 'plant pot'.
Summary: the longer that stuff has an utility, the less waste there is, and the less need there is to use up even more resources. be creative.
4.1 Don't beat yourself up for what you can't change.
4.2 If you do even a little bit of the stuff above, which is only a starter list, then you are 'doing good'.
4.3 You have a carbon footprint. Get over it. It is commensurate with your lifestyle, occupation, the world around you as it is, and other things. You can't eliminate it completely, but you can make it earn its place.
Summary: You don't have to live in a cave to do something good. Every small effort is a net good in itself, and the avoidance of a net bad - a double-win.
Final thoughts: If you want to be a moral actor in a modern world, you mainly need to be more thoughtful and less lazy about your actions, choices and decisions. It's mostly a state of mind which needs to change to get into 'better' habits. Is it worth it? You are one of seven billion. If a small percentage of the people who say they want a change in attitude did some of the above, and other things, this would, in collective consequence, represent a revolution. It would change the markets, undermine the worst excesses of the corporate system, and cause a reconsideration of the relationship between people and stuff.
This is a taster. There's a million more things to be offered, but let's start easy.
Wednesday, 15 February 2017
Time to get used to the stupidity and move on
As per, The Guardian tries to keep abreast of developments in climate science. Though at times the headlines are irritatingly provocative, in general it does a decent job.
This morning's piece on Wm Happer, here, contained a quotation from the latter which is so stupid I thought it deserved a mention:
“There’s a huge amount of money that we spend on saving the planet,” he said. “If it turns out that the planet doesn’t need saving as much as we thought, well, there are other ways you could spend the money."
Though the stupidity is self-evident to some of us, I'll try not to take anything for granted and just unpack this a bit.
First off: "there's a huge amount of money we spend on saving the planet"
Okay, Mr Happer, please provide examples of these 'huge amounts' of money. Now, compare the amounts with the 'huge amounts' we spend trashing the planet; how do these figures compare?
Beyond this, why does anyone think that the planet might need saving in the first place?
Is it, perhaps, because some people have identified a number of risks? Is it because decades of analysis from insurance companies, military think tanks, corporates and, on top of these, academics and specialists, have led these people to think that some types of human interaction with the planet is a risk, not just to the planet but, more meaningfully, to the people who live here?
Trying to find an analogy is challenging, because there is really very little comparison to be made - we only have one planet. We need it. We need the living things besides us which live on it. We need its atmosphere and oceans. We'd quite like to keep hold of most of the people on it, too, for a decent lifespan.
Then we need to ask; what is it that people think the planet needs protecting from? What is the source of these risks? It is us, our activities, exploitation, misuse, abuse, destruction, pollution, chaotic and entropic dissolution of that which we once inherited.
Happer's point is easy to unpick: the administration is going to remove not just protection but also monitoring. The mistreatment of 'the planet' is not a risk - not enough of a risk - to justify reining back its continuation, or the corporates who profit from it, despite the endless, depressing, ongoing warnings from pretty much every direction that if we go on like these we really will be screwed.
This isn't an argument for inaction - it is way too stupid to be graced with the title of 'argument'. It is an excuse. Happer may as well have said : "we aren't going to even try to improve things because it might make some of us less rich".
Get used to it. This is going to continue for a while. It has been going on in the UK for several years, with government using any excuse to justify its systematic ideology-driven demolition of all the social systems which we have already paid for, simply to reduce its revenue commitments and pass on the problems and solutions into private (and often international) hands.
The current administration will provide spurious and trivial justifications for stupid decisions which bear no relation to the reasons for them.
Get used to it, and move on. If the chimps are throwing their caca at the visitors, go enjoy the penguins instead, while you still can.
This morning's piece on Wm Happer, here, contained a quotation from the latter which is so stupid I thought it deserved a mention:
“There’s a huge amount of money that we spend on saving the planet,” he said. “If it turns out that the planet doesn’t need saving as much as we thought, well, there are other ways you could spend the money."
Though the stupidity is self-evident to some of us, I'll try not to take anything for granted and just unpack this a bit.
First off: "there's a huge amount of money we spend on saving the planet"
Okay, Mr Happer, please provide examples of these 'huge amounts' of money. Now, compare the amounts with the 'huge amounts' we spend trashing the planet; how do these figures compare?
Beyond this, why does anyone think that the planet might need saving in the first place?
Is it, perhaps, because some people have identified a number of risks? Is it because decades of analysis from insurance companies, military think tanks, corporates and, on top of these, academics and specialists, have led these people to think that some types of human interaction with the planet is a risk, not just to the planet but, more meaningfully, to the people who live here?
Trying to find an analogy is challenging, because there is really very little comparison to be made - we only have one planet. We need it. We need the living things besides us which live on it. We need its atmosphere and oceans. We'd quite like to keep hold of most of the people on it, too, for a decent lifespan.
Then we need to ask; what is it that people think the planet needs protecting from? What is the source of these risks? It is us, our activities, exploitation, misuse, abuse, destruction, pollution, chaotic and entropic dissolution of that which we once inherited.
Happer's point is easy to unpick: the administration is going to remove not just protection but also monitoring. The mistreatment of 'the planet' is not a risk - not enough of a risk - to justify reining back its continuation, or the corporates who profit from it, despite the endless, depressing, ongoing warnings from pretty much every direction that if we go on like these we really will be screwed.
This isn't an argument for inaction - it is way too stupid to be graced with the title of 'argument'. It is an excuse. Happer may as well have said : "we aren't going to even try to improve things because it might make some of us less rich".
Get used to it. This is going to continue for a while. It has been going on in the UK for several years, with government using any excuse to justify its systematic ideology-driven demolition of all the social systems which we have already paid for, simply to reduce its revenue commitments and pass on the problems and solutions into private (and often international) hands.
The current administration will provide spurious and trivial justifications for stupid decisions which bear no relation to the reasons for them.
Get used to it, and move on. If the chimps are throwing their caca at the visitors, go enjoy the penguins instead, while you still can.
Friday, 10 February 2017
23 minutes to kiss the planet goodbye
Waking up in the middle of the night, the World Service was interviewing Myron Ebell.
I hope friends in the US can access this from the BBC World Service: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04rq0fk#play
If you feel in the slightest depressed, don't listen till you are more cheerful. I haven't slept in the three hours since the show was broadcast, it's now around 06:30am.
A couple of sample take homes for the lazy:
I hope friends in the US can access this from the BBC World Service: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04rq0fk#play
If you feel in the slightest depressed, don't listen till you are more cheerful. I haven't slept in the three hours since the show was broadcast, it's now around 06:30am.
A couple of sample take homes for the lazy:
- The EPA is to be gutted (staff cut by 2/3 and budgets slashed)
- The hiatus proves that there is no connection between CO2 and warming
- roughly: " it has recently been shown that the temperature record is a hoax". No, really.
Can you spot the glaring inconsistency? Others already have.
Really should go back to bed, but time seems to be getting more precious every day these days...
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
Climate change - why the fuss?
Sometimes it is hard to remember why people make a fuss about climate change and global warming. In the politically charged arena of online advocacy the language of the issues has been framed by the denihilist procrastinators, so that most discussions of consequences revolve around whether or not climate change is 'catastrophic', whether or not warnings are 'alarmist' (crying wolf), whether or not projections of harm with large uncertainties are useful for policy discussions.
All of these, deliberately, miss the point, the reasons why action to mitigate and adapt are urgent, and reveal the moral vacuum which is inhabited by too many people these days.
So, here is a reminder of why I bother to have a blog and to comment on websites and fora such as Quora. These are my reasons. Some co-bloggers will have similar motives, others will have their own, but for me, this is the bottom line.
People will suffer.
Recent work has shown the link which already exists between both emergency and systemic situations and their consequences. Not just storms, floods and wildfires, which make dramatic TV and therefore feature in the media, but drought, seasonal shifts threatening food supply chains, evapo-transpiration effects, disease vector changes; there is really quite a long list.
Inasmuch as these measured effects are either affected or exacerbated by the changing climate - and the argument is not that they are not affected, but the extent to which a measurable difference can be identified and isolated - the problems which exist now are overshadowed by the problems which will exist soon.
So, people have already suffered, and more people will suffer. Many more.
There is a strong general agreement that, whilst balancing other social factors, a move to reduce the upper limit of the changes down the line (through mitigation) will actually reduce the extent and degree of suffering.
Recent discussions on Quora have enlightened me to contemporary attitudes to the harm expected from climate change; there are people who think this is not important, that the suffering of others does not matter.
At the more radical end, it would be surprising if others hadn't worked out what I have calculated and reached the conclusion that by the end of this century, and quite likely well before this, many millions of people will have either died or been permanently displaced by the various upheavals which result from and are magnified by climate change. For some people, this is perceived as a 'good thing'.
So there are already two opposing forces pulling in different directions when it comes to the question of why climate mitigation is necessary.
On one side, we have identified that people are suffering and will suffer, and that at least some of this suffering is preventable. Our duty/responsibility is clear - if we can act to reduce the suffering of others, we should act. This is a baseline in the very notion of society. There is a further principle too, that if we choose not to act when we have the means to do so, then we are culpable in that suffering. Most particularly, our political leaders, who have executive power and common responsibility, are on the line for allowing suffering without intervention or assistance, where these would prevent it.
On the other side, we are conscious that population stress is another magnifier of suffering and that environmental and ecological problems, along with infrastructure problems, in part exist because of the strain put on them by increased consumption demand purely from the pressure of numbers. An analyst taking the very long view might conclude that allowing a degree of suffering for the time being, so that population pressures are eased down the line, could be a better solution.
But this is very harsh on the victims. One reason why climate impact projections focus on economic or environmental damage is that these have a degree of measurability and are thus amenable to modelling. Conversely, the extent and degree of human suffering - people being harmed, is much more difficult to quantify, since it is also affected by a cluster of magnifiers and causes which are more or less connected to climate. Nonetheless, the IPCC, WHO, UNEP and UNHCR. along with other agencies, have placed their analysis in the public record, and it makes for ugly reading.
The more recent projections suggest that there will be several million additional premature (and unnecessary) deaths from climate related impacts by 2050 alone. The current estimates include 160,000 per year already in the system, rising to 250,000 a year out to 2030-2050.
Later, I'll write about the error we make in assessing the personal consequences of climate inaction, but there is still a lot more to say.
For the time being, let this sink in. Not very long ago, there was no doubt that the untimely deaths of six million people as a consequence of a state policy was such an appalling crime that the perpetrators with command responsibility were tried and executed for their decisions. This was the Holocaust.
What is the material difference, especially to the victims, between that situation and this? What is the moral difference between that situation and this? For those who promote caution or outright denial of the issues linked to climate change, I ask - are you, morally, any better than those people? Are you, in effect, wearing a symbol-laden armband in support of the unspeakable? How will you be judged?
All of these, deliberately, miss the point, the reasons why action to mitigate and adapt are urgent, and reveal the moral vacuum which is inhabited by too many people these days.
So, here is a reminder of why I bother to have a blog and to comment on websites and fora such as Quora. These are my reasons. Some co-bloggers will have similar motives, others will have their own, but for me, this is the bottom line.
People will suffer.
Recent work has shown the link which already exists between both emergency and systemic situations and their consequences. Not just storms, floods and wildfires, which make dramatic TV and therefore feature in the media, but drought, seasonal shifts threatening food supply chains, evapo-transpiration effects, disease vector changes; there is really quite a long list.
Inasmuch as these measured effects are either affected or exacerbated by the changing climate - and the argument is not that they are not affected, but the extent to which a measurable difference can be identified and isolated - the problems which exist now are overshadowed by the problems which will exist soon.
So, people have already suffered, and more people will suffer. Many more.
There is a strong general agreement that, whilst balancing other social factors, a move to reduce the upper limit of the changes down the line (through mitigation) will actually reduce the extent and degree of suffering.
Recent discussions on Quora have enlightened me to contemporary attitudes to the harm expected from climate change; there are people who think this is not important, that the suffering of others does not matter.
At the more radical end, it would be surprising if others hadn't worked out what I have calculated and reached the conclusion that by the end of this century, and quite likely well before this, many millions of people will have either died or been permanently displaced by the various upheavals which result from and are magnified by climate change. For some people, this is perceived as a 'good thing'.
So there are already two opposing forces pulling in different directions when it comes to the question of why climate mitigation is necessary.
On one side, we have identified that people are suffering and will suffer, and that at least some of this suffering is preventable. Our duty/responsibility is clear - if we can act to reduce the suffering of others, we should act. This is a baseline in the very notion of society. There is a further principle too, that if we choose not to act when we have the means to do so, then we are culpable in that suffering. Most particularly, our political leaders, who have executive power and common responsibility, are on the line for allowing suffering without intervention or assistance, where these would prevent it.
On the other side, we are conscious that population stress is another magnifier of suffering and that environmental and ecological problems, along with infrastructure problems, in part exist because of the strain put on them by increased consumption demand purely from the pressure of numbers. An analyst taking the very long view might conclude that allowing a degree of suffering for the time being, so that population pressures are eased down the line, could be a better solution.
But this is very harsh on the victims. One reason why climate impact projections focus on economic or environmental damage is that these have a degree of measurability and are thus amenable to modelling. Conversely, the extent and degree of human suffering - people being harmed, is much more difficult to quantify, since it is also affected by a cluster of magnifiers and causes which are more or less connected to climate. Nonetheless, the IPCC, WHO, UNEP and UNHCR. along with other agencies, have placed their analysis in the public record, and it makes for ugly reading.
The more recent projections suggest that there will be several million additional premature (and unnecessary) deaths from climate related impacts by 2050 alone. The current estimates include 160,000 per year already in the system, rising to 250,000 a year out to 2030-2050.
Later, I'll write about the error we make in assessing the personal consequences of climate inaction, but there is still a lot more to say.
For the time being, let this sink in. Not very long ago, there was no doubt that the untimely deaths of six million people as a consequence of a state policy was such an appalling crime that the perpetrators with command responsibility were tried and executed for their decisions. This was the Holocaust.
What is the material difference, especially to the victims, between that situation and this? What is the moral difference between that situation and this? For those who promote caution or outright denial of the issues linked to climate change, I ask - are you, morally, any better than those people? Are you, in effect, wearing a symbol-laden armband in support of the unspeakable? How will you be judged?
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
Do you want ice with that?
A popular pastime amongst those of us who have an interest in what's going on with the climate is to try to guess how much Arctic sea ice there will be each season when the annual minimum is reached.
For anyone reading who thinks this might interest them, there is an almost endless ongoing source of information, graphs and analysis at the excellent Arctic Sea Ice Blog/ Forum/Graphs.
There is also a science program which collects various predictions, from the technical (model-based) to the amateur (heuristic), called SIPN (used to be ARCUS).
Part of the fun of this is to try to work out the different factors which may or may not affect future sea ice level down the line. On a long time scale, this is easy enough, if you simply reference the climate data since 1979 and look at the history of decline in Summer sea ice levels. It is quite possible to do a 'rough fit' with historic data and come up with a prediction which is not far off the mark, though this is going to be more by chance than reason.
One of the most popular sources of data and information is the NSIDC dedicated sea ice and cryosphere pages. These focus on the measured data rather than prediction, but contain a wealth of useful graphics and links.
On the recent page you will notice a reference to a recent piece of research conducted by some of the members of the team, Serreze M. C. et. al., JGR (2016).
This paper demonstrates a connection which has an effect on the annual minimum:
"...They found that 68 percent of the variance in the date that ice retreats from the continental shelf break in the Chukchi Sea in spring can be explained by fluctuations in the April through June Bering Strait oceanic heat inflow..."
So, one way in which we can now make a more reliable prediction in relation to one part of the Arctic is in place.
Then, I noticed (not reported widely elsewhere yet) that others of the team have been involved in a different piece of research at the opposite side: Fram Strait sea ice export variability and September Arctic sea ice extent over the last 80 Years. (Smedrud et.al.). Here we find the useful:
"...Increased ice export during winter will generally result in new ice growth and contributes to thinning inside the Arctic Basin. Increased ice export during summer or spring will, in contrast, contribute directly to open water further north and a reduced summer sea ice extent through the ice–albedo feedback..."
and: "...We find a general moderate influence between export anomalies and the following September sea ice extent, explaining 18 % of the variance between 1935 and 2014, but with higher values since 2004...".
These two useful recent pieces of work add to our understanding of two of the mechanisms which contribute to Arctic Summer minima. They don't give the whole picture; the number and range of the variables are such that we don't have a full picture of all of the teleconnections or causes.
What we can do, though, is look at these two parameters and add some inferences to our other observations. If Fram export has been relatively high recently, then the September minimum is likely to be lower than the long term average. If Bering Sea heat input is higher than usual during the Spring, then the Septemberminimum is likely to be lower.
If both cases occur simultaneously, it is reasonable to infer that there is a high likelihood of a reduced minimum, if the other other known variables (such as the Arctic oscillation - AO) do not contradict this, and if the historic patterns of weather and overall seasonal temperature anomalies are also in alignment.
This is an example of how ongoing scientific research and information collecting adds to our understanding of the ways in which the climate can vary, and the trends which show how the climate is changing relative to the past.
Monday, 30 January 2017
When will the Gulf Stream ‘shut down’ and how will it affect our part of the World?
Quick answer: It probably won’t shut down completely in the next century or two. It will almost certainly weaken progressively during the 21st century, and will have an effect on both UK climate and US sea level.
This means that the UK may experience an amount of cooling relative to the global average and the long-term local average, and the US Eastern seaboard may experience an amount of sea level rise greater than the global average and the local long-term average, both within this century.
In simple terms, even if the Gulf Stream does not shut down completely, the impact of a weakening of the system will be felt this century, and conceivably within the next 20-30 years. It has already been felt at least once (2009-2011), and the current CO2 concentration pathway suggests that this kind of thing can easily be repeated, is likely to be repeated.
Back in 2006 I spent some time trying to understand how the Gulf Stream worked and what the implications of climate changes would be for me, living in the UK. This included exchanging some emails with a few of the people who were active at the time in analysing the data and models, and a lot of reading.
In 2009, the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP09) published it conclusions about projected changes to the UK in the 21st century, which also leaned heavily on similar sources to infer likely scenarios for change to our climate.
Since that time, the issue has stayed in the scientific literature, and occasionally pops up as a matter of concern on the internet or in the media.
Most recently, the technically reliable RealClimate has drawn my attention again to the matter in a post: The Underestimated danger of a breakdown of the Gulf Stream System.
This summarises a paper which draws attention to some of the limitations of the modelling of the Gulf Stream, or AMOC.
Whilst it is a very useful reference, including links to several recent developments in both analysis and modelling, it does not address a question which I raised in the comments section but have not yet had answered: When is this going to happen?
Even more recently, The open access Journal of Ocean Science has published a paper which, though it focuses on a different aspect (sea level rise), has a strong section on the AMOC and some interesting material on modelling: Changes in extreme regional sea level under global warming.
The Scripps paper (Wei Liu et. al.) applies a flux correction to better model the freshwater exchange in the system on which so much depends. It suggest that the Gulf Stream could lose about a third of its strength by 2100.
The Brunnabend et al paper uses a reasonably new high resolution ocean model, POP, which is able to capture the mesoscale eddy formations in the north Atlantic and the impact this has on regional sea level rise. It also, as you might expect, provides a greater resolution for modelled AMOC flow under the scenarios used (RCP8.5). The model runs out to the end of this century, from an original baseline of 1950, and a comparison between the first and last twenty years of the model.
In that model: The maximum AMOC at 26◦ N decreases from about 20 Sv to about 5 Sv (red curve in Fig. 4a). The spatial pattern of the AMOC does not change, but the North Atlantic Deep Water shallows by about 1000m (Fig. 4b–c). The maximum strength of the AMOC at 35◦ S decreases (blue curve in Fig. 4a) by more than 60 %. The decline in the AMOC causes a rise in mean DSL of up to 0.4 m near the North American continent, mostly because of a redistribution of ocean mass towards these regions (see Fig. 1a).
*Note: Sv refers to Sverdrups: "...used almost exclusively in oceanography to measure the volumetric rate of transport of ocean currents..." This is derived from a model which assumes a high CO2 concentration pathway and associated global temperature change, so might be considered a ‘worst case’ result.
Where does this get us?
So far, I am at the stage where I’m reasonably confident that the Gulf Stream will demonstrate a severe case of Hiccups over the next 80 years, with has already begun. As in 2009-2010, there will be years when the current slows by 30% or more, resulting in seasons which are noticeably cooler than the long-term trend would otherwise suggest.
This is the UKMO comment on the Winter of 2010, which followed the most recent hiccup:
The following represents an assessment of the weather experienced across the UK during winter 2009/10 (December 2009 to February 2010) and how it compares with the 1971 to 2000 average (the period used for the seasonal forecast).
Mean temperatures over the UK were 2.0 °C below the 1971-2000 average during December, 2.4 °C below average during January and 1.6 °C below average during February. The UK mean temperature for the winter was 1.6 °C, which is 2.0 °C below average, making it the coldest winter since 1978/79 (1.2 °C). Over England and Wales it was also the coldest since 1978/79. Over Northern Ireland and Scotland, winter 2009/10 was comparable with 1978/79 and 1946/47, with only winter 1962/63 significantly colder in series from 1910. For northern Scotland, it was the coldest winter on record, with the highest number of frosts. A generally mild first 10 days in December was followed by a colder period. This cold spell persisted for the first half of January, with some severe frosts. After mid-month, temperatures rose to around normal before a return to colder conditions. These persisted for most of February, with only a few brief milder interludes mostly in the west and south.
Mean temperatures over the UK were 2.0 °C below the 1971-2000 average during December, 2.4 °C below average during January and 1.6 °C below average during February. The UK mean temperature for the winter was 1.6 °C, which is 2.0 °C below average, making it the coldest winter since 1978/79 (1.2 °C). Over England and Wales it was also the coldest since 1978/79. Over Northern Ireland and Scotland, winter 2009/10 was comparable with 1978/79 and 1946/47, with only winter 1962/63 significantly colder in series from 1910. For northern Scotland, it was the coldest winter on record, with the highest number of frosts. A generally mild first 10 days in December was followed by a colder period. This cold spell persisted for the first half of January, with some severe frosts. After mid-month, temperatures rose to around normal before a return to colder conditions. These persisted for most of February, with only a few brief milder interludes mostly in the west and south.
For the sake of simplicity, I’ll assume that a slowdown of 30% roughly equals a drop in mean winter temperature of around 2 degrees. I am not aware of a similar ‘spike’ in the US Eastern Seaboard sea level and am interested to know if this has been researched.
This occasional and regional cooling has to be taken into the context of expected rises in global mean temperature (which will go on irrespective). As things stand, depending on the mitigation scenario, this is likely to mean a temperature rise of between 2 and 4 degrees out to 2100. Again, for simplicity, I’m going to use a median figure of 3c by 2100.
So, by about 2070, the cooling effect of the AMOC slowdown will be offset by the warming effect of the global mean, which at that stage would be between 1.5 and 2.5 degrees. This suggests that the UK will experience a number of cooler winters, comparable to 2010, for the next forty years. After that, its more likely that the cooler winters will be statistically more like recent seasonal averages, i.e., mild.
Meanwhile, back on the US Eastern seaboard, I am speculating that there is a chance that AMOC weakening events could enhance dynamic sea level rise and add 20-30 cm of extra level by the end of the century. This means that a rise of a metre in some areas is plausible by 2060-2070. Add the effect of storm surges and increased offshore cyclonic activity, and New York could experience ‘Sandy-type’ surges on several occasions, with the probability and frequency rising as time goes on.
This is a complex area of study and I have not really done it justice here; my hope is that the average lay person can get a bead on what a slowdown of the Gulf Stream actually means for us and our children.
Wednesday, 1 April 2015
It's not us! New report casts doubt on Anthropogenic source of climate change!
Once the news gets out about the new paper published in the obscure but worthy Journal of Mythological Climate Studies there is going to be a lot of trouble.
The new report from academics in Iceland claims that humans are NOT the cause of climate change. After extensive research. they say, it has been established that Trolls are the principle source of the hot air - via CO2 and methane emissions.
Iceland has long included consideration for elves and trolls in its legislation, for example making sure that roads and other developments avoid certain stones and features in the local landscape which are said to be occupied by mythological beings: Guardian, 25/03/15 .
But the new research is truly unbelievable. "According to the data gathered," we were told by lead scientist Arne Illbebaackersson, "we have historically vastly underestimated the volume of emissions generated by Trolls and other quasi-human entities. Once these new estimates are incorporated into climate models the correlation becomes obvious."
Dr Illbebackerrsson's team has been collecting data from around elf-stones for more than a decade and their new paper shows the correlations in startling detail. Unfortunately, the article is paywalled so this blogger cannot provide a link.
Similar material published in nature and reported by well-known blogger Rabett (here) attributes the origins elsewhere, based on the same core evidence.
Similar material published in nature and reported by well-known blogger Rabett (here) attributes the origins elsewhere, based on the same core evidence.
Famed climate scientist Michael Mann was unavailable for comment.
Monday, 30 March 2015
This is important and should be shouted about
Holy Cow!
Thanks to the Guardian, I find The Oslo Principles, a new publication on the Laws relating to climate change.
It is hard to assess the detail in one chunk, but to me this is so significant it deserves full publication, as well as links:
What it does is set out in law the ways in which both nations and enterprises are legally liable, now, for the impacts of climate change.
The implications of this are very, very far reaching. The commentary, rehearsing the legal arguments and providing references, is 94 pages long, and can be accessed here.Enjoy:
2. Least developed countries: Countries that qualify as least developed, as defined and
classified by the United Nations Committee on Development Policy.
3. Permissible quantum of GHG emissions: Maximum amount of total global GHG emissions per capita in a given year, calculated on a global basis, that, based on Principle 1.a, may be allowed consistent with a plan of steady emissions reductions to ensure that the total
Thanks to the Guardian, I find The Oslo Principles, a new publication on the Laws relating to climate change.
It is hard to assess the detail in one chunk, but to me this is so significant it deserves full publication, as well as links:
What it does is set out in law the ways in which both nations and enterprises are legally liable, now, for the impacts of climate change.
The implications of this are very, very far reaching. The commentary, rehearsing the legal arguments and providing references, is 94 pages long, and can be accessed here.Enjoy:
OSLO PRINCIPLES ON
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE OBLIGATIONS
On March 1, 2015, a group of experts in international law, human rights law, environmental law, and other law adopted the Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change.
The experts came from universities, national and international courts, and organizations located in every region of the world.
Based on extensive legal research and discussions over a period of several years, which culminated in a meeting in Oslo, Norway, in 2014, the undersigned experts adopted the following principles:
PREAMBLE
Climate change threatens the well-being of the Earth. The threats are grave and imminent. Indeed, climate change has already begun to harm human communities and the environment. As a group of legal experts concerned about global climate change and its disastrous effects on the planet and on life, we have come together to identify and articulate a set of Principles that comprise the essential obligations States and enterprises have to avert the critical level of global warming.
These Principles, seeking to overcome the generally abstract nature of previous efforts to define the scope of legal obligations relevant to climate change, express both
1) the current obligations that all States and enterprises have to defend and protect the Earth’s climate and, thus, its biosphere; and
2) basic means of meeting those obligations.
Fulfilling these obligations is necessary and urgent if we are to avoid an unprecedented catastrophe. The obligations set out here derive from broad fundamental principles and a wide range of well-established law.
The biosphere, all forms of life within it and the ecological processes that maintain all living organisms are part of the common heritage of humanity. Human beings, because of their unique nature and capacities, have an essential duty as guardians and trustees of the Earth to preserve, protect and sustain the biosphere and the full diversity of life within it.
Avoiding severe global catastrophe is a moral and legal imperative. To the extent that human activity endangers the biosphere, particularly through the effects of human activity on the global climate, all States and enterprises have an immediate moral and legal duty to prevent the deleterious effects of climate change. While all people, individually and through all the varieties of associations that they form, share the moral duty to avert climate change, the critical legal responsibility rests with States and enterprises.
According to the view of the overwhelming majority of leading scientists and other experts, climate change poses serious risks to both present and future generations of humankind, to other living species and to the biosphere. Climate change further endangers social and economic progress, international peace and security, and equity and justice among human beings and States. Communities and segments of the population already in the most vulnerable circumstances will tend to suffer the effects of climate change most acutely.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE OBLIGATIONS
On March 1, 2015, a group of experts in international law, human rights law, environmental law, and other law adopted the Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change.
The experts came from universities, national and international courts, and organizations located in every region of the world.
Based on extensive legal research and discussions over a period of several years, which culminated in a meeting in Oslo, Norway, in 2014, the undersigned experts adopted the following principles:
PREAMBLE
Climate change threatens the well-being of the Earth. The threats are grave and imminent. Indeed, climate change has already begun to harm human communities and the environment. As a group of legal experts concerned about global climate change and its disastrous effects on the planet and on life, we have come together to identify and articulate a set of Principles that comprise the essential obligations States and enterprises have to avert the critical level of global warming.
These Principles, seeking to overcome the generally abstract nature of previous efforts to define the scope of legal obligations relevant to climate change, express both
1) the current obligations that all States and enterprises have to defend and protect the Earth’s climate and, thus, its biosphere; and
2) basic means of meeting those obligations.
Fulfilling these obligations is necessary and urgent if we are to avoid an unprecedented catastrophe. The obligations set out here derive from broad fundamental principles and a wide range of well-established law.
The biosphere, all forms of life within it and the ecological processes that maintain all living organisms are part of the common heritage of humanity. Human beings, because of their unique nature and capacities, have an essential duty as guardians and trustees of the Earth to preserve, protect and sustain the biosphere and the full diversity of life within it.
Avoiding severe global catastrophe is a moral and legal imperative. To the extent that human activity endangers the biosphere, particularly through the effects of human activity on the global climate, all States and enterprises have an immediate moral and legal duty to prevent the deleterious effects of climate change. While all people, individually and through all the varieties of associations that they form, share the moral duty to avert climate change, the critical legal responsibility rests with States and enterprises.
According to the view of the overwhelming majority of leading scientists and other experts, climate change poses serious risks to both present and future generations of humankind, to other living species and to the biosphere. Climate change further endangers social and economic progress, international peace and security, and equity and justice among human beings and States. Communities and segments of the population already in the most vulnerable circumstances will tend to suffer the effects of climate change most acutely.
Prevailing international scientific opinion recognizes that a two-degree Celsius increase in the
Earth’s mean global surface temperature over the pre-industrial level will have a profound,
adverse and irreversible impact on human and other life and on the Earth. The even greater
increase toward which the climate is currently moving would cause significantly greater
damage. Human activity is already causing grave and potentially catastrophic changes in the
climate. The rate of global climate change is widely understood to put humanity at a tipping
point that requires urgent action to avert disaster. While a small minority of opinion is critical
of the consensus, the power of prevailing scientific opinion requires action as set forth in
these Principles.
All principles, laws, policies and practices, whether local, national or international, that may affect the environment and, in particular, the global climate must be based on scientific evidence. As this evidence is constantly evolving and improving, lawmakers, policymakers and tribunals have a duty to inform themselves of and base their actions – in good faith and respecting justice and equity – on prevailing scientific knowledge and opinion. If necessary, in order to respect the Precautionary Principle (Principle 1 below), such decision makers must take into account, and take action to avoid, any credible and realistic worst-case scenario accepted by a substantial number of eminent climate change experts.
International law entails obligations to act cooperatively to protect and advance fundamental human rights, including in the context of climate change and its effects on people’s ability to exercise such rights. Threatened human rights include, but are not limited to, the right to life, the rights to health, water, food, a clean environment, and other social, economic and cultural rights, and the rights of children, women, minorities and indigenous peoples.
International law recognises that each State is legally responsible for the deleterious trans- border effects that human activities in its territory have on other States.
The grave and universal nature of climate change’s threat to the Earth affirms the basic principle of human solidarity and requires all States and individuals to act, in regard to decisions affecting the climate, with urgency and respect for justice and equity and to negotiate in good faith to achieve agreements that, taken together, would prevent the critical two-degree Celsius increase in global temperature.
If global emissions contributing to climate change continue to increase, or if the required reductions, as set out in these Principles, fail to prevent a two-degree Celsius temperature increase, States and enterprises must reduce their emissions further.
These Principles set out the legal obligations of States and enterprises to take the urgent measures necessary to avert climate change and its catastrophic effects. They do not claim to address all action that humanity will need to take to respond to the dangers climate change poses to human life and the biosphere. Additional crucial initiatives include:
• action by international, national and local actors to adapt to inevitable climate-change effects in ways that minimize harm to human and other forms of life and to the exercise of human rights;
All principles, laws, policies and practices, whether local, national or international, that may affect the environment and, in particular, the global climate must be based on scientific evidence. As this evidence is constantly evolving and improving, lawmakers, policymakers and tribunals have a duty to inform themselves of and base their actions – in good faith and respecting justice and equity – on prevailing scientific knowledge and opinion. If necessary, in order to respect the Precautionary Principle (Principle 1 below), such decision makers must take into account, and take action to avoid, any credible and realistic worst-case scenario accepted by a substantial number of eminent climate change experts.
International law entails obligations to act cooperatively to protect and advance fundamental human rights, including in the context of climate change and its effects on people’s ability to exercise such rights. Threatened human rights include, but are not limited to, the right to life, the rights to health, water, food, a clean environment, and other social, economic and cultural rights, and the rights of children, women, minorities and indigenous peoples.
International law recognises that each State is legally responsible for the deleterious trans- border effects that human activities in its territory have on other States.
The grave and universal nature of climate change’s threat to the Earth affirms the basic principle of human solidarity and requires all States and individuals to act, in regard to decisions affecting the climate, with urgency and respect for justice and equity and to negotiate in good faith to achieve agreements that, taken together, would prevent the critical two-degree Celsius increase in global temperature.
If global emissions contributing to climate change continue to increase, or if the required reductions, as set out in these Principles, fail to prevent a two-degree Celsius temperature increase, States and enterprises must reduce their emissions further.
These Principles set out the legal obligations of States and enterprises to take the urgent measures necessary to avert climate change and its catastrophic effects. They do not claim to address all action that humanity will need to take to respond to the dangers climate change poses to human life and the biosphere. Additional crucial initiatives include:
• action by international, national and local actors to adapt to inevitable climate-change effects in ways that minimize harm to human and other forms of life and to the exercise of human rights;
-
transparency in the conduct of all actors with responsibility to implement these
Principles;
-
widespread education initiatives to ensure that humanity, in general, and all people
making relevant decisions, including legislative and judicial decisions, understand the
urgency of action to avert climate change; and
-
guarantees of public access to information about the climate effects of policies,
projects and practices, public participation in relevant decision-making, and the
establishment of appropriate institutions to coordinate and implement efforts to reduce
climate change.
No single source of law alone requires States and enterprises to fulfil these Principles. Rather, a network of intersecting sources provides States and enterprises with obligations to respond urgently and effectively to climate change in a manner that respects, protects, and fulfils the basic dignity and human rights of the world’s people and the safety and integrity of the biosphere. These sources are local, national, regional, and international and derive from diverse substantive canons, including, inter alia, international human rights law, environmental law and tort law.
Under well-established principles of international law, States are entitled to a degree of discretion in the means they choose to fulfil their obligations under these Principles.
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLE
1. Precautionary Principle: There is clear and convincing evidence that the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by human activity are causing significant changes to the climate and that these changes pose grave risks of irreversible harm to humanity, including present and future generations, to the environment, including other living species and the entire
-
The Precautionary Principle requires that:
-
1) GHG emissions be reduced to the extent and at a pace necessary to protect against
the threats of climate change that can still be avoided; and
-
2) the level of reductions of GHG emissions required to achieve this, should be based
on any credible and realistic worst-case scenario accepted by a substantial number
of eminent climate change experts.
-
1) GHG emissions be reduced to the extent and at a pace necessary to protect against
the threats of climate change that can still be avoided; and
-
The measures required by the Precautionary Principle should be adopted without
regard to the cost, unless that cost is completely disproportionate to the reduction in
emissions that will be brought about by expending it.
2. Least developed countries: Countries that qualify as least developed, as defined and
classified by the United Nations Committee on Development Policy.
3. Permissible quantum of GHG emissions: Maximum amount of total global GHG emissions per capita in a given year, calculated on a global basis, that, based on Principle 1.a, may be allowed consistent with a plan of steady emissions reductions to ensure that the total
3
global average surface temperature increase ultimately caused by GHG emissions never
exceeds pre-industrial temperatures by more than 2 degrees Celsius.
4. Above- or below-permissible-quantum country: A country that, in a specific year, has GHG emissions per capita that, respectively, exceed or fall below the permissible annual quantum.
5. Reduction of GHG: For the purpose of these Principles and Obligations, reduction of GHG emissions includes measures to reduce GHG already in the atmosphere as well as to reduce GHG emissions.
III. SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS
A. Obligations of States and Enterprises
6. States and enterprises must take measures, based on Principle 1, to ensure that the global average surface temperature increase never exceeds pre-industrial temperature by more than 2 degrees Celsius.
8. States and enterprises must refrain from starting new activities that cause excessive GHG emissions, including, for example, erecting or expanding coal-fired power plants, without taking countervailing measures, unless the relevant activities can be shown to be indispensable in light of prevailing circumstances, as might be the case, in particular, in the least developed countries. If the new activities are shown to be indispensable, a least developed country is obligated to opt for less GHG-emitting new activities only if and to the extent that developed countries or other entities provide the relevant least developed country with the additional means to meet this obligation.
9. Developed and developing countries, as well as enterprises, must take available GHG- reduction measures that entail costs if the costs will be offset through future savings or financial gains. Least developed countries and local enterprises in least developed countries have the same obligation to the extent that other entities provide the financial and technical means required without imposing more than a minimal financial burden on the relevant least developed countries or enterprises.
4. Above- or below-permissible-quantum country: A country that, in a specific year, has GHG emissions per capita that, respectively, exceed or fall below the permissible annual quantum.
5. Reduction of GHG: For the purpose of these Principles and Obligations, reduction of GHG emissions includes measures to reduce GHG already in the atmosphere as well as to reduce GHG emissions.
III. SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS
A. Obligations of States and Enterprises
6. States and enterprises must take measures, based on Principle 1, to ensure that the global average surface temperature increase never exceeds pre-industrial temperature by more than 2 degrees Celsius.
-
The extent of the measures legally required must be determined in light of the
Precautionary Principle, defined in Principle 1.
-
The permissible quantum of GHG emissions that a State or enterprise may produce in
a specific year must be determined in accordance with this Principle.
8. States and enterprises must refrain from starting new activities that cause excessive GHG emissions, including, for example, erecting or expanding coal-fired power plants, without taking countervailing measures, unless the relevant activities can be shown to be indispensable in light of prevailing circumstances, as might be the case, in particular, in the least developed countries. If the new activities are shown to be indispensable, a least developed country is obligated to opt for less GHG-emitting new activities only if and to the extent that developed countries or other entities provide the relevant least developed country with the additional means to meet this obligation.
9. Developed and developing countries, as well as enterprises, must take available GHG- reduction measures that entail costs if the costs will be offset through future savings or financial gains. Least developed countries and local enterprises in least developed countries have the same obligation to the extent that other entities provide the financial and technical means required without imposing more than a minimal financial burden on the relevant least developed countries or enterprises.
4
10. Any entity to which an obligation in these Principles applies has flexibility in selecting
the measures it uses to meet this obligation, if the measures chosen, in their totality, achieve
the legally required result, as described in these Principles.
11. No Country or enterprise is relieved of its obligations under these Principles even if its contributions to total GHG emissions are small.
12. States and enterprises must comply with the obligations set out in these Principles even if relevant national law or international agreements, whether existing or later promulgated, set lower standards and, thus, would result in less reduction of GHG emissions.
B. Obligations of States
13. Every above-permissible-quantum country is required to reduce the GHG-emissions within its jurisdiction or control to the permissible quantum within the shortest time feasible. This obligation in no way diminishes the obligations set out under Principles 7, 8 and 9.
14. The obligations of States are common but differentiated.
15. Least developed countries do not have a legal obligation to reduce GHG emissions at their own expense. They are subject only to the duties set out in Principles 7, 8, and 9.
16. A country with GHG emissions close to the permissible quantum is not obligated to reduce its emissions to the permissible quantum if and to the extent that doing so would create undue hardship, considering, in particular, the country’s historical GHG contributions, its capabilities in terms of its wealth, its needs, its dependence on fossil fuel, and its access to renewable energy.
17. Because the permissible quantum will decrease as time progresses, a below-permissible- quantum country producing emissions close to the permissible quantum should refrain from increasing the level of its GHG emissions, unless so refraining would cause undue hardship.
18. If and to the extent that an above-permissible-quantum country has taken all steps reasonably available but nevertheless has failed to fulfil the obligations in Principle 13 or, as appropriate, Principle 15, that country must provide financial or technical means to below- permissible-quantum countries to achieve the reduction of GHG emissions that the responsible above-permissible-quantum country has failed to achieve. The receiving country must use these means for GHG-reduction purposes. Both countries have a joint responsibility to ensure that the support provided, whether financial or technical, is not used for other purposes, although such support may provide benefits in addition to GHG reduction. On the request of a State that has provided technical or financial means to another State to achieve GHG reductions, the receiving State must provide information to allow the supporting State to determine whether the support was used to achieve the intended purpose. Reductions brought about through such financial or technical support shall count as reductions for the State that has provided the financial or technical means and not as reductions for the receiving state.
19. The global reduction of GHG emissions required to ensure that the global average surface temperature increase never exceeds pre-industrial temperatures by more than
11. No Country or enterprise is relieved of its obligations under these Principles even if its contributions to total GHG emissions are small.
12. States and enterprises must comply with the obligations set out in these Principles even if relevant national law or international agreements, whether existing or later promulgated, set lower standards and, thus, would result in less reduction of GHG emissions.
B. Obligations of States
13. Every above-permissible-quantum country is required to reduce the GHG-emissions within its jurisdiction or control to the permissible quantum within the shortest time feasible. This obligation in no way diminishes the obligations set out under Principles 7, 8 and 9.
14. The obligations of States are common but differentiated.
15. Least developed countries do not have a legal obligation to reduce GHG emissions at their own expense. They are subject only to the duties set out in Principles 7, 8, and 9.
16. A country with GHG emissions close to the permissible quantum is not obligated to reduce its emissions to the permissible quantum if and to the extent that doing so would create undue hardship, considering, in particular, the country’s historical GHG contributions, its capabilities in terms of its wealth, its needs, its dependence on fossil fuel, and its access to renewable energy.
17. Because the permissible quantum will decrease as time progresses, a below-permissible- quantum country producing emissions close to the permissible quantum should refrain from increasing the level of its GHG emissions, unless so refraining would cause undue hardship.
18. If and to the extent that an above-permissible-quantum country has taken all steps reasonably available but nevertheless has failed to fulfil the obligations in Principle 13 or, as appropriate, Principle 15, that country must provide financial or technical means to below- permissible-quantum countries to achieve the reduction of GHG emissions that the responsible above-permissible-quantum country has failed to achieve. The receiving country must use these means for GHG-reduction purposes. Both countries have a joint responsibility to ensure that the support provided, whether financial or technical, is not used for other purposes, although such support may provide benefits in addition to GHG reduction. On the request of a State that has provided technical or financial means to another State to achieve GHG reductions, the receiving State must provide information to allow the supporting State to determine whether the support was used to achieve the intended purpose. Reductions brought about through such financial or technical support shall count as reductions for the State that has provided the financial or technical means and not as reductions for the receiving state.
19. The global reduction of GHG emissions required to ensure that the global average surface temperature increase never exceeds pre-industrial temperatures by more than
5
2 degrees Celsius, according to estimates based on the Precautionary Principle, may be
impossible to achieve without additional reductions by above-permissible-quantum countries.
21. States shall refrain from providing new subsidies, aid, credits, grants, guarantees, or insurance for installation of major new facilities or major expansion of existing facilities that will result in the emission of unnecessarily high or, in the given circumstances, unsustainable quantities of GHG, either within or outside their territories. For a least developed country, there may be an exception to this requirement if choosing more efficient facilities would be unduly burdensome for that country.
22. A State that fails or is reasonably likely to fail to meet its obligations shall, without prejudice to the imposition of possible consequences for such failure or impending failure, initiate or support research designed to identify and develop means to reduce GHG emissions.
23. Neither high cost nor the lack of financial means can, alone, excuse a State’s failure to meet its obligations to achieve GHG reductions or constitute a defence against legal sanctions that may be imposed as a consequence of such a failure. To avoid such sanctions, a State must show excessive hardship or extraordinary circumstances beyond the State’s control that have prevented the State from meeting its obligations.
24. States must regulate GHG-emissions in their jurisdictions or under their control to meet their obligations set forth in these Principles.
C. Procedural Obligations of States
25. States must accept the jurisdiction of independent courts or tribunals in which the State’s compliance with its obligations as set forth in these Principles can be challenged and adjudicated.
-
If that is the case, those countries must, to the extent reasonably possible, reduce
their emissions enough to ensure the global average temperature increase does not
exceed the stated level.
-
If such additional contributions do not suffice to meet the obligation to ensure that
the global average surface temperature increase never exceeds pre-industrial
temperature by more than 2 degrees Celsius, as set forth by Principle 6, below-
permissible-quantum countries must reduce their emissions to the extent necessary
to achieve that result. Unless such a country is a developed country, this obligation
applies only if and to the extent that developed above-permissible-quantum
countries or other entities provide the relevant country with the means to meet this
obligation.
21. States shall refrain from providing new subsidies, aid, credits, grants, guarantees, or insurance for installation of major new facilities or major expansion of existing facilities that will result in the emission of unnecessarily high or, in the given circumstances, unsustainable quantities of GHG, either within or outside their territories. For a least developed country, there may be an exception to this requirement if choosing more efficient facilities would be unduly burdensome for that country.
22. A State that fails or is reasonably likely to fail to meet its obligations shall, without prejudice to the imposition of possible consequences for such failure or impending failure, initiate or support research designed to identify and develop means to reduce GHG emissions.
23. Neither high cost nor the lack of financial means can, alone, excuse a State’s failure to meet its obligations to achieve GHG reductions or constitute a defence against legal sanctions that may be imposed as a consequence of such a failure. To avoid such sanctions, a State must show excessive hardship or extraordinary circumstances beyond the State’s control that have prevented the State from meeting its obligations.
24. States must regulate GHG-emissions in their jurisdictions or under their control to meet their obligations set forth in these Principles.
C. Procedural Obligations of States
25. States must accept the jurisdiction of independent courts or tribunals in which the State’s compliance with its obligations as set forth in these Principles can be challenged and adjudicated.
-
States must participate in these proceedings in good faith and ensure that such
proceedings are fair and efficient.
-
In such proceedings, the State whose compliance with its obligations has been
challenged must fully disclose the ways in which it has effected compliance in
order to enable the court or tribunal to determine whether the State has complied
with the relevant obligations and, where it is found the State has not complied, to
determine the extent and nature of the State’s failure to comply.
6
26. Each State must make available information that is necessary to enable persons within its
territories to assess the risks to their lives and health that climate change poses.
D. Obligations of Enterprises
27. Enterprises must assess their facilities and property to evaluate their vulnerability to climate change; the financial effect that future climate change will have on the enterprises; and the enterprises’ efforts to increase their resilience to future climate change. Enterprises must publicly disclose this information and ensure, in particular, that it is readily accessible to those who are or are likely to be directly or indirectly affected by their activities, including investors, clients, and securities regulators.
28. An enterprise whose activity includes fossil-fuel production must assess the impact that any limitations imposed on future extraction or use of fossil fuels, consistent with the “carbon budget” concept enunciated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others, will have on its financial situation. The enterprise must disclose this information to investors, securities regulators and the public.
29. Before building any major new facilities, enterprises must conduct environmental impact assessments. Such an assessment must include an analysis of the proposed facility’s carbon footprint and ways to reduce it and the potential effects of future climate change on the proposed facility.
30. Enterprises in the banking and finance sectors should take into account the GHG effects of any projects they consider financing.
D. Obligations of Enterprises
27. Enterprises must assess their facilities and property to evaluate their vulnerability to climate change; the financial effect that future climate change will have on the enterprises; and the enterprises’ efforts to increase their resilience to future climate change. Enterprises must publicly disclose this information and ensure, in particular, that it is readily accessible to those who are or are likely to be directly or indirectly affected by their activities, including investors, clients, and securities regulators.
28. An enterprise whose activity includes fossil-fuel production must assess the impact that any limitations imposed on future extraction or use of fossil fuels, consistent with the “carbon budget” concept enunciated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others, will have on its financial situation. The enterprise must disclose this information to investors, securities regulators and the public.
29. Before building any major new facilities, enterprises must conduct environmental impact assessments. Such an assessment must include an analysis of the proposed facility’s carbon footprint and ways to reduce it and the potential effects of future climate change on the proposed facility.
30. Enterprises in the banking and finance sectors should take into account the GHG effects of any projects they consider financing.
7
Annex
These principles were prepared by an Expert Group on Global Climate Obligations, which
consisted of the following members:
Antonio Benjamin, Justice, High Court of Justice of Brazil
Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Director, Sabin
Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University Law School
Toon Huydecoper, retired Advocate-General of the Netherlands Supreme Court
Michael Kirby, retired Justice of the High Court of Australia
M.C. Mehta, advocate before the Supreme Court of India
Thomas Pogge, Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs and founding Director, Global Justice Program, Yale University
Qin Tianbao, Professor of Environmental and International Law and Assistant Dean for International Affiliations, Wuhan University School of Law
Dinah Shelton, Manatt/Ahn Professor of International Law, George Washington University and Law School, and Commissioner and former President, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
James Silk, Clinical Professor of Law, Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, and Director, Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights, Yale Law School
Jessica Simor QC, barrister, Matrix Chambers, London
Jaap Spier,* Advocate-General of the Netherlands Supreme Court and Honorary Professor,
Maastricht University Faculty of Law
Elisabeth Steiner, Judge, European Court of Human Rights;
Philip Sutherland, Professor, Stellenbosch University Faculty of Law
* Rapporteur of the Expert Group on Global Climate Obligations
Antonio Benjamin, Justice, High Court of Justice of Brazil
Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Director, Sabin
Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University Law School
Toon Huydecoper, retired Advocate-General of the Netherlands Supreme Court
Michael Kirby, retired Justice of the High Court of Australia
M.C. Mehta, advocate before the Supreme Court of India
Thomas Pogge, Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs and founding Director, Global Justice Program, Yale University
Qin Tianbao, Professor of Environmental and International Law and Assistant Dean for International Affiliations, Wuhan University School of Law
Dinah Shelton, Manatt/Ahn Professor of International Law, George Washington University and Law School, and Commissioner and former President, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
James Silk, Clinical Professor of Law, Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, and Director, Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights, Yale Law School
Jessica Simor QC, barrister, Matrix Chambers, London
Jaap Spier,* Advocate-General of the Netherlands Supreme Court and Honorary Professor,
Maastricht University Faculty of Law
Elisabeth Steiner, Judge, European Court of Human Rights;
Philip Sutherland, Professor, Stellenbosch University Faculty of Law
* Rapporteur of the Expert Group on Global Climate Obligations
8
Wednesday, 4 March 2015
Fiction
This is a piece of fiction.
It is a popular delusion that wealthy and powerful people feel the need to be members of clubs or secret societies and that they spend their time conspiring to manage the 'World order' to suit their best interests.
There are clubs and societies. Some of them are very exclusive. In some of these clubs, some of the members will sometimes talk about politics, capital, and so forth, quite possible over a bottle of old rare port. But this is no more than ordinary social behaviour. There are no grand conspiracies.
The main reason that this is so is that there is no need for such conspiracies. By and large, the more powerful or wealthy a person is, the more likely he or she is to have a certain set of values, expectations and prejudices, just like everyone else. The shared values and desires of a group of people are sufficient to generate understandings and agreements which do not require contracts, promises or secret meetings. Most of these are clever, or at least cunning people. They have experience, habit, often history, as well as a broad understanding of how the world really works.
So, when I say that in the early twenty-first century there was an agreement, I don't mean to say that anything was made explicit or written down or even directly discussed. Call it instead a feeling, a mutual understanding, a general sense that certain problems implied certain solutions.
Nor need all of these people shared an agenda, world-view or ideology. They did share a knowledge of power and its applications.
The agreement related to Climate Change, or what some people call Global Warming.
There was no serious doubt in these people's minds that this was a real phenomenon, with real risks and a real possibility of a number of social and financial crises attached to it. These people were smart enough to understand that the projections of tens of thousands of scientists was not random and needed to be addressed.
The direst warnings were of social, political, environmental and financial collapses which would cause millions, perhaps billions of premature deaths, large scale extinctions, anarchy, famine, extremism, brutality, the end of the rule of law (in some places).
But there were certain items at risk which could not be let go. Perhaps surprisingly, it was understood that the environment, nature, ecosystems, had to be protected in the long term. Nothing would survive if this was destroyed, so radial measures to protect the environment from the worst ravages of exploitation were considered justifiable.
Given the nature of the wealth and its sources, the other item at issue was the survival of Markets and Capital, trade and business. Without these, there was no basis on which to generate, protect or justify wealth.
And the agreement was this: let it run its course. Any rational analysis came to the same conclusion; that there were too many people on earth for the planet to sustain, and that the imbalance of resource demand over supply would worsen if population increased as projected. So the solution was reasonably simple: without having to make hard decisions, or get involved in ethical finery, a simple strategy of inertia (no need to rush to change anything) would produce the desired result - a reduction of the world's population, a reduction on the unsustainable demand on resources, a reduction of poverty by eradicating the poor, rather than the cause of poverty, inequity.
And so, not consciously, nor conspiratorially, the program was set. The usual balance of fine words and half-hearted gestures, of grand plans and good intentions, mixed with the absence of real action or the necessary hard decisions. This was the simple, elegant solution; let what will be come to pass.
And that is how we get to where we are today... the dawn of the Passive Holocaust.
It is a popular delusion that wealthy and powerful people feel the need to be members of clubs or secret societies and that they spend their time conspiring to manage the 'World order' to suit their best interests.
There are clubs and societies. Some of them are very exclusive. In some of these clubs, some of the members will sometimes talk about politics, capital, and so forth, quite possible over a bottle of old rare port. But this is no more than ordinary social behaviour. There are no grand conspiracies.
The main reason that this is so is that there is no need for such conspiracies. By and large, the more powerful or wealthy a person is, the more likely he or she is to have a certain set of values, expectations and prejudices, just like everyone else. The shared values and desires of a group of people are sufficient to generate understandings and agreements which do not require contracts, promises or secret meetings. Most of these are clever, or at least cunning people. They have experience, habit, often history, as well as a broad understanding of how the world really works.
So, when I say that in the early twenty-first century there was an agreement, I don't mean to say that anything was made explicit or written down or even directly discussed. Call it instead a feeling, a mutual understanding, a general sense that certain problems implied certain solutions.
Nor need all of these people shared an agenda, world-view or ideology. They did share a knowledge of power and its applications.
The agreement related to Climate Change, or what some people call Global Warming.
There was no serious doubt in these people's minds that this was a real phenomenon, with real risks and a real possibility of a number of social and financial crises attached to it. These people were smart enough to understand that the projections of tens of thousands of scientists was not random and needed to be addressed.
The direst warnings were of social, political, environmental and financial collapses which would cause millions, perhaps billions of premature deaths, large scale extinctions, anarchy, famine, extremism, brutality, the end of the rule of law (in some places).
But there were certain items at risk which could not be let go. Perhaps surprisingly, it was understood that the environment, nature, ecosystems, had to be protected in the long term. Nothing would survive if this was destroyed, so radial measures to protect the environment from the worst ravages of exploitation were considered justifiable.
Given the nature of the wealth and its sources, the other item at issue was the survival of Markets and Capital, trade and business. Without these, there was no basis on which to generate, protect or justify wealth.
And the agreement was this: let it run its course. Any rational analysis came to the same conclusion; that there were too many people on earth for the planet to sustain, and that the imbalance of resource demand over supply would worsen if population increased as projected. So the solution was reasonably simple: without having to make hard decisions, or get involved in ethical finery, a simple strategy of inertia (no need to rush to change anything) would produce the desired result - a reduction of the world's population, a reduction on the unsustainable demand on resources, a reduction of poverty by eradicating the poor, rather than the cause of poverty, inequity.
And so, not consciously, nor conspiratorially, the program was set. The usual balance of fine words and half-hearted gestures, of grand plans and good intentions, mixed with the absence of real action or the necessary hard decisions. This was the simple, elegant solution; let what will be come to pass.
And that is how we get to where we are today... the dawn of the Passive Holocaust.
Tuesday, 30 December 2014
What I have (not) been doing
Both of my regular readers will have noticed the paucity of commentary here in the past several weeks. There are a number of causal factors, but the main one is that I have been a bit busy doing other things, like this:
.jpg)
Since we're at the year end and such things have associated traditions, I thought it would be a chance to catch up with what has been going on during the year and what I have done to 'do my bit'. The most obvious change is an increase in my level of direct political engagement.
For several years it has been easy enough to feel engaged in the process of advocating for action on climate change by blogging and commenting on blogs and media, but the motivation to continue with this has declined a bit, because there are now so many good blogs, with so much good science, that one's own voice tends to get lost in the maelstrom. The other aspect is that in the UK, while there is still some crass denial, especially amongst the government, and thus some advocacy, in particular to combat the pernicious GWPF, by and large the argument seems to have settled into a broad acceptance not only of the facts of AGW but also of the need to actually do something about it.
In September, I finally cracked. During the course of my work as a renewable energy consultant I deal on an every day basis with people's uncertainty about climate change science, and of course their uncertainty about the viability of renewable energy. As a result of this I sensed a change in perception of our global problems and local solutions over time. A friend in the USA declared the intention to go to the Climate Action March in New York and, being a sympathetic type, I thought it was about time I did my bit, so went to Knaresborough.
That day was transformative because of chance. The march had gathered some supporters but not a large contingent, and there were suggestions that it should be abandoned. I stood on a park bench and said something about why I was there and that I was going to go to the town hall and make my point in solidarity with others around the world. Everyone cheered, then we all marched down the road, disrupted the traffic in a polite, British way, and made a lot of noise, in a very un-British way. Even the drivers going by were appreciative and supportive and everyone who went along seemed to have a good time. Most importantly, we made our point there and then.
This made me realise that there was still work to be done: plenty of people were concerned about action on climate change, but there seemed to be a shortage of leadership and purpose. A few words and some rhetoric later, instead of a follower, I had become a leader of the march. Inspiring me in part were two people from the local Green Party who had turned up with several others to make their voices heard, along with my NY chum who had an altogether more extravagant experience on the day. Within the week I joined the Green Party of England and Wales.
Currently I am the local group's press and publicity and fundraising officer and may stand as a paper candidate in the local elections in 2015. I'm also giving input to the central party's policy discussions on defence and energy (two separate strands, not one). So now I am busy on the facebook page I generated, writing for the local press, and will shortly be blogging elsewhere for the local group. Our (small) membership has grown over 60% since September, but there is a lot of work to do.
This has been my most relevant action during 2014. Engagement in AGW and the ethics of climate and the environment has become more focussed on politics, and more direct. This, along with the plans for the next few months, will probably keep me from blogging more than occasionally here, and more often contributing here: https://www.facebook.com/rcgreensyorks?ref=hl .
Enough about me and the blog. Have a jolly nice time over the next few days of the holiday, and please accept my best wishes for you and yours in 2015. I'll catch up with you later.
Since we're at the year end and such things have associated traditions, I thought it would be a chance to catch up with what has been going on during the year and what I have done to 'do my bit'. The most obvious change is an increase in my level of direct political engagement.
For several years it has been easy enough to feel engaged in the process of advocating for action on climate change by blogging and commenting on blogs and media, but the motivation to continue with this has declined a bit, because there are now so many good blogs, with so much good science, that one's own voice tends to get lost in the maelstrom. The other aspect is that in the UK, while there is still some crass denial, especially amongst the government, and thus some advocacy, in particular to combat the pernicious GWPF, by and large the argument seems to have settled into a broad acceptance not only of the facts of AGW but also of the need to actually do something about it.
In September, I finally cracked. During the course of my work as a renewable energy consultant I deal on an every day basis with people's uncertainty about climate change science, and of course their uncertainty about the viability of renewable energy. As a result of this I sensed a change in perception of our global problems and local solutions over time. A friend in the USA declared the intention to go to the Climate Action March in New York and, being a sympathetic type, I thought it was about time I did my bit, so went to Knaresborough.
That day was transformative because of chance. The march had gathered some supporters but not a large contingent, and there were suggestions that it should be abandoned. I stood on a park bench and said something about why I was there and that I was going to go to the town hall and make my point in solidarity with others around the world. Everyone cheered, then we all marched down the road, disrupted the traffic in a polite, British way, and made a lot of noise, in a very un-British way. Even the drivers going by were appreciative and supportive and everyone who went along seemed to have a good time. Most importantly, we made our point there and then.
This made me realise that there was still work to be done: plenty of people were concerned about action on climate change, but there seemed to be a shortage of leadership and purpose. A few words and some rhetoric later, instead of a follower, I had become a leader of the march. Inspiring me in part were two people from the local Green Party who had turned up with several others to make their voices heard, along with my NY chum who had an altogether more extravagant experience on the day. Within the week I joined the Green Party of England and Wales.
Currently I am the local group's press and publicity and fundraising officer and may stand as a paper candidate in the local elections in 2015. I'm also giving input to the central party's policy discussions on defence and energy (two separate strands, not one). So now I am busy on the facebook page I generated, writing for the local press, and will shortly be blogging elsewhere for the local group. Our (small) membership has grown over 60% since September, but there is a lot of work to do.
This has been my most relevant action during 2014. Engagement in AGW and the ethics of climate and the environment has become more focussed on politics, and more direct. This, along with the plans for the next few months, will probably keep me from blogging more than occasionally here, and more often contributing here: https://www.facebook.com/rcgreensyorks?ref=hl .
Enough about me and the blog. Have a jolly nice time over the next few days of the holiday, and please accept my best wishes for you and yours in 2015. I'll catch up with you later.
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
is Doomerism doomed?
Republicans take over the running of the USA in yesterday's mid-terms and no doubt there will be those who feel that this is it; the beginning of the end.
Any chance that the USA will contribute meaningfully and positively to next year's Climate Summit, already identified as being crucial to the well-being of us and our planet, is probably vanishing pretty fast. And without strong positive input from the USA, there isn't likely to be unilateral movement from other key players in the climate policy debate.
A lot of people are already pretty downbeat about where humanity is going vis-a -vis the planet and Nature, and this is more fuel to the fire of underlying doom-mongering, that the end of civilization as we know it has come a step closer, a step sooner.
It's good that lots of people are now aware of the many issues which arise in relation to a changing climate and are worried about what the future might bring. It's less good when people promote the idea that we might as well give up any hope of progress and work on the basis that we are, fundamentally and inevitably, fucked.
This isn't just because of the 'negative waves' which rebound from such consciousness, though. There is a very tricky problem, which connects environmental doomerism to its political antithesis, objectivist libertarianism.
The assumption of many people who write, blog or produce journalistic pieces on Climate is that the readers all agree and understand that the future which is being projected in social terms is self-evidently 'Bad', or 'Evil', or otherwise morally unacceptable. Speaking personally, I find it enormously worrying that the human victims of climate change around the world are barely considered in considerations of many bloggers and writers, when in the end, the consequences of an unmitigated warming of the planet will be comparable to the Holocaust (there, I said it).
The problem is, that whilst our 'friends' and online audience will agree with us that the moral implications are appalling, it is likely that our opponents will be inclined to think the complete opposite. How could this be?
You need to understand the underlying 'vision' of Randian and Objectivist Libertarian Philosophy. The ideal society envisioned by these world-views is one in which a minority (the meritocratic plutocracy of intellectuals - consider the conflicts there) is the only meaningful object of value and benefit, at the cost of the unwashed, illiterate, worthless majority. The Libertarian world exists to satisfy the needs of the empowered individual, to permit that person's liberty to pursue meaningful intellectual activity and behave responsibly in making decisions which impact on others (without giving those ignorant others a say in what they think is good for them).
So, a world of the near future in which millions of Africans, Asians, South Americans, Poor people, vulnerable populations, all are at great risk, and likely to suffer and die, is not necessarily a 'bad thing'. Because it means there is more to go round for the deserving/empowered/justified. Because it means that the 'natural order' of society as envisioned by the unspeakable Rand may come to pass.
Under these conditions, it's very hard to see what the point of being 'doomerist' could possibly be. Your opponents are singing from a fundamentally different song-sheet, and your natural allies, who push for mitigation and adaptation to preserve and protect future generations, well, they just get depressed.
Maybe the mid-terms are just more evidence that we are too stupid to save ourselves from the 'big crash'. Maybe it is clear that Business As Usual has too much inertia to stop it. But this is not going to stop me for fighting for a better, more just, more equitable, more sustainable world. I'm going to keep fighting for this in whatever small ways I can. Because it is the right thing to do.
You are likely, reading this, to agree with me that the kind of future scenarios painted in the IPCC summary report are things we don't want to happen, that are morally unacceptable. So, what do you want to do about it? If its wrong, you can choose either to give up and hope it doesn't hurt too much when it comes, or perhaps imagine that you will somehow miraculously find the means or luck to survive the coming breakdown of civilization and be part of a new, better re-creation of the Next Social Order, or you can stand up for your principles and say to yourself; "No, this is wrong, and I'm going to fight it. I'll write to my local press and TV stations, my politicians and representatives. I'll be active in local environmental campaigns and, if necessary, stand in the streets and shout about injustice. I'll campaign for better answers and make as much damn noise as I can make."
Sometimes, the realities of politics, human society, human nature, come and bite us on the ankles. Even more reason to get back up, dust ourselves down, and get on with what we believe must be done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS-zK1S5Dws
Any chance that the USA will contribute meaningfully and positively to next year's Climate Summit, already identified as being crucial to the well-being of us and our planet, is probably vanishing pretty fast. And without strong positive input from the USA, there isn't likely to be unilateral movement from other key players in the climate policy debate.
A lot of people are already pretty downbeat about where humanity is going vis-a -vis the planet and Nature, and this is more fuel to the fire of underlying doom-mongering, that the end of civilization as we know it has come a step closer, a step sooner.
It's good that lots of people are now aware of the many issues which arise in relation to a changing climate and are worried about what the future might bring. It's less good when people promote the idea that we might as well give up any hope of progress and work on the basis that we are, fundamentally and inevitably, fucked.
This isn't just because of the 'negative waves' which rebound from such consciousness, though. There is a very tricky problem, which connects environmental doomerism to its political antithesis, objectivist libertarianism.
The assumption of many people who write, blog or produce journalistic pieces on Climate is that the readers all agree and understand that the future which is being projected in social terms is self-evidently 'Bad', or 'Evil', or otherwise morally unacceptable. Speaking personally, I find it enormously worrying that the human victims of climate change around the world are barely considered in considerations of many bloggers and writers, when in the end, the consequences of an unmitigated warming of the planet will be comparable to the Holocaust (there, I said it).
The problem is, that whilst our 'friends' and online audience will agree with us that the moral implications are appalling, it is likely that our opponents will be inclined to think the complete opposite. How could this be?
You need to understand the underlying 'vision' of Randian and Objectivist Libertarian Philosophy. The ideal society envisioned by these world-views is one in which a minority (the meritocratic plutocracy of intellectuals - consider the conflicts there) is the only meaningful object of value and benefit, at the cost of the unwashed, illiterate, worthless majority. The Libertarian world exists to satisfy the needs of the empowered individual, to permit that person's liberty to pursue meaningful intellectual activity and behave responsibly in making decisions which impact on others (without giving those ignorant others a say in what they think is good for them).
So, a world of the near future in which millions of Africans, Asians, South Americans, Poor people, vulnerable populations, all are at great risk, and likely to suffer and die, is not necessarily a 'bad thing'. Because it means there is more to go round for the deserving/empowered/justified. Because it means that the 'natural order' of society as envisioned by the unspeakable Rand may come to pass.
Under these conditions, it's very hard to see what the point of being 'doomerist' could possibly be. Your opponents are singing from a fundamentally different song-sheet, and your natural allies, who push for mitigation and adaptation to preserve and protect future generations, well, they just get depressed.
Maybe the mid-terms are just more evidence that we are too stupid to save ourselves from the 'big crash'. Maybe it is clear that Business As Usual has too much inertia to stop it. But this is not going to stop me for fighting for a better, more just, more equitable, more sustainable world. I'm going to keep fighting for this in whatever small ways I can. Because it is the right thing to do.
You are likely, reading this, to agree with me that the kind of future scenarios painted in the IPCC summary report are things we don't want to happen, that are morally unacceptable. So, what do you want to do about it? If its wrong, you can choose either to give up and hope it doesn't hurt too much when it comes, or perhaps imagine that you will somehow miraculously find the means or luck to survive the coming breakdown of civilization and be part of a new, better re-creation of the Next Social Order, or you can stand up for your principles and say to yourself; "No, this is wrong, and I'm going to fight it. I'll write to my local press and TV stations, my politicians and representatives. I'll be active in local environmental campaigns and, if necessary, stand in the streets and shout about injustice. I'll campaign for better answers and make as much damn noise as I can make."
Sometimes, the realities of politics, human society, human nature, come and bite us on the ankles. Even more reason to get back up, dust ourselves down, and get on with what we believe must be done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS-zK1S5Dws
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)