Bolstering urgent warnings from the global scientific community that the world must rapidly transition away from fossil fuels to avert climate catastrophe and keep global warming below 1.5°C within this century, a new study out Tuesday suggests meeting that end it is simply a matter of political will.
No worries for the upper crust. They have already got their ticket to the moon or Mars, or have a pre paid underground condo ready.
How does one “emit” fossil fuels?
Why does no one seem to listen? The analogy that I would use is if America was being invaded with vast armies on both the Canadian and Mexico borders which the experts warn us is a coming catastrophic and deadly invasion, where millions will die, but our Government ignores as nothing to worry about!
As noted, nothing about methane hydrates…pie in the sky.
well, it’s not even remotely possible politically short of global revolution starting sometime tomorrow and finishing up say, around midnight.
sorry. we lost. it’s about surviving it now, and about how to make the rich pay for their consummate crime and making sure they’re among the first to go.
We need “rapid global action”. Really? That is a fantasy after the latest COP meeting ended with nothing but an agreement that we are in dire circumstances with no coordinated action proposed. I’ll tell you what is increasingly likely to happen. We will drift into this planet-wide catastrophe with hopelessly inadequate global action. We will see rises in global warming that are even faster than the models predict because they still do not take the enormous release of methane into account. We are looking at the greatest threat to human civilization in history and our inability to realize that and really act on it will possibly bring about our end and that of millions of other species.
So, we need rapid action including an immediate stop to building anything that emits carbon.
Meanwhile, rolling off an assembly line near you today will be many thousands of cars, trucks, buses, snowmachines, lawncare tools, chainsaws, pumps, generators…oh, hell, why go on. We’re fucked and taking the beauty of nature down with us.
Isn’t it peculiar that the U.S. has arguably lost at every endeavor since the end of the Vietnam war, accept making the rich even richer?
Technically speaking, we’ve lost every endeavor since WW2.
. . . which Leeds to the following perfectly reasonable question and answer:
Another example being a leaking gas tank, which “professor” Smith forgot to mention in his utterly naive proposal. Or perhaps the “solution” professed in this article was just a ‘brain fart’, reinforcing RainbowSerpent’s astute analysis. As to bardamu’s comments, immediately below, methinks (s)he has qualified her/himself to join “Professor” Smith in the Department of Obfuscation at the University of Leeds . . .
So, what we see here once again is that responsible studies are incompletely consistent–not that it is less than clear that global warming is occurring, not that it is less than clear that it does have consequences, nor that it will have more, but simply that we do not know exactly what those are, on exactly what schedule they will arrive, or to what extent our own efforts may be influential.
Logically, predicting precise results here is a task much like predicting at what day or hour the stock market will fall or what the weather will be in Boston, MA at ten in the morning on February 3rd of the following year. We can know very easily that the market will rise and fall or that we do not want to be trapped outdoors in a T-shirt and sandals outside Faneuil Hall during winter, but we do not know just what the temperature will be nor on what day we would pull our investments from the market–if we had any. We might guess accurately, but it would be a lucky guess.
The above is not a particular article of faith of mine nor a suggestion that we “not listen to scientists” or anything of the sort. The particular problems of weather prediction are a standard example of what, since the 1980s, has developed as “complexity theory.” It can be checked as such.
In relation to this enormous catastrophe, the mankind-driven disruption of the global climate, these principles should have consequences for our behavior because they describe fairly well the actual state of our knowledge:
- We do know that catastrophic global warming has occurred and is occurring
- We do not know the extent, the effects, or the timing of what will occur
- That extent, those effects, and that timing will largely determine our ongoing circumstances
- We can, therefore, easily conclude that we are in trouble
- We cannot, therefore, reasonably conclude that our efforts are useless
In terms of determining actions, that’s quite a bit of information already, isn’t it? If we care about all this life on Earth business, we had better act energetically and quickly. If any of us care about our own personal conditions or those of friends or younger family, we had better act.
We are not going to find consensus among 9 billion humans, so we had better act without consensus. But that is not a call for top-down or mandated action. I would be pleased enough were the rulers of societies to wake up and take constructive action, but there’s little precedent for that. As a group, they tend to see their interests as opposed to those of the population rather than aligned, and they are as likely to respond by designing a plague as by creating habitat.
The situation calls for immediate action by individuals and groups to demonstrate solutions and implement alternatives so that constructive alternatives are as publicly known as possible as we pass through the grand changes that will come in some form at some time soon. We have, for the moment, a tremendous capacity to pass information, and considerable capacity to do work, aided by an unprecedented array of tools.
We ought to use these to create habitat, to buffer life, including our own lives, against hard times–against economic collapse or foundering, against more or less sudden and more or less complete interruptions of global goods and services, against the still-unfolding consequences of our own economically driven and ongoing alienation from each other.
Notably, the solution comes not with the sacrificing of our own needs, but with their fulfillment by non-extractive means. All this means stopping and storing water, whether in tanks or in the soil. It means converting lawns and parks and greenbelts to productive gardens and farms, then forming local groups and distribution systems and eventually broader associations. It means voting and protesting against globalist warmongers, resisting regulation that denies local growth and insisting on regulation that stops large corporate extraction of wealth and large-scale destruction by government at the behest of industry and in search of power.
It is certainly true enough that we will be hard-hit. It is not at all true that this makes our actions or our inaction without consequence.
For those interested, there are prior examples of mass action to repair ecological damage and of successful mass response to economic catastrophe. We are fortunate to have the former documented in John Liu’s Lessons of the Loess Plateau (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QUSIJ80n50). A prime example of the latter occurred in Cuba with the sudden loss of most of its revenues with the fall of the Soviet Union and the ongoing American blockade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organopónicos).
I couldn’t quite go there being a Nam vet because I know that we won nearly all of the battles, large and small, while the politicians gave up the ghost. But I see your point.
more room for you! just bring, you know, trunks and flip flops. and scuba gear.
if the rich have gotten richer, than the US has hardly lost. Since that’s the very point of the American state, I’d have to give them credit for being enormously successful.
Don’t forget Korea. Another defeat.
I think most people wou”d tend to agree with you.
In reality land, we will not change. Short of a worldwide economic collapse, and/or a subsequent world war, industrial production and fossil fuel consumption will not change for the foreseeable future. Quite to the contrary, emissions may actually increase in the next decade.
The premise of this article is, at best, a coconut cream pie in the sky. A combination of moot and delusion.
It’s the equivalent of a doctor advising you that if you quit smoking today, you could greatly reduce your chances of getting cancer, and then you responding by adding a few more cigs to your 2-pack-a-day habit. I mean WTF?
Sorry… No good news here as nothing will be done about Global Warming. End of Story, End of Us!
Climate action through a change in government may not be in the cards if Wall Street profits determine who people vote for. If WS tanks under Trump causing Republicans to lose, he is likely to start more wars and declare martial law. Already his people are looking at technological fixes like geoengineering to fix global warming while continuing to pollute. This may be a generational problem pitting older WS investors against younger environmentalists. Those like AOC are on the rise and old troglodytes like the Kochs are going down.