Although I gladly yield expertise on the environmental and climate change files to my fellow blogger, The Disaffected Lib, who has been doing exemplary work these past several years, every so often I come across something that is a screaming indictment of world leaders who have been content to whistle past the graveyard while we plunge headlong toward irreversible climate change, change that will make life very difficult, if not impossible, for many of our children and grandchildren.
One of the blessings and, in some ways, curses, of using the Internet to seek out information that the mainstream media either declines to pursue or pays scant attention to is to feel a little like Cassandra, who was given the power of prophecy but destined to never be believed. I suspect the people who appear in the following presentation feel much like her as well.
What follows is the first press briefing of the Arctic Emergency Methane Group(AMEG) held on Dec. 4, 2014 at the 20th annual Conference of the Parties (COP 20) for the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Lima, Peru. You do not have to watch the entire video to appreciate the gravity of the situation as they discuss the accelerating pace of Arctic sea ice melting, and the consequences of that melt. In the words of presenter John Nissen, "All hell will break loose". His solution, however, may not sit well with everyone:
The best idea I read from an AMEG scientist was to capture as much of the methane as possible from the methane fields and store it as a transition fuel from a carbon based economy to an carbon free energy based economy.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that carbon capture sequestration or geo-engineering will save civilization is a joke, in my opinion.
I too am very leery about any form of geo-engineering, Anon. Too many things could go wrong, especially given our very imperfect understanding of all the factors that influence climate.
DeletePainful to watch, Lorne. The best of intentions but the proposals are segmented and incoherent. Sure, pump massive quantities of aerosol sulfides into the atmosphere but how does that help the equally grave problem of ocean acidification? So many of these solutions come with 'knock on' effects that impact, and potentially worsen, other existential threats.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with this is that we're treating symptoms as though they were diseases and, in the process, we avoid solutions to what's really plaguing us. It's as though we're struggling to decide at whose hands we'll die - nature's or our own.
As a now global civilization, we've become dependent on telling ourselves lies and then forcing ourselves to believe them. In the course of your lifetime, Lorne, the global population will have almost trebled. Yet we still cannot take control of our addiction to perpetual, exponential growth. Even Adam Smith foresaw that the sort of growth that underlies every threat we face today could not last more than two centuries, tops, and he was writing before the advent of the Industrial Revolution and mankind's fossil fuel bonanza.
Look at the insanity of our focus on the year 2100. If we don't do this, by 2100 we'll be dealing with this or that. Mankind at its mightiest, most educated and prosperous, cannot focus on more than surviving the next 85-years when we know that the changes already in effect and the natural feedback mechanisms now being triggered will wreak havoc for centuries. In effect we're accepting a terminal diagnosis as our "best possible" outcome. How inspiring!
No one wants to say it but our planet's human carrying capacity, especially given our bloated individual consumption level, is well under 3-billion. Yet we're at 7.5-billion, almost certainly heading for 9 and perhaps up to 12-billion by the end of the century.
I came across a report (naturally I failed to bookmark it) that considered how civilization will unravel as we approach 4C. The conclusion was that 4C will solve our GHG emissions problem because it will trigger civilizational collapse on a global scale. The Great Die Off happens well before we get to 4C through massive crop failures, the spread of disease and, saving the worst for last, regional and world wars.
If we can't start talking about what we have to do to see our civilization survive for the next thousand or two thousand years, we'll never find or accept the solutions that are still open to us. That's a path that begins by accepting that the economy can never be greater than the environment. We've shown that we don't have to live in harmony with nature but we can't live beyond it for long.
I agree completely, Mound. These are hard truths that neither the world's leaders nor its citizens are willing to acknowledge. We all seem to be content with sweet lies or total evasion rather than bitter truths. Our downfall seems inevitable and, perhaps in some ways, deserved.
DeleteAlthough the problem is real, the way it is presented gives me the feel that someone wants to sell us a solution (that really is none) and get filthy rich along the way. That has a bit of arms trading - the solution quickly becomes part of the problem, but someone profits from it big time. In (virtual) monetary terms. We have come to a point where I would see no other answer but massively scaling down the thing we falsely call "economy" (from Oikos = house, referring to the lost art of householding) and build resilience. I see very little of that happening on a global scale. Some parts of Europe - in particular the North and West - might be doing relatively well, both: in terms of expected change and in terms of environmental resilience, but Europe could be ground to pieces in an Arctic Resource war. Meanwhile the latest new pocket telephone creates an order of magnitudes bigger hype than the potential long term demise of our species.
ReplyDeleteYour comments ring all too true, Stephan. It is perhaps the fatal flaw of our species that we are able to relegate the most urgent of problems to the background, while we extol the latest 'toy' that comes along in an almost desperate attempt to ignore the peril around us. We are not sufficiently mature, it seems, to admit there are no easy solutions to our problems.
DeleteThere is no hope for continuing civilization as long as population is not reducing. The global warming will bring civilization down very close to the blue ocean event in the arctic as there will be a sudden gain of albedo loss heat coupled with loss of latent heat. The question is who is on track for best modeling arctic ice loss? I would not care about speculation on many years after a BOE as this will be a very different earth.
ReplyDeleteAs The Mound of sound regularly points out, Russell, climate change cannot be viewed in isolation from overpopulation and overconsumption. Unless we quickly find the fortitude to confront these issues head on, I share your pessimism about our fate.
Delete