People get ready

Freddy get ready

Rock Steady

      -Warren Zevon

Get busy child

      - Moby

  Greetings

    

         I like to think that things are getting better.  After all solar installations are increasing past expectations.  Wind costs are dropping.  The Chinese have announced they are working on timetable to end the sale of IC vehicles.  Co2 emissions have stopped growing and have been flat for the last 3 years

          So, we are winning,  right?    Yes, but slowly.

         But, as Bill McKibben  says. " Winning slowly is just a different way of losing."

           Its a useful idea.   To deal with climate change it isn't enough to take a "step in the right direction ".    At some point its "game over".  It's probably 3 degrees - then the feed backs take over and humans loose control.     The climate campaign is different than, say,  the civil rights struggle, which has been going on (slowly) for at least 150 years.  We don't have 150 years.   Its not clear how many years we have.

         Why not?  Human emissions aren't the only factor at play .   We have already triggered other systems.  And those other systems have the potential to warm the planet more than we do.  For instance  even at 1 degree we are replacing ice with  "blue water" which  is already warming the planet .   

         Consider this article from Yale 360.  

"When covered almost entirely by ice in summer — which the Arctic was for tens of thousands of years — water temperatures there didn’t generally rise above freezing. Now, as the open Arctic Ocean absorbs huge amounts of solar radiation in summer, water temperatures are climbing by several degrees Fahrenheit, with some areas showing increases of 7 degrees F above the long-term average. 

Such changes mean that a system that was once a vast air conditioner has started to  turn into a heater. Just how much extra heat are the dark waters of Arctic Ocean in summer adding to the planet? One recent study estimates that it’s equivalent to adding another 25 percent to global greenhouse emissions. "

           McKibben suggests that the situation is analogous  to a person with with an unhealthy diet, and heart trouble, who is already experiencing symptoms.  We are already sick, but we won't change our ways.  Why not?

       It goes against the way we would like to see ourselves - rational actors, who respond to information by taking appropriate action.    Perhaps that isn't really who we are?

           There are lots of theories .   Perhaps most of us really are rational, but the capitalists, or capitalism, is distorting things.  Thus Naomi Klein,says 

"In short, climate change detonates the ideological scaffolding on which contemporary conservatism rests. To admit that the climate crisis is real is to admit the end of their political and economic project. That’s why the right is in rebellion against the physical world (which is what prompted hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world to participate in the March for Science in April 2017, collectively defending a principle that really shouldn’t need defending: that knowing as much as possible about our world is a good thing). Yet there is a logical reason why science has become such a battle zone: because it is revealing again and again that pro-corporate business as usual leads to a species-threatening catastrophe.

And this isn’t only about the right — it’s also about the center. What mainstream liberals have been saying about climate change for decades is that we simply need to tweak the existing system here and there and everything will be fine. You can have Goldman Sachs capitalism plus solar panels. But at this stage, the challenge we are up against is much deeper than that.

     In one sense, i tend to agree, that the "denial" is not limited to the right wing.  There is more than one type of denial.   The hard denial of the right denies the evidence,  but there is also the "soft denial"  which denies that the solution would require significant lifestyle changes..  Unfortuneately its not clear to me that a socialist system would be willing to forgo growth, and that's what it would take

Another theory is suggested by Jorgen Randers, one of the authors of the Limits to Growth study.  

"Jorgen Randers' speech at the Summer School at the Club of Rome has been dramatically different from the standard speech dealing with sustainability. Randers defined himself as a "depressed man with a smiling face" and he summarized his 47 years of work to promote sustainability as an utter failure. "We are worse off now," he said, "than we were 50 years ago. 

What went wrong? Randers asked to the audience to propose reasons. He got more than a dozen, from the financial system to greed. But he said that none of these is the real reason. It is not a fault of the government, it is not a fault of corporations, it is not a fault of banks. It is, simply, the fault of people. According to Randers, people are simply unable to postpone their immediate satisfaction for a better future. And that's the problem today as it was 50 years ago.

Who is he talking about?  Perhaps the 10 percenters  who are just doing what seems "normal"

"A couple of long-haul flights a year, daily car usage, regular shopping sprees and a meaty diet—lifestyle habits that can appear so commonplace in the western world—and even you, well-meaning reader of this article, can realise that you are part of the exclusive club of those responsible for the lion’s share of ecological destruction.

Although individuals belonging to the top 10 percent class can be found on all continents—often well isolated from the life experienced by most of their fellow citizens—they tend to be so widespread in North America and Europe that the characteristics of their lifestyle have come to define local cultures and are very rarely recognised as the idiosyncrasies they in fact are. Indeed, while only 7 percent of Latin Americans, 4 percent of Chinese and 1 percent of Indians and Africans belong to the top 10 percent of global emitters, as many as 60 percent of North Americans and 30 percent of Europeans are reported to emit more than 15 tons of CO2 a year—the threshold at which one begins to earn top-10-percent status.7 A couple of long-haul flights a year, daily car usage, regular shopping sprees and a meaty diet—lifestyle habits that can appear so commonplace in the western world—and even you, well-meaning reader of this article, can realise that you are part of the exclusive club of those responsible for the lion’s share of ecological destruction.

Meeting the incredibly strict deadline imposed by climate change will require nothing short of a dramatic shift in how we think the human experience, our measures of success and our idea of a life well lived. Holidays to far-away locations, luxurious possessions and ever so frequent splurges—the defining elements of ‘the good life’ as experienced by the 10 percent— are indefensible with a moral compass tuned in to the logic of climate change. On the other hand, earth-regenerative acts, conscious sobriety, community rekindling and active opposition to destructive forces can provide us with what the old world and its promises constantly failed to provide: a life mission, a sense of belonging, and a great source of fulfilment. If we are to collectively survive this century, we will have to embrace our identity as agents of change; as protectors and stewards; as champions of a humanity tuned in to its better nature

 So what can we expect?  It depends on a number of factors    If we continue on the current path, even if the Paris commitments are kept, we will achieve 3 degrees by 2100.  .   But there are many other possibilities.  Researchers at the Scripps Institute recently ran 1500 simulations,  to try to put some perspective on the risks and the probability..  Particularly concerning was a high risk, but lower probability result  - an increase of 3 degrees  C by 2050.  see here.  Full study here

The paper, published Thursday says, there is a one in 20 chance of catastrophic change by 2050, which would mean most people would have problems adapting to the change in climate. There is a smaller chance of an existential change, meaning it would wipe out humanity.

When we say 5 percent-probability high-impact event, people may dismiss it as small but it is equivalent to a one-in-20 chance the plane you are about to board will crash,” Veerabhadran Ramanathan, lead study author and a distinguished professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at Scripps said in a press release. “We would never get on that plane with a one-in-20 chance of it coming down but we are willing to send our children and grandchildren on that plane.”

       So, are our leaders making plans for such high risk futures?  Not really.  In fact they are treating the current manifestations - fire, droughts and floods, as temporary problems that can be safely ignored.  As Dave Roberts notes here  , the US has no system for dealing with the escalating climate damages.  

   Here's Neil De Grasse Tyson who suggests that the climate is changing too fast for us to address it. That 

"...climate change had become so severe that the country "might not be able to recover."

"I worry that we might not be able to recover from this because all our greatest cities are on the oceans and water's edges, historically for commerce and transportation," he said.

"And as storms kick in, as water levels rise, they are the first to go," he said. "And we don't have a system -- we don't have a civilization with the capacity to pick up a city and move it inland 20 miles. That's -- this is happening faster than our ability to respond. That could have huge economic consequences."

       Fast forward a few years.   Lets say its 2020.  The weather is a little more extreme.  FEMA is running from one end of the country to the other.  Some city is being evacuated thanks to flood or fire.  Now lets add a liquid fuel squeeze to spice it up.   There will be 1 million EV's on the road.   But everybody else will still be driving IC vehicles.   Every morning more than 100 million Americans drive to work.  So, any problems with the price or availability of oil, will be a problem.

     Why should there be a problem?  Its widely recognized that "conventional" oil peaked in 2005,  And "unconventional" may not be far behind.

Here's Richard Heinberg

"...oil will start to decline first (due to depletion), probably before 2020, and coal as well (due to policy), with natural gas growing until roughly 2020-2050, when it peaks globally from depletion. Without strong climate policy, coal peaks anyway (due to depletion) around 2025.  More detail here 

Are we ready for that? Whats an appropriate response?

     Dennis Meadows suggest we should focus on "resilience".  see here

You stress the need for resilience. What do you mean by this?

"Theoretically, resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb shocks and to continue functioning. Now, in practice, what does it mean? There is a fairly well-developed literature around the issue of psychological resilience. The medical community has tried to understand what can let somebody experience, for example, the loss of a loved one, a serious illness or the loss of a job and continue functioning. There is starting to be, particularly since Katrina, a field that looks at community resilience, or the capacity of a town or social community to absorb shocks and continue functioning to fulfill the needs of its members. I am talking about longer-term resilience. I am talking about coping with the permanent loss of cheap energy or the permanent change in our climate and what we can do at the individual, the household, the community and the national level to ensure that—although we don’t know exactly what is going to happen—we will be able to pass through that period still taking care of our basic needs.

Heinberg  (here) offers  a similar prognosis, suggesting a "crash" is inevitable. (Here is a recent interview of Heinberg on KBOO)

Are we doing enough? If “Enough” means “enough to avert a system crash,” then the answer is no: it’s unlikely that anyone can deliver that outcome now. The question should be, What can we do—not to save a way of life that is unsalvageable, but to make a difference to the people and other species in harm’s way?

 He outlines  a similar program, here

 "...two (not mutually exclusive) strategies have emerged.

The first strategy envisions convincing the managers and power holders of the world to invest in a no-regrets insurance plan. Some systems thinkers who understand our linked global crises are offering to come up with a back-pocket checklist for policy makers, for moments when financial or environmental crisis hits: how, under such circumstances, might the managerial elite be able to prevent, say, a stock market crash from triggering food, energy, and social crises as well? A set of back-up plans wouldn’t require detailed knowledge of when or how crisis will erupt. It wouldn’t even require much of a systemic understanding of global overshoot. It would simply require willingness on the part of societal power holders to agree that there are real or potential threats to global order, and to accept the offer of help. At the moment, those pursuing this strategy are working mostly covertly, for reasons that are not hard to discern.

The second strategy consists of working within communities to build more societal resilience from the ground up. It is easier to get traction with friends and neighbors than with global power holders, and it’s within communities that political decisions are made closest to where the impact is felt. My own organization, Post Carbon Institute, has chosen to pursue this strategy via a series of books, the Community Resilience Guides; the “Think Resilience” video series; and our forthcoming compendium, The Community Resilience Reader.  Rob Hopkins, who originated the Transition Towns movement, has been perhaps the most public, eloquent, and upbeat proponent of the local resilience strategy, but there are countless others scattered across the globe.

So, are we ready?  not quite