Home | About | Donate

Until Emissions Drop, Nothing Has Been Accomplished: The Climate Resistance Handbook Is Here.

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/19/until-emissions-drop-nothing-has-been-accomplished-climate-resistance-handbook-here

4 Likes

Thunberg is more reality-based than practically anyone speaking out on this issue. And yet her message also carries a serious flaw. She’s absolutely spot-on when she says the Keeling chart (of CO2 emissions) should be the only criterion of social planning, and that we haven’t accomplished diddly while CO2 emissions keep doubling every 40 years.

But she’s still right even if emissions have already committed Earth to inexorable decline. No matter what, common sense alone dictates that we need to refrain from further damage, at least, as much as we can. Many of us shrug off these “we’ve got ten years left” warnings, because we’re old enough to have heard them for awhile. By now Earth is solidly committed to losing its ice cap (sooner than later) – I mean there’s no way to keep it. As that transition to an iceless Earth continues, along with learning to live (or not) on an inhospitable planet, we still need to stop fossil fuel extraction.

12 Likes

I keep doing the same thing(s) over and over again, time after time until there is no time and I keep getting the same result(s) over and over again time after time until there is no time and I keep hearing the echo in my head over and over and over again, hey Buddy, your F-ing nuts, get it? time after time until there is no time and guess what folk’s, we’ve run outta time…

5 Likes

Interesting charts. Scroll down and check em’ out.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-carbon-emissions-in-one-chart/

This young woman is courageous, but she has missed the real deal.
The accurate thing to say is that until human population and population growth drops drastically, anthropogenic mass extinction will accelerate.
Climate change caused by fossil fuels is but one of many problems caused by human overpopulation and the resultant overconsumption, pollution, and massacres of native plants, trees, ecosystems and animals that our species engages in to feed, house and sustain every new human born.
Until population control is put into all discussion of environmental issues, the discussions are intellectually inaccurate, impractical and somewhat dishonest.

6 Likes

Well, it’s been there, in an indigestible spot. Complicating the situation is that some leading lights on the population issue have turned out to be white supremacists, so it’s very situationally touchy through no fault of the population issue per se.

We should all stop using fossil fuels, especially those of us who use the most. USAmericans spew about 20 times more carbon than Africans, so our families need to be 20 times smaller.

4 Likes

I find CDIAC’s Global Carbon Project fundamentally suspect. I realize they’re a respected source of carbon emissions data, but there’s no accounting for military emissions (please correct me if you find out I’m wrong; I have searched there in vain).

I can hardly believe that the most wasteful, generally lethal, totally idiotic source of massive carbon emissions – military exercises and warfare – is totally ignored by the international community. It’s a legacy of how Reagan’s EPA chair, Anne Gorsuch, worked to set up the UN’s IPCC, expressly forbidding any consideration of military emissions. Ever since, that enforced ignorance has stuck. You can’t even unearth the information. It’s classified.

Therefore, CDIAC’s Global Carbon Project is full of crap. Forcing our own military to kindly let us know how much pollution they’re spewing should be one of the highest priorities in any GND. We’ve been snookered.

8 Likes

They leave out burning of biomass, too. That would vastly increase the emissions numbers from India and Brazil, for instance.

5 Likes

In Europe, even the left is railing against immigration. What their own countries have caused by joining the “bomb and exploit them crowd”.

Meanwhile the religionuts prohibit planned parenting everywhere. And nature culls the herd with war, ebola and so on.

2 Likes

I’m willing to use energy differently. Just let me know about the alternative to grocery shopping and home heating. I can see having rules, covenants for NEW home construction, and subsidies for the purchase of low or no energy vehicles.
But will the military take this seriously enough to do something positive?

2 Likes

The public discussion of human population control has been commandeered by racists and religions so that the message of female education, access to birth control, and economic empowerment, things that naturally lead to lower birth rates, cannot be discussed without the pope yelling “J’Accuse!” and the politicians embracing hyper-nationalism. Nature is going to try and control the population as it does with any species that becomes oversized; through starvation and migration. We can control whether the mass migrations that are already happening are met with compassion, understanding and science based solutions or with guns, concentration camps and wars. I hope for the former but suspect the later.

7 Likes

Sadly, placing so much concern on stopping fossil fuel extraction has not and will not curtail the use of fossil fuels. The first problem is the nationalistic nature to the resource. Add to that the huge resources of oil and natural gas available from Russia to Indonesia.

If the US gave up extraction, the change would come in the US balance of trade. Not much in lowering demand.

Carbon tax is a more direct way to limit use, but the left hates it because it would hurt their base…yet that is who uses the fuel.

So nothing gets done. Great!

Ironically, China has addressed population control, although in its own authoritarian way, and while it has the second largest population, (and currently shrinking), it has, by far, the highest CO2 signature.

Oh for God’s sake: The only way to stop emissions is to stop extraction. It’s not as if there’s any other way to stop besides stopping. And it’s for sure, now that we’re losing the ice cap, that absolutely stopping (not cutting back) is not an option, but a necessity proven repeatedly to clueless humans by emphatically aggrieved demonstrations of Mama Earth. No one listens. The rape continues. We like to pretend it’s a law of nature we have to just keep on the way we’ve been, but we could stop if anyone cared.

1 Like

What about geoengineering? The survival of humanity and it’s civilization is ultimately the chief objective. In the unfortunate event that we are unwilling to change our consumption habits enough to avoid, say, 3c, we should be at least ready to take whatever backup measures may be needed to preserve our species and society, or at least a portion of it. It This isn’t ideal of course, but hard choices may lie ahead.

Sadly, placing so much concern on stopping fossil fuel extraction has not and will not curtail the use of fossil fuels. The first problem is the nationalistic nature to the resource. Add to that the huge resources of oil and natural gas available from Russia to Indonesia.

If the US gave up extraction, the change would come in the US balance of trade. Not much in lowering demand.

Carbon tax is a more direct way to limit use, but the left hates it because it would hurt their base…yet that is who uses the fuel.

So nothing gets done. Great!

I am sick and tired of this simplistic non-solution. Population growth is NOT “THE driver” of global warming, and to a large extent it is the other way around. In reality there are many causes and many complex feedbacks. If everyone stopped bearing children today and nothing else changed, the CO2 numbers would still rise at only a slightly diminishing rate for a generation.

Of course all humankind would be wise to limit the number of births per person, for a multitude of reasons. Efforts to that effect have so far had virtually no effect. Population will decline rapidly if global climate collapse occurs, and less rapidly if it doesn’t. Population growth is already diminishing in some places because many people are already so whacked out by the very idea of a warming climate as to render them paralyzed to do anything.

There is virtually unanimous agreement among people with the knowledge and experience to render a meaningful judgment that it is the burning of fossil fuels that has to stop, and that stopping it soon will eventually lead to equilibrium at a lower temperature than if it does not stop. Either way, to limit temperature rise to a livable level some CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere, also soon. I believe it was a Swiss research group that within the past couple of weeks showed that there is enough land to plant enough trees to do just that.

What is lacking is nut-crackers on all politicians who have nuts, as they are the majority of the ones dragging their heels.

1 Like

I’m sorry, but NOBODY likes taxes, and a properly structured carbon tax minimizes the burden on those who can least afford it at the expense of those who can. The whole purpose of a carbon tax is to reduce the burning of carbon.

2 Likes

You keep repeating this nonsense. Where, pray tell, have you heard “so much concern on stopping fossil fuel extraction”? Before we reject it, we should at least wait for someone to mention it.

Sure, do whatever is possible to keep reducing carbon emissions. But … the carbon and methane emissions that began 300 hundred years ago are already TEN times that amount released during the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum ) of 800,000 years ago when 90% of all life on earth was wiped out over 200,000 years.

Even now, we don’t stand a chance of making any substantive reduction in emissions to stop what is already in progress. All we can do is adapt and survive as best as we can - for the next 200,000 years. Or less, if humanity is really lucky.

Read here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/17/ye-cannot-swerve-me-moby-dick-and-climate-change/