Monday, September 6, 2021

Facing Extinction

Facing Extinction. by Catherine Ingram

go to her site for the full beautiful essay



DARK KNOWLEDGE

“The heavens were all on fire; the earth did tremble.”
–William Shakespeare
Henry IV, Part 1



For much of my life, I thought our species would soon go extinct. I assumed we might last another hundred years if we were lucky. Now I suspect we are facing extinction in the near future. Can I speculate as to exactly when that might happen? Of course not. My sense of this is based only on probability. It might be similar to hearing about a diagnosis of late stage pancreatic cancer. Is it definite that the person is going to die soon? No, not definite. Is it highly probable? Yes, one would be wise to face the likelihood and put one’s affairs in order.

First, let’s look at climate data. Over the past couple decades I have been studying climate disruption by reading scientific papers and listening to climate lectures accessible to a layperson. There is no good news to be found there. We have burned so much carbon into the atmosphere that the CO2 levels are higher than they have been for the past twenty three million years. In the last decade our carbon emission levels are the highest in history, and we have not yet experienced their full impact. If we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide tomorrow, we are still on track for much higher heat for at least ten years. And we are certainly not stopping our emissions by tomorrow. Although global carbon emissions were down in 2020 due to the Covid pandemic, there has been negligible effect on global temperatures, which are continuing to rise, with 2020 tied with 2016 as the hottest years on record, despite the cooling effects of the climate cycle known as La NiƱa in 2020.

The blanket of carbon in the atmosphere has triggered, and will trigger, further runaway warming systems that are not under our control, one of the most deadly of which is the release of methane gases that have been trapped for eons under arctic ice and what is now euphemistically known as permafrost (much of it is no longer permanent frost).

Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon, and much faster acting. In the first twenty years after its release into the atmosphere, it is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Whereas the full effect of heat from a carbon dioxide molecule takes ten years, peak warming from a methane molecule occurs in a matter of months.

Nitrous oxide is another greenhouse gas whose dangers have only recently been reported. Excess nitrogen from fertilizer becomes nitrous oxide when it escapes into soils and groundwater. It is 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, molecule for molecule, and now accounts for about 20% of global warming. Due to food shortages, some countries are using more fertilizer than ever to increase crop production. New studies show a clear correlation between increased fertilizer use and increasing levels of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere.

As if these emissions were not daunting enough, a heretofore little-known gas, sulphur hexafluoride or SF6, used in many green and renewable technologies, is 23,500 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon. It leaks from electrical production sites and is estimated to stay in the atmosphere for a thousand years.

The Amazon rainforest, which had historically been considered “the lungs of the planet,” is now emitting more carbon than it can absorb. Much of this has been caused by fires for deliberate crop clearing and animal grazing, but higher temperatures and drought have contributed to the Amazon now throwing off an estimated billion tons of carbon per year, turning it from a carbon capture to a carbon generator.

The arctic and antarctic icecaps are melting at rates far faster than even the most alarming predictions, and methane is pouring out of these regions, bubbling out of arctic lakes, and hissing out of seas and soils worldwide. Some scientists fear a methane “burp” of billions of tons when a full melt of the summer arctic ice occurs; a full melt has not happened for the past four million years. Should such a sudden large release of methane occur, the earth’s warming would rapidly accelerate within months. This alone could be the extinction event.

The arctic summer ice is currently two thirds less than it was as recently as the 1970s, and the arctic is warming so fast that a full summer melt is likely within the next few years. During the month of June 2020, the Arctic Circle had the highest temperatures ever recorded in the region, with one Siberian town hitting 38C (100 F). The wildfires that raged for months in the Arctic have now set a pollution record by emitting 244 megatons of carbon dioxide during the summer season of 2020, thirty-five percent more than in 2019, which also set a record. This is more than the annual carbon output of numerous countries. The Arctic ice is not only threatened by a warming atmosphere but, according to a study published in the Journal of Climate, “deep heat in the Arctic Ocean has risen and is now melting the ice from below”. The continent of Antarctica is also rapidly melting at an acceleration of 280% in the last forty years. The massive ice melts that are happening there, such as the breaking off the Larsen B ice shelf defied scientific predictions; the ice shelf known as Larsen C, which broke off in July of 2017, was 2,200 square miles in size. The Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica, a mass of ice the size of Florida, is becoming increasingly unstable, now losing more than 100 billion tons of ice each year. Scientists fear that its collapse would cause much of the West Antarctic ice sheet to fall into the sea, since Thwaites currently acts “like a cork in a wine bottle.”

The arctic ice has been the coolant for the northern part of the planet and it impacts worldwide climate as well. Its white surface also reflects back into space much of the heat from the sun, as does the antarctic ice. As the ice melts, the dark ocean absorbs the heat and the warming ocean more quickly melts the remaining ice. Over the past four decades, the proportion of the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic’s winter ice pack has dropped from more than 33 percent to barely 1 percent today, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 2019 annual Arctic report.

The U.S., Russia, and China are now vying for hegemony of the arctic region in order to get at the massive reserves of oil that exist there and will be accessible as the ice melts. For instance, in 2019, Russia launched a floating barge on which two nuclear reactors were wired into its infrastructure to power gas and oil platforms in remote regions of the Arctic. In early 2021, satellite images show a build-up of Russian military forces in the Arctic, which, according to a spokesperson for Vladamir Putin, they have deployed in order to implement economic development in the Arctic region, an area they consider part of the Russian Federation. Apart from the real possibility of military conflagrations over control of the Arctic, moving “icebreaker” tankers through and drilling in this sensitive eco-system would cause the dual destructions of rapidly deteriorating whatever ice is left, thereby speeding up the release of methane, and then burning all that stored carbon of newly found oil reserves into the atmosphere.

These and all the other warming feedback loops are now on an exponential trajectory and becoming self-amplifying, potentially leading to a “hothouse earth” independent of the carbon emissions that have triggered them. Each day, the extra heat that is trapped near our planet is equivalent to four hundred thousand Hiroshima bombs. There are no known technologies that can be deployed at world scale to reverse the warming, and many climate scientists feel that the window for doing so is already closed, that we have passed the tipping point and the heat is on “runaway” no matter what we do.

We are now in the midst of the sixth mass extinction with about 150 plant and animal species going extinct per day. Despite the phrase “the sixth extinction” making its way into mainstream awareness via the publication of Elizabeth Kolbert’s Pulitzer-prize-winning book of that title, most people still don’t realize that we humans are also on the list.

Some of the consequences we face are mass die-offs due to widespread drought, flooding, fires, forest mortality, runaway diseases, and dying ocean life—all of which we now see in preview. A few of these consequences could even result in the annihilation of all complex life on earth in a quick hurry: the use of nuclear weapons, for instance, as societies and governments become more desperate for resources; or the meltdown of the 450 nuclear reactors, which will likely become impossible to maintain as industrial civilization breaks down. Since 2011, when a tsunami struck the northeast coast of Japan and caused a near meltdown of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, it has taken more than 42,000 gallons of fresh water per day to keep the reactors cooled. Keeping the radioactive elements contained requires dangerous jobs for the workers and building a new steel water tank every four days to store the spent radioactive water. As this process has become increasingly untenable, Japan approved plans in April, 2021 to begin dumping 1.2 million tons of radioactive water into the Pacific ocean.

If we were to make it through this gauntlet of threats, we would still be facing starvation. Grains, the basis of the world’s food supply, are reduced on average by 6% for every one degree Celsius rise above pre-industrial norms. We are now about 1.6 degrees Celsius above and climbing fast; the oceans are warming twice as fast and have absorbed a staggering 93% of the warming for us so far. If that were not the case, the average land temperatures would be a toasty 36 degrees Celsius (97 degrees Fahrenheit) above what they are now. Of course, there is a huge cost for ocean warming in the form of dying coral reefs, plankton loss, ocean acidification, unprecedented storms, and increased water vapor, which is yet another greenhouse blanket holding heat in the atmosphere.

As I became aware of these facts and many hundreds like them, I also marveled at how oblivious most people are to the coming catastrophes. There has never been a greater news story than that of humans facing full extinction, and yet extinction is rarely mentioned on the evening news, cable channels, or on the front pages of blogs and newspapers. It is as though the world’s astronomers were telling us that an asteroid is heading our way and will make a direct hit destined to wipe out all of life to which the public responds by remaining fascinated with sporting events, social media, the latest political machinations, and celebrity gossip.

However, beginning around 2010, a few books and other sources of information began to address the chances of full extinction of all complex life, and these became my refuge, even though the information was the most horrific I had ever imagined.

For decades, I had sensed that things were dramatically worsening, the rate of destruction increasing. As a journalist from 1982 to 1994, I specialized in social and environmental issues. I had written about global warming (the phrase we most used in those days) numerous times in the 1980s, but because it seemed a far-off threat, we could intellectually discuss it without fear that it would affect our own lives in terribly significant ways. As time marched on, I began to awaken to how fast the climate was changing and how negative would be its impacts. It became a strange relief to read and listen to the truth of the situation from people who were studying the hard data as it affirmed my instincts and threw a light on what had been shadowy forebodings, dancing like ghosts in my awareness. It is an ongoing study that has taken me through a powerful internal process–emotional and cathartic–one that I felt might be helpful to share with those who have woken to this dark knowledge or are in the process of waking to it, just as I, over time, found comfort in the reflections of the small yet increasing number of comrades with whom I share this journey.

Because the subject is so tragic and because it can scare or anger people, this is not an essay I ever wanted to write; it is one I would have wanted to read along the way. But the words on these pages are meant only for those who are ready for them. I offer no hope or solutions for our continuation, only companionship and empathy to you, the reader, who either knows or suspects that there is no hope or solution to be found. What we now need to find is courage.

The Coronavirus Pandemic: I wrote the original version of this essay in February 2019. At this writing, we find ourselves twenty months into a worldwide focus on the coronavirus pandemic and the subsequent global restrictions on human movement and business. The imminence of this threat has taken center stage in our minds, but of course the other crises are rolling along in the background, undeterred by a virus, as evidenced in the 2021 report from the IPCC with data showing that the earth is hotter than it has been for 125,000 years. We can also expect more viruses to erupt not only from gain-of-function research and mishaps and overcrowding of human populations, but also from melting ices caps. In January 2020, a team of scientists published their discovery of 28 new virus groups contained within 15,000-year-old ice. All of these viruses would likely be “novel.” The outbreak of Covid has also shown us how quickly life in the world entire can be radically changed and how confused, inept, and corrupt are most of our governments in response to a crisis with a less than one percent death toll.



COURAGE

You got me singing, even though the world is gone
You got me thinking that I’d like to carry on
You got me singing, even though it all looks grim
You got me singing the Hallelujah hymm
–Leonard Cohen
“You Got Me Singing”

For the last quarter century of his life, Leonard Cohen was one of my closest friends. We would often talk at the small kitchen table in his modest home in Los Angeles until the wee hours of the morning, and when I would make a move to leave, he would bring out a fine port he had been saving, or show me some of his recent drawings, or regale me with a story of his time in Cuba in the early Sixties. He loved engagement and there was no place in conversation he wouldn’t go. In his company I never censored my thoughts. Since his passing I have realized that he was not only a close friend but a life mentor. One of the most inspiring aspects in this regard was what one could call his heart bravery. It is, in my way of seeing, the highest form of courage. In fact, the word courage comes from the Latin coeur, meaning heart. Leonard’s special genius was his ability to communicate both the sorrow and the beauty of the world, even in the same sentence. He never looked away from either, not even in his final months when pain wracked his body. He had a twinkle in one eye and a tear in the other.

In those last years of his life, we had many conversations about climate chaos, as he knew I was studying the subject. He always listened intently and asked pertinent questions throughout our discussions. Although climate had not been his own focus (his was more a passion for world politics), there was no surprise for him in seeing how close we are to the edge. He understood human nature and assumed we would do ourselves in. One need only listen to his song “The Future” to know how prescient he was on the matter.

And yet, we laughed over all the years. Laughed like crazy. Leonard was a master of gallows humor, and I have a well-honed appreciation for that form as well. The power of gallows humor, and I highly recommend it in these times, is that it allows a sideways glance at the gathering clouds while one is still sipping tea in the garden. All of these small moments of recognition serve to accustom our awareness to difficult realities, to hammer at the chains that bind, to allow us to let go a bit. In sharing gallows humor, it is also comforting to know that your friend sees the tragi-comedy as well. There is an amortizing of the burden when we share a heavy load.

Courage is often confused with stoicism, the stiff upper lip, bravado that masks fear. There is another kind of courage. It is the courage to live with a broken heart, to face fear and allow vulnerability, and it is the courage to keep loving what you love “even though the world is gone.”



DISTRACTION AND DENIAL

They are as children, playing with their toys in a house on fire.
—Gautama Buddha

Never have these words of the Buddha been more true. We love to be distracted from ourselves, and we have myriad ways of doing that in our time. We pay big money for the privilege and we run about chasing objects and experiences in its service. We seem to be evolutionarily designed to put aside or entirely ignore future threats and instead focus only on immediate concerns and personal desires. This is understandable since for most of human history there was nothing we could do about future possibilities or events occurring far from where we lived. With some notable exceptions, evolution didn’t select for long-term survival planning. Being concerned about climate change does not come naturally to us. Daniel Gilbert, author and Harvard professor of psychology, proposes four features for why our brains respond primarily to immediate threats.

...

 But short of such clear and present dangers, our threat response is slow.

...

It seems that even our genes favor short-term gain over long-term trouble. The twentieth century biologist George Williams recognized that, due to our genes having multiple functions, some genes have opposing functions. That is, for example, a gene can have great benefits for early life and at the same time cause great harm in later life, a process known as biological senescence. Evolution naturally selects for those genes since the organism doesn’t always make it to later life, so the early benefit has been accrued while the later harm has less chance of being activated.

Biologist Bret Weinstein sees a cultural analog to this process, “Culture is biology, downstream of genes.” As he explains, “Ideas that work in the short term but fail and cause vulnerability in the long term tend to survive in our system because they often produce economic benefit. ...  We now have a cultural system that is making us very comfortable in the short term, but it is liquidating the wellbeing of the planet at an incredible rate.”

...

Evolution also didn’t select for us to be overly conscious of personal death itself. It would otherwise be emotionally paralyzing. 

...

And so for Becker, whether we’re aware of it or not, and most often we’re not, we are highly motivated to maintain confidence in the veracity of our cultural worldview 

...

Becker’s work relied on examining defense strategies for denial of personal death. We are now faced with the death of all. Therefore denial and defense of denial are accordingly amplified and dangerous. Our world is awash in belief systems; everyone gets to pick their own. There is also now a desperate rise of religious fundamentalism, superstition, and new age magical thinking, as predicted in 1996 by astronomer Carl Sagan in his final book, The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

...


We also find it difficult to think exponentially. We might grasp the concept of an exponential factor but it is not our natural way to perceive. Therefore, as exponential warming triggers other imbalances that also become exponential, we perceive them only as linear problems and assume we will have time to address them. We carry on with business-as-usual and return to “the matrix,” the illusion that things are fairly normal, where our ordinary problems, comforts and entertainments await our attention, just like in the movie. But we have now come to the point of “amusing ourselves to death,” as Neil Postman put it in his 1985 book by that title.

As you begin to awaken to the specter of extinction, you will likely feel the powerful lure of your usual distractions. You may want to go back to sleep. But denial will become harder and harder to maintain because once your attention has turned to this subject, you will see the evidence of it everywhere, both locally and globally.

And you will find yourself among the throngs of humanity who are easily distracted and amused, playing with their toys as the house burns, “tranquilized by the trivial,” as Kierkegaard said, and speaking of the future as though it was going to go on as it has. After all, we made it this far. We have proven our superiority at figuring things out and removing obstacles to our desires. We killed off most of the large wild mammals and most of the indigenous peoples in order to take their lands. We bent nature to our will, paved over its forests and grasslands, rerouted and dammed its rivers, dug up what journalist Thom Hartman calls its “ancient sunlight,” and burned that dead creature goo into the atmosphere so that our vehicles could motor us around on land, sea, and air and our weapons could keep our enemies in check. And now we have given its atmosphere a high fever. But, as the old adage has it, (a phrase I first heard in the 1980s, which has informed my view ever since), “nature bats last.”

You may find yourself in the company of people who seem to have no awareness of the consequences we face or who don’t want to know or who might have a momentary inkling but cannot bear to face it. You may find people who have all the data in hand but cannot see the implications, as though staring at Magellan’s ships on the horizon. You may experience people becoming angry if you steer the conversation in the direction of the planetary crisis. You may sense that you are becoming a social pariah due to what you see, even when you don’t mention it, and you may feel lonely in the company of most people you know. For you, it’s not just the elephant in the room; it’s the elephant on fire in the room, and yet you feel you can rarely mention it. But, as Gandhi said, “Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.”

I once asked Leonard for his advice on how to talk with others about this. He replied: “There are things we don’t tell the children.” It is helpful to realize that most people are not ready for this conversation. They may never be ready, ...

...
...
...




SOCIAL UNREST

I’ve seen the future, Brother.
It is murder.
—Leonard Cohen
“The Future”

Of all the threats we face, the one I find most frightening is the breakdown of civilized society. 

...

As professor and journalist Christian Parenti said in an interview with Chris Hedges, “How do people adapt to climate change? How do they adapt to the drought, to the floods? Very often…you pick up the surplus weaponry and you go after your neighbor’s cattle or you blame it on your neighbor’s ideology or ethnicity.”

In his book, Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence, Parenti writes: “Climate change arrives in a world primed for crisis. The current and impending dislocations of climate change intersect with the already-existing crises of poverty and violence. I call this collision of political, economic, and environmental disasters ‘the catastrophic convergence.’ ”

...

At the 2017 Bateson Symposium in Sweden, Rex Weyler gave a thought-provoking presentation called “Ecological Trauma and Common Addictions.” Weyler, one of the founders of Greenpeace, defines ecological trauma as “the experience of witnessing – consciously or not – the pervasive abuse and destruction of the natural world, of which we are a part, and for which we have a primal affinity. 

...
...
...

We can easily understand the impulse of greed as most of us are afflicted with it. Perhaps the evolutionary imperatives from ancient times would have had no use for delayed gratification since servicing immediate needs often meant the difference between life and death. However, we can now see that being enslaved to our base desires and impulses is contraindicated to our survival. The physical altercations over toilet paper in stores within the developed countries at the beginning of the pandemic offer a glimpse as to what societal and economic breakdown might look like when there are widespread food shortages and when the infrastructures–production and transport of the food supply, distribution of petrol to run the vehicles, operation of the electric grids–become spotty, too costly to maintain, or are simply no longer working.



OVERPOPULATION AND CO-EXTINCTIONS

In 1952, when I was born, there were approximately 2.6 billion people on earth. There are now 7.8 billion, a more than threefold increase in my lifetime. Our use rate of resources would allow for our planet to sustainably host only about one billion people. As William Catton explained in his 1980 book Overshoot, we are in “carrying capacity deficit.” In other words, the load on resource use is far in excess of its carrying capacity. Of course, the only way we have been able to pull this off is by stealing from the future, 

...

...

As astrobiology professor Peter Ward explained in a story on the BBC, “If you look at any biological system, when it overpopulates it begins to poison its home.”

Of course, when we speak of overpopulation we specifically refer to humans. In fact, human activity is causing mass die-offs of the other species. With overpopulation and pollution we lose habitats that sustain biodiversity and we have consequently lost 68% of the world’s wildlife since 1970. The UN’s intergovernmental report on biodiversity, which came out in April 2019, found that a further one million animal and plant species are now at risk for extinction.

Only our livestock are growing in numbers. Think about that phrase in its two component words: “live” and “stock.” Living animals as stock, as product. To view animals as products requires ignoring the plight of these living creatures: the industrial food systems of torture for hundreds of millions of animals–animals who have emotions, care for their young, and who suffer fear and pain only to be slaughtered in the end, perhaps the only mercy they will know. Industrial animal farming is also known to be one of the top causes of global warming.

The biodiversity loss of wild animals and plants, however, creates a domino effect into what is called co-extinctions: when a species at early risk of environmental changes dies, the various species that depended on that one die, and then the species that depended on those die.

The domino effect in extinctions goes into yet another exponential feedback trajectory. 

...  What they found can be gleaned from the title of their peer-reviewed paper, published in Scientific Reports: “Co-extinctions Annihilate Planetary Life During Extreme Environmental Change.” In other words, the health of the interconnected natural world depends on the web of life within it. When substantial parts of that web die off, it annihilates planetary life in general. This includes, of course, the higher and more complex forms of life. That means us. Thinking that we can lose most of the biodiversity of planetary life and still find ways to feed ourselves is delusional.

Along with all of the other threats we face, co-extinction within the natural world is becoming one of the most pressing problems. For anyone familiar with General Systems Theory, this is easily intuited. Yet many people compartmentalize information when they hear of extinctions of the other plants and creatures and think it has little to do with their own existence. They see the iconic image of the polar bear floating on a small ice chunk and think, “What does the loss of polar bears mean to my life? Nothing.” They might, however, be surprised to learn that the loss of the world’s insects is going to impact everyone on the food chain as the pollination of plant life dramatically slows.

...

...



TECHNO FIXES AND ESCAPE TO MARS

We humans love technology. It has been the means by which we became the dominant species on the planet, doubled our life spans, traveled the globe collecting resources and ideas, and hooked ourselves up to instantaneously connect with anyone anywhere from our own homes. It is a source of entertainment, education, artistic creativity, medical advances, and uses too numerous to list. It has also been a source of destruction. It has allowed us to rapidly denude and poison the eco-system and caused the extinction of much of the natural world.

...

As Joanna Macy told me in an interview more than thirty years ago, “We think technology will save us. Technology got us into this mess.”

And yet, many people assume technology will indeed address our gnarly ecological problems by changing us to adapt to the problems or by simply moving away from Earth altogether. 

...
 

...

The Biosphere experiments might also serve as a cautionary tale to the prepper billionaires who are building luxury bunkers underground here on earth.

...

...

It has been our historical privilege to have new frontiers of untapped resources whenever we overshot any given region. We could always move to another place, either one that was uninhabited or one that might require that we negotiate with, subdue, or eliminate the people who were already there. The earth was large and abundant for most of human history. But it is now rapidly shrinking; that is, we are much more in number while the habitats that can support life are far fewer, 

...

...

Geo-engineering, or climate engineering, is a more realistic form of techno-fixes in that many of the proposals are more possible than cyber tweaking our brains, downloading consciousness, or moving to Mars. For that reason, geo-engineering is more disturbing as it is likely to be increasingly deployed as the world soon becomes more desperate.

...
...


One type of geo-engineering involves solar radiation management (SRM),

...

Another type of geo-engineering is known as carbon capture and sequestration, (CCS) which involves 

...

If reading about these methods makes you queasy, you are not alone. Many of us intuitively resist messing with the atmosphere or creating methods that allow carbon emissions to go on as before in the deluded belief that we are handling the situation. There is the concern that unintended consequences may likely speed up the destruction. 

...


Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics and a member of the Climate Change Authority of Australia, explores this in depth in his detailed book, Earth Masters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering. See also Greenpeace’s report on carbon capture, sequestering, and storage.

Geo-engineering plans are chilling because they are being proposed not merely by conspiracy kooks but by some of the wealthiest, most powerful, and brilliant engineering minds of our time. And they are being funded by coalitions of big oil and gas companies, along with governments, who rely on science that deemphasizes negative impacts.

Although profit is no doubt a strong motive, it is useless to demonize people who are pursuing these paths, especially when they feel they are mitigating a crisis. But it is also important to understand that their wisdom may not be as developed as their particular forms of intelligence. It is not necessarily true that just because a technology is possible, we should try it because we are in crisis. 
...
...

Had there been a debate about the existence of cars, we would have asked, ‘Do we want the entire landscape to be paved over? Do we want society to move into concrete urban centers? Do we want one resource–oil–to dominate human and political relationships in the world?’ Our culture lacks a philosophical basis, an understanding of the appropriate human role on earth that would inform these developments before they happen. 

...
...

The disparity between wisdom and intelligence may be the inevitable downfall of many other kinds of life in the universe as well. There is a theory known as The Great Filter, which seeks to explain why, despite the overwhelming odds of life on other planets, we have not heard from any of them. Astrophysicists have now calculated that in the known universe there are about 10 billion trillion planets that would have what they call “a goldilocks zone,” planets whose orbits are in a particular proximity to their star that is similar to our own, not too close and not too far. Just right.

The Great Filter proposes that before a civilization reaches the level of development that would allow for intergalactic communication and travel, it wipes itself out through climate change, overpopulation, or other factors having to do with the rise of technological civilization. 

...

After all, each and every one of us is a heat engine. 

...

Take capitalism for instance. It is unsustainable at its core as it relies on continued economic expansion and growth in a system of finite resources. In the process, it also speeds up the complete elimination of the very resources on which it relies. But the problem is that the human creature will postpone challenging that system as long as the goods keep flowing, no matter the future costs. Capitalism is a perfect representation of the human need and greed for more, future be damned. Very few cultures in modern civilization have managed to resist it. There is now a lot of false hope around “green capitalism” and the Green New Deal in the USA. Given that capitalism, of any color, inevitably relies on extraction of resources in the production and transport of goods, feeling encouraged about green capitalism is another form of deluded bargaining in the Kubler-Ross stages of grief. As Derrick Jensen elegantly defines it: “Capitalism is a system by which the living is converted into the dead.”

Capitalism itself is heading to its own extinction. As resources dwindle and the numbers of people vying for them increase, we are facing collapse of the largest Ponzi scheme of all, the global financial system.



THE END OF LEGACY

As your awareness metabolizes the deadly threats ahead and the unlikeliness of solutions that will change the course, you might find a strange re-ordering of your thoughts and motivations. 
...
...
...
Letting go of the future means re-ordering your tendencies of thinking about the future. How psychologically invested you have been in your ideas and hopes about the future will likely determine how well you adapt to ignoring those kinds of thoughts as they arise. You may also find a stronger habit in present awareness begin to prevail. 


...
...



NO BLAME

“Throughout all of history and prehistory, human advance has coincided with ecological devastation.”
John Gray (British philosopher)
Straw Dogs, 2002


You may feel fury at times in seeing the desecration of the natural world and in realizing that its destruction is due to human activity on the planet. It seems tragically unfair that one species could cause the elimination of almost all the others. 

...
...

“If only we hadn’t developed agriculture” (which allowed for long term food storage and overpopulation); “If only the world had been run by matriarchies;” “If only we had a bottom-up economic system;” “If only we had all learned to meditate.” If only.

Writer James Kunstler proposes a pithy theory for why humans chose each step of our path in history: “It just seemed a good idea at the time.”

...
...

Nearly all of us went along on the ride and enjoyed the benefits, and now the party’s over and the bill has come due. But where can we lay blame?

...



GRIEF

We grieve because we love. To the degree that your heart is shattered over loss is precisely the degree to which you loved that which has gone. 

...

...

All the world over, there are waves of distress, anxiety, and depression, which are based on circumstance and not merely on brain chemistry gone awry. Distress, anxiety, and depression are appropriate responses in facing the threat of full extinction.

No matter how clear and rational our understanding of the situation, many of my extinction-aware friends admit that the magnitude of the loss we are undergoing is unacceptable to the innermost psyche. 

...
...

Many of us are also in anticipatory grief; that is, in the period leading to full extinction, we are aware of how hard things will become, just as it is for those who are already living marginally, 

...

...

Few people are even minimally prepared, emotionally or physically, for what is coming, perhaps especially those who are most privileged.  A friend told me the following story: his father was a survivor of one of the Nazi concentration camps. He said that the people who had the best chance of survival in the camps were the ones who had come from poverty and hardship in their lives before the camps. Those who had come from privilege were the first to die.

I am aware that virtually no one in my family and few of my friends are either ready to hear this information now or will be prepared to face what is ahead in time. It is pointless to try to warn them if they are not ready. My attempts at hinting usually lead to blank stares or agitation. I have come to accept that for some people, their fate is to continue the romp of life, oblivious to the dangers ahead. Maybe it is best that they enjoy whatever good times are left, even though there might be extreme panic in the last phase. Maybe it is just as well that they continue as they have been for as long as possible. Maybe it will postpone chaos and lawlessness the world over until the systems fully crash. But for those of us who cannot look away, we carry the anticipatory grief for those who cannot bear to look.

...
...



Award-winning climate journalist Dahr Jamail ...
...
“Hope is about the future and gives us a sense that we have more time when, in fact, we are out of time. I think it is awesome that people are doing things to mitigate the damage as it is the right thing to do. Some of us feel morally obliged to take action in those ways. On the other hand, when you look at the amount of carbon that needs to be drawn down and how fast that has to happen, it is a physical impossibility to scale that to the level we would need.

“Take, for instance, wide-scale rejuvenation of soil. If every farmer were incentivized and mandated to incorporate practices that would rejuvenate soil at world scale and we coupled that with wide-scale tree planting—of course, all of these things take time–at least we would have set in motion some actions that might still help. What makes natural geo-engineering, soil sequestration, planting trees, and so on impossible for actually turning the tide on this is that there is a near total lack of political will to mandate any of it. If all of a sudden we could replace the horrible governments with functional ones that represented what we now need and if that is where all the funding went, yeah, it might actually make a dent in mitigation. But the reality is that there is not one country that I know of doing everything it can in that direction. Certainly none of the major emitters–Russia, the US, China, and India–are doing anything of significance; all four are just stomping on the gas. There is nothing to indicate that a change of course will happen. Nothing. Not now. Not next year. Not in ten years. So the lack of political will is going to negate any and all natural geo-engineering efforts. Nevertheless, we are still obliged to do what we can in our own ways, even if there is no chance for long-term mitigation. ”


...

 celebrate old clichĆ©s such as, “You gotta have hope,” “We mustn’t lose hope,” ”Keep hope alive.” 

...

But clinging to hope when there is no longer anything to be done, when the course cannot be changed, makes hope itself a burden. One is forced into internal pretense, deeper denial. For people who have limited capacity for denial, and I suspect that if you have read this far you are one of those, maintaining hope becomes impossible. It is a surprising relief to let go of it as there is only cold comfort in false hope.

However, you may then experience the brunt force of sorrow. Grief, straight up.


...
...



LOVE


So come my friends, be not afraid
We are so lightly here
It is in love that we are made
In love, we disappear
—Leonard Cohen
“Boogie Street”

What else is there to do now? Here we are, some of the last humans who will experience this beautiful planet since Homo sapiens began their journey some 200,000 years ago. Now, in facing extinction of our species, you may wonder if there is any point in going on. If your future projects make no sense any more, if you feel it is unwise to have children, and that things are going to get really hard and bad, you may not want to bother living any longer. Yet, there are other ways to use your attention that make life still relevant and even beautiful.

...
...

Make your moments sparkle within the experience of your own senses, and direct your attention to anything that gladdens your heart. Live your bucket list now.

There are also some simple thought reflections and actions that might be helpful: 
....


Find your calm. In addition to wisely directing your attention, include also whatever daily activities induce greater calm in your life......

...

Resist being constantly immersed in the increasing data of the chaos. ...

Have a fast from the news as needed, and rest your weary mind. 

... 

But it is likely you have also had many moments when you knew that love was all that ever really mattered. And in your final breaths it is likely to be all that is left of you, a cosmic story whispered only once.

As Leonard said, “It is in love that we are made; in love we disappear.”



—Catherine Ingram
NSW, Australia
First published in February 2019
(last updated July 2021)

Doomers

On Being a “Doomer”Eliot Jacobson, Ph.D. Watching the World Go Bye. Sept. 1, 2021.


Let’s start with the obvious. The word “doomer” is a word with horribly dark connotations. The obvious interpretation is that a doomer believes life is hopeless, they might as well give up trying; there is no value in being alive. But that is emphatically not the doomer’s perspective. Doomers understand that life is a terminal disease for all of us, that any objective examination of one’s life should include the inevitability of death. Yet, even with this universal existential dilemma, doomers still enjoy sunsets and friends, they work towards goals, they have families, they celebrate births and mourn deaths, and they struggle on. Most of all, doomers recognize that humanity has a collective terminal illness here and now, not at some unimagined future time.

Doomers do not believe climate change is going to end well for the natural world or for humanity. Doomers are saddened by the innumerable losses that are taking place in the natural world, including plants, animals, oceans, ice and ancient physical processes. Doomers are saddened by losing all the achievements of humanity, including art, literature, science and philosophy – the totality of humanity’s legacy. Doomers are saddened by the human suffering already taking place and the massive suffering of all species, plant and animal, that lies ahead. Doomers are saddened by the prospect of losing friends and family, what’s going to happen to those they work with, those they play with and those they love. And doomers are saddened by the shortening of their own lives, the fear that comes with having an unexpected terminal illness. In short, doomers are saddened by their profound understanding that it’s the near-term loss of everything.

Most doomers are not invested in finding the causes of the planet’s demise. Those who want to argue if our collective crisis is due to greenhouse gas emissions, overpopulation, peak oil, or something else are still playing the game. Engaging in blame and finger pointing creates anger and anxiety. Doomers are not looking for a fight and will deescalate when confronted.

On the other hand, doomers are curious about what the future will bring and the full scope of events to come. They want to know the consequences of climate change, what could happen, what is likely to happen, what is on the speculative bubble and they want to know an approximate time scale. The doomer is invested in education and scientific discovery and wants to follow the best road map for what will be possible and what will be necessary as the planet dies.

Doomers support environmental activism. They encourage positive and progressive action and understand that such action has positive benefits. As has been said, if environmental activism allows one butterfly to live one more day, then it is worth it. Doomers are conscious of their own actions and their impact on ecosystems and the planet.

There is another perspective that the doomer’s awareness brings. It means doomers don’t have to compete anymore. They don’t have to win. They don’t have to be right in every argument they make. The world becomes non-political. Religious beliefs lose their importance. They realize they are part of the human family on a dying planet and that everyone is experiencing a singular and tragic death together – the sixth great extinction – in their own way.

Doomer’s grieve. There is no linear roadmap for processing this grief, nor is there a catalog of the emotions the doomer might experience in the context of their grief. The doomer accepts the cycle and range of emotions that are theirs to bear. In my case these include denial, anxiety, sleepless nights, anger and depression. My grief has also led me to learn more about climate science, to listen to and read what the experts have to say and to engage with online communities. The doomer does their best to not judge their experience or the experience of others, but also understands that judgement is its own type of coping and relief.

And doomers believe that in this particular crisis there is an opportunity. They can use this common moment of suffering to find ways to be kind to others. They can use whatever personal abundance they might have to be generous as much as they are able. And while they still have the energy and mobility for action, they can look for ways to be of service. Volunteering is the greatest honor they can gift themselves in the limited time they have left.

Having no hope for the long-term future of human civilization smacks of cults, fringe religious beliefs and mass suicides. But this lack of hope is now mainstream. We hear and read about the reality climate change brings every day. From fires to floods to droughts to heat waves; from the Arctic ice melting to the weakening of the gulf stream to rain falling on the highest peak in Greenland to the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef; from failing crops to the scalding alive of salmon as they attempt to swim upstream to the decimation of rainforests; from Madagascar to Lytton to Paradise, disaster is the reality on planet earth today. “Doomer” is not the right word for someone who is simply paying attention. “Doomer” is not the right word for someone who looks at the jigsaw puzzle pieces laying on the table and understands the final and inevitable picture they will become.

In these remarks I have used the word “doomer” freely to express my own philosophy about end-times in a way that many people who consider themselves to be doomers may not subscribe. I do not pretend to speak for all doomers, nor wish to constrain the beliefs and methods of other doomers to the scope of what I’ve written here. The word “doomer” may not be the right word to describe my own perspective on life during the planet’s transition. Maybe there is no right word. Maybe there are no universals. I don’t know. But this is really hard and I am profoundly sad. We have never been here before. No one individually, no society and no other generation of humans on earth has ever had to process events of this magnitude or attempt to express thoughts like these in the context of overwhelming scientific evidence backing this view.

I am not going to propose another word to replace “doomer” in the way I’ve used it here. I don’t know a word that is more suitable. But the other way to look at this is that the word “doomer” captures all the positive perspectives that come with understanding the inevitability of death. Life is short, sadly much shorter for many than we expected it to be when we were younger. But that’s where we are. Doomer or not, whatever word makes you most comfortable, what we all can do going forward from here is to act with kindness, be as generous as we are able and find ways to be of service.

Monday, August 30, 2021

Irrationality, Artificial Intelligence, and the Climate Crisis

Irrationality, Artificial Intelligence, and the Climate Crisis. Fabio Tollon, 3QD. Aug. 30, 2021.


Human beings are rather silly creatures. Some of us cheer billionaires into space while our planet burns. Some of us think vaccines cause autism, that the earth is flat, that anthropogenic climate change is not real, that COVID-19 is a hoax, and that diamonds have intrinsic value. Many of us believe things that are not fully justified, and we continue to believe these things even in the face of new evidence that goes against our position. This is to say, many people are woefully irrational. However, what makes this state of affairs perhaps even more depressing is that even if you think you are a reasonably well-informed person, you are still far from being fully rational. Decades of research in social psychology and behavioural economics has shown that not only are we horrific decision makers, we are also consistently horrific. This makes sense: we all have fairly similar ‘hardware’ (in the form of brains, guts, and butts) and thus it follows that there would be widely shared inconsistencies in our reasoning abilities.

This is all to say, in a very roundabout way, we get things wrong. We elect the wrong leaders, we believe the wrong theories, and we act in the wrong ways. All of this becomes especially disastrous in the case of climate change

But what if there was a way to escape this tragic epistemic situation? What if, with the use of an AI-powered surveillance state, we could simply make it impossible for us to do the ‘wrong’ things? As Ivan Karamazov notes in the tale of The Grand Inquisitor (in The Brothers Karamzov by Dostoevsky), the Catholic Church should be praised because it has “vanquished freedom… to make men happy”. By doing so it has “satisfied the universal and everlasting craving of humanity – to find someone to worship”. Human beings are incapable of managing their own freedom. We crave someone else to tell us what to do, and, so the argument goes, it would be in our best interest to have an authority (such as the Catholic Church, as in the original story) with absolute power ruling over us. This, however, contrasts sharply with liberal-democratic norms. My goal is to show that we can address the issues raised by climate change without reinventing the liberal-democratic wheel. That is, we can avoid the kind of authoritarianism dreamed up by Ivan Karamazov.

It is widely accepted in the scientific and political communities that we are on the precipice of a climate catastrophe. Through our own actions (and increasingly, inactions) we have plundered our planet and entered what some have called the ‘Anthropocene’: an age in which we have the agential powers equivalent to geological forces. This has given us the capacity to dominate the earth and spread the environmental disaster that is human civilization all over the planet. One good feature of civilization, however, has been the establishment (and defence) of liberal democracy. Such participatory democracies (at least in theory) encourage robust debate, diversity, and inclusivity. They also preserve individual liberty: freedom is an important political value (although of course not the only one that matters), and manipulation and coercion would be seen as unjustifiable in the pursuit of some or other political objective (even if this objective is climate change mitigation).

This brings us to the problem I introduced at the beginning of this piece: our liberal-democratic framework, by giving us the ‘freedom to choose’, has resulted in human stupidity being the guiding logic in many attempts to ameliorate the climate crisis. Might we be better off giving up our freedom and establishing an authoritarian state that could force compliance with global climate goals? The dilemma is as follows: Is there a way to deal with an existential threat such as climate change whilst also preserving liberal democracy? My own view (and that of Mark Coeckelbergh in his recent book on the topic) is that liberal democracy is worth fighting for, and it might just be possible for us to preserve it and not go extinct. To do so, however, we have to take seriously the authoritarian threat posed by AI powered systems as ‘solutions’ to the climate crisis.

Advanced AI systems are ubiquitous. From social media timelines, video recommendations on YouTube, and the kinds of adverts we see online, AI, in a very real sense, filters the world we see. Whether that world is rose tinted or stained red ultimately depends on what the algorithm thinks will maximise revenue for its owner in the best possible way. These systems also play on our emotions: we are fed information that confirms our biases, exposes us to a very narrow range of interests, and promotes extreme views. This content is often inflammatory, divisive, and polarizing. Combine this with work done on nudging in social psychology and behavioural economics, and what you get is the potential for an AI-driven authoritarian monster. Proponents of nudge theory argue that due to how easily ‘hackable’ the human mind is, we ought to design our world in such a way that makes it easier for us to ‘do the right thing’. For example, we might stop placing sugary treats at children’s eye level in stores in the hope that they might not see this form of legal poison, thus making it easier to lower their refined sugar intake. Termed ‘libertarian paternalism’ by its defenders, it is claimed that this approach does not necessarily infringe on the freedom of individuals.

However, it is difficult to see how having ‘nudgers’ decide on our behalf what they think is good for us ‘nudgees’ is not an infringement on our freedom. Nudgers decide for us. Why? Because we are not to be trusted. And here, I think, is where we see the guiding presupposition that has been operative in my discussion thus far: that we cannot trust human beings. If left to our own devices, we will inevitably muck things up (evidence for this can be found by either looking around or reading a book). Thus, our freedom can be curtailed justifiably because when given freedom we do Very Bad Things with it. And if data-driven AI systems operated by surveillance states are the way to implement such restrictions, and they mitigate the climate crisis, then so be it (call this the Hobbesian solution, named after Thomas Hobbes and his view of human nature).

Nonetheless, this view operates with an impoverished understanding of freedom. More precisely, we can see freedom or liberty in both positive and negative terms. On the mistrustful view of human nature outlined above, freedom is framed as purely negative. Negative freedom is our freedom ‘from’ things: freedom from interference by the state or other persons. Positive freedom, on the other hand, is about our freedom ‘to’. What we can do with our freedom, what its limits and possibilities are. On the Hobbesian solution, regulations and restrictions are justified, but are nonetheless framed as infringing on our negative liberties. What such an approach is silent on, however, is positive liberty. What if we are not inherently awful, what about those times when we are rational, and what about the potential we have to do Very Good Things? What if we can be trusted?

From a democratic perspective this would be preferable. Trust in human nature means that we can trust our leaders to get it right when it matters, and that we can trust citizens to vote for virtuous leaders. Of course, in practice, this is very difficult to achieve. However, when we see our political options through the lens of positive freedom, we begin to see how it might be possible. For example, one approach could be to enhance certain capabilities.  In this way we can increase our positive freedom by creating conditions and policies that enhance individual and collective well-being. Moreover, the means by which we achieve this should be democratic. Following Dewey, we can see such democratic processes as ‘organized intelligence’, where we can bring conflicts to the table, air them out, potentially solve them, and make progress. The goal of our liberal-democratic political institutions should therefore be to create the conditions under which human beings have their capability to increase overall welfare enhanced.

In this way it is possible to move beyond the Hobbesian solution and to place trust in our democratic institutions. Additionally, we can see how constraints and regulations to mitigate the climate crisis are not simply infringements on our negative liberties. Rather, they can be viewed as enhancing positive liberty by safeguarding our biosphere for both currently existing humans and future generations. This is not to say that we should limit our political discussions to anthropocentric perspectives. Human caused climate change is of course also devastating to animal and plant life, and it is essential that we include these in our political discussions. An important part of dealing with the problems posed by climate change will involve establishing non-anthropocentric political discourse. This would involve protecting the rights of nature, and the interests of animals. With this in mind, it is no use to blindly defend negative liberty when such a defense results in the destruction of our environment. Dealing with the climate crisis will require us to go beyond such narrow framings of our freedom.

What does any of this have to do with AI? To enhance positive liberty with respect to climate change we need regulation and oversight, and the same is true of AI. While many tout the wonderful things that will be made possible by new technologies, we must also remain cognizant of how such technologies can reinforce existing social inequalities. Not just that, but overreliance on algorithmic systems can blind us to (social) problems that might not have technical solutions. The climate crisis is not a problem that we can solve with science alone: it is also a deeply political issue, a kind of ‘hybrid’, and so if we want to use AI as a means to ameliorate it, we cannot ignore such political questions. The notion of positive liberty provides us with a framework which we can use to both evaluate attempts to align AI with human values and interventions in the service of our biosphere. Instead of a focus negative liberty, we should also be cognizant of the ways that restrictions, regulations, etc. might also enhance positive liberty.

What unites both the climate crisis and emerging technologies like AI is that they call into question various liberal-democratic norms. In both cases, the tug of authoritarianism on the one side, and unfettered libertarianism on the other, put strain on our political institutions. What I have hoped to do here is to show that we can escape this binary way of framing things, while still preserving that which is good about democratic participation.

Monday, August 23, 2021

Bardi: What is the Worst that can Happen?

Climate Change: What is the Worst that can Happen? Ugo Bardi. Aug. 22, 2021.


As it should have been predictable, the IPCC 6th assessment report, sank like a stone to the bottom of the memesphere just a few days after that it was presented. Put simply, nobody is interested in sacrificing anything to reverse the warming trend and, most likely, nothing will be done. Renewable energy offers hope to mitigate the pressure on climate and we should try to do our best to move in the right direction, but it may well be too late. We may have passed the point of non-return and be in free fall toward an unknown world. 

A disclaimer: I am not saying that nothing can be done anymore. I think we should keep doing what we can, as long as we can. But, at this stage, we can ask the question of "what is the worst thing that can happen?" Models can't help us too much to answer it. Complex systems -- and Earth's climate is one -- tend to be stable, but when they pass tipping points, they change rapidly and unpredictably. So, the best we can do is to imagine scenarios based on what we know, using the past as a guide.

Let's assume that humans keep burning fossil fuels for a few more decades, maybe slowing down a little, but still bent at burning everything burnable, deforest what is deforestable, and exterminate what is exterminable. As a result, the atmosphere keeps warming, the ocean does that, too. Then, at some point -- bang! -- the concentrations of greenhouse gases shoot up, the system goes kinetic and undergoes a rapid transition to a much hotter world.

The new state could be similar to what the Earth was some 50 million years ago, during the Eocene. At that time, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was of the order of one thousand parts per million (today it is ca. 400) and average surface temperature was about 10-12 degrees C higher than the current one. It was hot, but life thrived and Earth was a luxuriant, forested planet. In principle, humans could live in an Eocene-like climate. The problem is that getting there could be a rough ride, to say the least.

Nobody can say how fast we could get to a new Eocene, but tipping points are fast, so we don't need millions of years. We are thinking, more likely, of thousands of years and significant changes could occur in centuries or even in decades. So, let's try an exercise in looking at the worst-case hypothesis: assuming a warming of 6-10 degrees occurring over a time span of the order of 100-1000 years, what would we expect? It depends not just on temperatures, but on the interplay of several other factors, including mineral depletion, economic and social collapse, and the like. Let me propose a series of scenarios arranged from not so bad to very bad. Remember, these are possibilities, not predictions.

1. Extreme weather events: hurricanes, and the like. These events are spectacular and often described as the main manifestation of climate change. Nevertheless, it is not obvious that a warmer world will show violent atmospheric phenomena. A hurricane is a thermal engine, it transfers heat from a hot area to a cold area. It is more efficient, and hence more powerful, the higher the temperature difference. From what we know, in a warmer world these differences should be lower than they are now, so the power of hurricanes would be reduced, not enhanced. We may have a lot more rain because a hot atmosphere can contain more water, and this is an already detectable trend. Extreme weather events would be mainly local and hardly an existential threat to human civilization. 

2. Fires. Higher temperatures mean higher chances of fire, but the temperature is not the only parameter that enters into play. The trends over the past decades indicate a weak increase in the number of fires in the temperate zone and, of course, fires wreak havoc for those who didn't think too much before building a wooden house in a forest of eucalypti. Nevertheless, as far as we know, fires were less common in the Eocene than they are now, which is what we would expect for a world of tropical forests. Fires should not be a threat for the future, although we may see a temporary rise in their frequency and intensity during the transition period.

3. Heat Waves. There is no doubt that heat waves kill, and that they are becoming more and more frequent. An Eocene-like climate would mean that the people living in what is today the temperate zone would experience summers in the form of a continuous series of extreme heat waves. Paris, for instance, would have a climate similar to the current one in Dubai. It would not be pleasant, but it is also true that people survive in Dubai in Summer using air conditioning and taking other precautions. As long as we maintain a good supply of electricity and water, heat waves don't represent a major threat. Without electricity, instead, disaster looms. Heat waves could force a large fraction of the population in the equatorial and temperate zones to move northward or relocate on higher grounds, or, simply, die where they are. The toll of future heat waves is impossible to estimate, but it could mean the death of millions or tens of millions of people. It may not destroy civilization, but humans would have to move away from the tropical regions of the planet

4. Sea level rise. Here, we face a potential threat that goes from the easily manageable to the existential, depending on how fast the ice sheets melt. The current 3.6 mm/year rate means 3-4 meters of rise in a thousand years. Over such a time span, it would be reasonably possible to adapt the harbor structures and to move them inland with the sea level rise. But the rate increases, as it is expected to, things get tough. Having to rebuild the whole maritime commercial infrastructure in a few decades would be impossible, to say nothing about the possibility of catastrophic events involving large masses of ice crashing into the sea. If we lose the harbors, we lose the maritime commercial system. Without it, billions of people would starve to death. In the long run, the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica will have to melt completely, causing the sea level to rise by about 70 meters, but nobody can say how long that would take. Sea level rise has the potential for substantial disruption of the human civilization, even for its total collapse, but not to cause the extinction of humankind.

5. Agricultural collapse. In principle, climate change, may have disruptive effects on agriculture. Nevertheless, so far warming has not affected agricultural productivity too much. Assuming no major changes in the weather patterns, agriculture can continue producing at the current rates as long it is supplied with 1) fertilizers, 2) pesticides 3) mechanization, 4) irrigation. Take out any one of these 4 factors and the grain fields turn into a desert (genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may not need pesticides, but they have other problems). Keeping this supply needs a lot of energy and that may be a big problem in the future. Photovoltaic-powered artificial food production could come to the rescue, but it is still an experimental technology and it may arrive too late. Then, of course, technology can do little against the disruption of the weather patterns. Imagine that the Indian yearly monsoon were to disappear: most likely, it would be impossible to replace the monsoon rain with artificial irrigation and the result would be hundreds of millions of people starving to death. The lack of food is one of the main genocidal killers in history, directly or indirectly as the result of the epidemics that take advantage of weakened populations. As recently as a century and a half ago, famine directly killed about 30% of the population of Ireland and the toll would have been larger hadn't some been able to emigrate. If we extrapolate these numbers to the world today, where there is no possibility to migrate anywhere (despite Elon Musk's efforts), we are talking about billions of deaths. Famines are among the greatest threats to humankind in the near future, although climate change would be only a co-factor in generating them. Famines may wreck sufficient damage to cause an economic, social, and cultural collapse. 

6. Ecosystem collapse. The history of Earth has seen several cases of ecosystemic collapses involving mass extinctions: the main ones are referred to as "the big five." The largest one took place at the end of the Permian, about 250 million years ago. In that case, the ecosystem recovered from the catastrophe, but it went close to losing all the vertebrates. Most large extinctions are correlated to volcanic emissions of the type called "large igneous provinces" that generate large amounts of greenhouse gases. The result is a warming sufficient to disrupt the ecosystem. The current human-caused emission rate is larger than anything ever experienced by the ecosystem before, but it is unlikely to arrive to levels that could cause a Permian-like disaster. Unlike volcanoes, which don't care about the biosphere, humans would be wiped out much before they could pump enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause the death of the biosphere. Nevertheless, a substantial ecosystemic collapse could be caused by factors as the elimination of keystone species (say, bees), erosion, heavy metal pollution, arrest of the thermohaline oceanic currents, and others. The problem is that we have no idea of the time scale involved. Some people are proposing the "near term human extinction" (NTE) taking place in a few decades at most. It is not possible to prove that they are wrong, although most of the people studying the issue tend to think that the time involved should be much longer. The collapse of the ecosystem is a real threat: if it has happened in the past, it could happen again in the future. It may not be definitive and the ecosystem would probably recover as it has done in the past. But, if it happens, it will be the end of humans as a species (and of many other species). 

7. The unexpected. Many things could cause an abrupt and unexpected change of the state of the system. As an example, concentrations of CO2 of the order of 1,000 ppm could turn out to be poisonous for a biosphere that evolved for much lower concentrations. That would lead to a rapid ecosystem collapse. Then, heavy metal pollution could reduce human fertility so much that humans would go extinct in a couple of generations (we are especially sensitive to pollution because we are top predators). In this case, the human perturbation on climate would quickly disappear, although the past effects would still be felt for a long time. Or, we may think of a large scale nuclear war. It would cause a temporary "nuclear winter" generated by the injection of light-reflecting dust into the atmosphere. The cooling would disrupt agriculture and kill off a large fraction of the human population. After a few years, though, warming would return with a vengeance. How about developing an artificial intelligence so smart that it decides we are a nuisance and it exterminates humankind? Maybe it would keep some specimens in a zoo. Or, a silicon-based life would find that the whole biosphere is a nuisance, and proceed to sterilize the planet. In that case, we might be transferred as virtual creatures in a virtual universe created by the AI itself. And that may be exactly what we are! These extreme scenarios are unlikely, but who knows?

So, this is the view from where we stand: the peak of the Seneca Cliff, the curve that describes the rapid phase transitions of complex systems on the basis of the principle that "growth is sluggish, but ruin is rapid." We see a green valley in the distance, but the road down the cliff is so steep and rough that it is hard to say whether we will survive the descent. 

The most worrisome thing is not so much the steep descent in itself, but that most humans not only can't understand it, but they can't even perceive it. Even after the descent has started (and it may well have started already), humans are likely to misunderstand the situation, attribute the change to evil agents (the Greens, the Communists, the Trumpists, or whatever) and react in way that will worsen the situation -- at best with extensive greenwashing, at worst with large scale extermination programs.

So, we may well disappear as a species in a non remote future. But we may also survive the disaster and re-emerge on the other side of the climate transition. For those who make it, the new Eocene might be a good world to live in, warm and luxuriant, with plenty of life. Maybe some of our descendants will use stone-tipped lances to hunt a future equivalent of the ancient Eocene's brontotheria. And, who knows, they might be wiser than we have been. 

Whether humans survive or not, the planetary ecosystem -- Gaia -- will recover nicely from the human perturbation, even though it may take a few million years for it to regain the exquisite complexity of the ecosystem as it was before humans nearly destroyed it. But Gaia is not in a hurry. The Goddess is benevolent and merciful (although sometimes ruthless) and she will live for several hundred million years after that even the existence of humans will have been forgotten.

Monday, August 9, 2021

IPCC report AR6 released

Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC’s starkest warning yet. The Guardian. Aug. 9, 2021.

Report warns temperatures likely to rise by more than 1.5C bringing widespread extreme weather

  • IPCC’s verdict on climate crimes of humanity: guilty as hell
  • ‘Not too late’: Australian scientists call for urgent action to avoid worst of climate crisis
  • Climate crisis ‘unequivocally’ caused by humans, says IPCC



UN sounds alarm on 'irreversible' climate impacts, but offers hope. CBC. Aug. 9, 2021.

"This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet." ~ UN Secretary General António Guterres.



The era of 'rapid' climate change has begun. Eric Holthaus. Aug. 9, 2021.

Here's what the new IPCC report says, and what it doesn't, about the most important moment of our lives.

...

What the report says
  • It’s warming ‘almost everywhere’.
  • It’s warming ‘rapidly’.
  • It’s been a long time since our planet has been this warm.
  • It’s going to get worse before it gets better.
  • Fixing it ‘requires’ net zero carbon globally as soon as possible.

Here’s the links to read the new IPCC report yourself:

The report’s press release.

A video recording of today’s press conference, with Q&A.

The report itself.

For the first time, the IPCC has also published an Interactive Atlas.




Here are some of the key findings and details from the 3,949-page report, which was released alongside a 42-page "summary for policymakers". The report was signed by 234 scientists from 60 countries. Temperatures will continue to rise until "at least" 2050, causing "further extreme weather events." And without “immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions" reductions, stopping global warming will be impossible, as the global temperature will likely rise 2C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
  • The world has already risen 1.1ĀŗC from pre-industrial levels, and is likely to temporarily reach 1.5C of warming within 20 years even in a "best-case scenario" where greenhouse gas emissions see "deep" reductions.
  • The past decade was most likely hotter than any period in the last 125,000 years, when sea levels were as much as 10 meters higher. Combustion and deforestation have also raised carbon dioxide in the atmosphere higher than they’ve been in two million years, according to the report, and agriculture and fossil fuels have contributed to methane and nitrous oxide concentration higher than any point in at least 800,000 years.
  • The document is “a code red for humanity,” said Antonio Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, in prepared remarks tied to the release. “This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels before they destroy our planet.”
  • The pledges from Paris Climate Accord signatories is "“insufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emission enough” to keep global warming well below 2°C.
  • The more temperatures rise beyond 2°C, the worse the impact will be. Like with anything, climate change risks triggering feedback loops, as rising temperatures cause more Arctic ice to melt, unlocking carbon buried deep in the permafrost, which could make its way into the atmosphere.
  • US special presidential envoy for climate John Kerry said the findings underscored “the overwhelming urgency of this moment”.
  • Saudi Arabia allegedly tried tampering with the report, per the FT: In virtual negotiations KSA objected to some of the wording of the summary as representatives of the oil-exporting powerhouse sought to replace references to "carbon emissions" with "greenhouse gas emissions". But "the science prevailed". Funny, we thought those phrases were synonymous.
  • For the first time, the report apparently ties climate change to incidents of "extreme weather". The deadly heat wave that killed hundreds this summer in the North American Pacific Northwest would have been "virtually impossible" without the climate crisis. The IPCC says heavy rainfall that used to occur once every 10 years now occurs 30% more frequently, with droughts occurring more than 70% more often.
  • Ocean levels have climbed by 8 inches (on average) over the past century, and the rate of increase has doubled since 2006.
  • The AP called this next detail the "Big Catch" from the report: Meeting the most ambitious goal of the Paris accord, which involves keeping temperature increases to 1.5°C by the end of the century, is believed to only be possible via what is known as "negative emissions": That means sucking more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than is added. In other words, being "emissions neutral" or "zero emissions" or whatever American Tech giants like Microsoft are calling it these days, is no longer enough.
  • Just 25 big cities - almost all of them in China - accounted for more than half of the climate-warming gases pumped out by a sample of 167 urban hubs around the world.




You may have heard there's a climate science report out.

It will generate a thousand stories and messages, in every language on the planet.

Most will center on interpretations and agendas because the findings are not new. This U.N.-chartered Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its sixth comprehensive assessment of global warming science since it was created in 1988, is charged only with reviewing published research.

The core conclusions are plenty stark enough and need no embellishment. Go to the I.P.C.C.'s list of headline statements for key takeaways but here are three distilled points:
  • From "fire weather" to hurricane strength, heat waves to deluges, melting ice to searing drought, much of what has been unfolding around the planet is already, to a growing extent, intensified by the climate-altering power of hundreds of billions of tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other pollutants emitted so far as a consequence of humanity's "great acceleration" of industrial development.
  • Because of the long life of CO₂ and heat already banked in the oceans and other factors, centuries lie ahead with rising temperatures, rising seas and a dangerous melange of extreme events, but the pace and the odds of deeply disruptive worst-case outcomes are still a function of humanity's decisions, or continuing indecision, around stopping the growth of our heat-trapping carbon footprint in the atmosphere.
  • In theory, there's still time to stop dangerous warming altogether, and to forestall the worst impacts on people and the world's ecosystems if emissions can be brought down from today's 40-billion-tons-plus a year (and rising) to a net of zero.
That last point remains key. Every step toward emissions reduction is a step toward a safer relationship with climate in the decades ahead, including holding at bay potential deeply destabilizing abrupt or compounded changes - the "monsters behind the door," to use an apt old phrase from Princeton scientist Steve Pacala.

But that's where this report, “Climate Change 2021 - The Physical Science Basis,” leaves off. Unfortunately, the antiquated architecture of the panel, established decades ago, means two crucial additional parts of this assessment - on warming impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation options and ways to mitigate warming - won't be out until next February and March, and a final synthesis report comes in September 2022...

And that's what's most urgently needed.

Click back to two other periodic United Nations products - the latest reports on the glaring global "Emissions Gap" and "Adaptation Gap" - and you'll see the deep hollowness behind many of the pledges by the nations that have spent the last century thriving on a fossil fueled energy diet. (Keep in mind there are no teeth in the 2015 Paris Agreement and the foundational 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change that it builds on.)



The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will provide guidance for policy-makers urgently facing down the current and long-term effects of the climate crisis




Discontinuity is the Job. Alex Steffen. Aug. 9, 2021.
How climate change and the planetary crisis are changing what works

THE PLANETARY CRISIS IS NOT AN ISSUE, BUT A CHANGE IN ERA
When we smashed an unsustainable economy into an immovable planetary reality, we broke our continuity with the past.
The material fundamentals of the systems that surround us are in cataclysmic conflict with the biological fundamentals of our planet (and the practical realities of societal needs). The planetary crisis is not an issue, or set of issues, but a change in era, one that’s already happened.
As I wrote at the start of this series:
“To unlock insight into the world we’re living in, it helps to remember that we’re in a new era, surrounded by systems designed and built in the old.”
To be alive right now is to find ourselves flattened against the fact that the entire human world—our cities and infrastructure, our economy and education system, our farms and factories, our laws and politics—was built for a different planet.
Our understandings of how things work—the assumptions we’ve taken for granted, the experiences we’ve acquired, the skills we’ve learned—no longer offer good guidance for the chaos unfolding around us. Discontinuity surrounds us. While this is certainly true for physical systems, it’s actually even more true for our societies as a whole. Nothing is as it was.
We must learn to remake our world, even as our planet convulses with change. Thinking about this problem is basically what I do for a living. I'm increasingly convinced that almost no one has yet totally engaged this reality. Perhaps literally no one.




A 10-Point Platform (and Anti-Platform) on Climate Change. Stephen Eisenman, Anthropocene Alliance; via Counterpunch. Aug. 6, 2021.



The IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report and implications for #Manchester (aka “Eleven Theses on futility, backed up with footnotes (1)”). Marc Hudson. Aug. 9, 2021

Today the latest “we are all doomed” climate report comes out. It is the latest in a long long (see below) line of such reports.  Climate activists will want to believe that this, at last will “wake up” everyone, from the sheeple to the world leaders who are supposed to be meeting in Glasgow in November.  “Surely,” they think to themselves, “THIS time, the message will get through.”

Yeah, sure.

Below are eleven theses on these sorts of reports, the state of the climate “movement” and a quarter-hearted attempt at addressing the ‘what is to be done’ question (perhaps best framed as ‘what was to be done?’ or ‘what could have been done?’.)

This rant stared out as a blog for Climate Emergency Manchester, but it gets a little ripe, a little beyond the “cynical but not TOO cynical” boundaries of what that small organisation is about,  so even the usual disclaimer of “Marc Hudson, writing in a personal capacity” would probably not render it publishable there. 

First Warning: contains hackneyed references to Groundhog Day, The Bourne Ultimatum and forced references to song lyrics, only some of which are linked. ...



CON26. Automatic Earth. Aug. 9, 2021.

The IPCC came out with another report today, which is a lead-in to another climate conference, this time in Glasgow in Oct-Nov 2021. All the headlines and reactions are exactly the same as they always are: There is no time to lose!, We have to act now!, but also: There is still hope! Since it’s all the same, I thought I’d repost an article from December 2015, ahead of the Paris conference named COP21. All I had to do was change the number and call this one not CON21 but CON26.

No, we’re not going to act in time, and no, there is no hope to halt the degradation of our planet. It’s all long baked into the cake, and if it wasn’t we’d still not stop it. We can do things as individuals but not as a group, let alone as a species. We cannot change our approach to the problems because we cannot change who we are.



Related Tweets

Newsfeed says it all. Although we don't buy the whole, "it's all China's fault". Canada is one of the highest per-capita emitters. 
We need a drastic change in  how we move, live, eat, and tread on this land.


icymi:
1. we're at 417 ppm of atmospheric CO2 for the first time in 23 million years
2. carbon-sucking technologies stronger than all Earth’s oceans & plants combined likely won't exist by 2045 so we're in deep shit and need degrowth, climate justice action
3. media are silent

1. The global economy has caused a mass extinction event. Earth's major ecosystems are collapsing. Habitat destruction, toxic pollution, abrupt climate change.. they will wreck everything without us moving very rapidly towards a postgrowth future.

2. Net-zero by 2050? A grim fantasy.. we'd somehow need to start matching the vast and mighty Oceans of planet Earth by sucking billions of tonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere every single year, and this process would have to begin by *checks IPCC* 2020.

3. 'The abrupt increase of greenhouse gas distribution today is unprecedented in Earth's 23-million-year history, indicating that ecosystems and global temperatures may be more sensitive to smaller changes in CO2 levels than previously thought.' 

4. "The obvious acceleration of the breakdown of our stable climate simply confirms that—when it comes to the climate emergency—we are in deep, deep shit," Bill McGuire, a professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London


Good luck swerving the absolute avalanche of horse shit disguised as serious analysis today.


As they tell you it's now IRREVERSIBLE ...they don't want you to feel bad
And talk about "hope" and "make a difference"
As #centralbanks print trillions to bury mankind in more emissions
The intensity of denial is simply surreal




“Every approach that promises both bold action and the continuation of current practices and systems leads us inexorably into magical thinking.”


Is there any mea culpa in the report? That would allow a reflection on the limits of the ideology of the scientific establishment & thus some more holistic, integrated, transdisciplinary, radical & #postnormal science as we work out what to do within this new era of disasters.


The new IPCC report highlights the silliness of men: worrying over a hangnail (covid) while the house is burning down (self-extinction). Plutocracy rules and only ineffectual response will be made - just like the covid pandemic.


'We cannot say we were not warned. Even worse, we cannot say to our children that we even tried. We are knowingly condemning young people to a world of fires, storms, and floods.'




One bit of the IPCC report that should be taken with a grain of salt the size of the Earth itself: the call for “limiting” emissions and striving for net-zero goals rather than absolute decarbonization is entirely political and represents an extraordinary moral failure. 1/
Anyone paying attention, and certainly most climate scientists, knows that most net-zero pledges are nearly meaningless, allow for decades of deferral, and rely on technology that does not currently exist. 2/
This is a nod to political consensus, and as such a disastrous act of cowardice. Likewise the report, as @EricHolthaus mentions, does not mention fossil fuels at all, much less the corporations who profit off of their (and our) exploitation 3/


Dangerous climate change has arrived 
We humans, wildlife trees and all life on Earth are now just beginning to struggle for our survival 
To continue with fossil fuels is the greatest criminal act in the history of human kind


1. Biden won't even ban fracking.
2. Ending the fossil fuel era in 2050 is so late as to guarantee the end of humanity.
3. Congress & Biden are doing nothing but giving EVEN MORE corporate welfare to oil companies.
4. #RiseUp, & do it now. Or be ready to explain to your kids.








Saturday, August 7, 2021

Topic: Obama

first published 2014; updated 2018; updated Aug. 2021.


Why I Burning my last bridge with Obama. Carey Wedler. Mar. 13, 2014.




Why I Burned My Obama Shirt. interview with Carey Wedler, via youtube. May 12, 2014.



Michelle Obama.. do me a favor, please! Nov. 7, 2013.



Obama Did NOT Kill Osama bin Laden. Paul Craig Roberts. Aug. 7, 2021.
The American People Live In a World of False Narratives


The Vanishing Legacy of Barack Obama. Matt Taibbi. Aug. 13, 2021.
On the road from stirring symbol of hope and change to the Fat Elvis of neoliberalism, birthday-partying Barack Obama sold us all out
...
There’s a glorious moment in the life of a certain kind of politician, when either because their careers are over, or because they’re so untouchable politically that it doesn’t matter anymore, that they finally get to remove the public mask, no pun intended. This Covid bash was Barack Obama’s “Fuck it!” moment.
He extended middle fingers in all directions: to his Vineyard neighbors, the rest of America, Biden, the hanger-on ex-staffers who’d stacked years of hundred-hour work weeks to build his ballyhooed career, the not quite A-listers bounced at the last minute for being not famous enough (sorry, Larry David and Conan O’Brien!), and so on. It’d be hard not to laugh imagining Axelrod reading that even “Real Housewife of Atlanta” Kim Fields got on the party list over him, except that Obama giving the shove-off to his most devoted (if also scummy and greedy) aides is also such a perfect metaphor for the way he slammed the door in the faces of the millions of ordinary voters who once so desperately believed in him.
Obviously, getting rich and not giving a shit anymore is the birthright of every American. But this wasn’t supposed to be in the script for Obama, whose remarkable heel turn has been obscured by the Trump years, which incidentally were at least partly his fault. The history books and the still-starstruck press will let him skate on this, but they shouldn’t.
Obama was set up to be the greatest of American heroes, but proved to be a common swindler and one of the great political liars of all time — he fooled us all. Moreover, his remarkably vacuous post-presidency is proving true everything Trump said in 2016 about the grasping Washington politicians whose only motives are personal enrichment, and who’d do anything, even attend his wedding, for a buck. Trump’s point was that he, Trump, was already swinishly rich, while politicians have only one thing to sell to get the upper class status they crave: us.
Obama did that. He sold us out, and it’s time to start talking about the role he played in bringing about the hopeless cynical mess that is modern America.

Why “Incremental Change” Is Worse Than No Change At All. CaitOz. July 15, 2019.
President Obama was elected on the platform of hope and change. He promised big, sweeping changes, and, at the end of eight years, had continued and expanded all the most depraved foreign and domestic policies of his predecessor while killing the push for universal healthcare and creating a climate initiative which was the equivalent of a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. He now defends his near-complete lack of progress by claiming that compromising with the plutocrats and achieving a small amount of change is better than not compromising and achieving no change at all.

The World According to Ben Rhodes: Hypocrisy in Obama’s Foreign Policy. As`ad AbuKhalil, Consortium News. July 23, 2018.
Ben Rhodes’ interesting new book, The World as It is: A Memoir of the Obama White House (Random House), should be widely read not because of the wisdom or moral message it contains but because it is an unintended, damning account of liberal imperialism.

The book suffers from an acute case of self-congratulation, sanctimoniousness and hubris. The author situates himself (along with Samantha Power and the young Foreign Service officers who worked in the Obama White House) among the liberal advocates of foreign policy. He does not include Obama in this group, and the latter comes across—despite perfunctory praise—as he really is: an unprincipled politician who unfailingly subordinates moral arguments to political calculations.

Obama Goes Full Clinton Foundation With Series Of $400,000 Wall Street Speeches. zero hedge. Sep. 18, 2017.
For a man who once criticized the Clinton Foundation for taking millions of dollars in 'donations' from Wall Street "Fat Cats," Obama seems to be in a rush to replicate the lucrative Clinton scam via his very own Obama Foundation. ... since leaving office in January, Obama has already collected millions in speaking fees from the same Wall Street banks that may have cost Hillary her shot at the White House. 
... 
Now all he needs to do is use his foundation to raise money for Hurricane Irma victims in Barbuda, use that money to hire his buddies to rebuild the island and then sit back and wait for the kickbacks to roll in... then the transition to the Clinton Foundation will be complete.

Obama’s Just the Enemy And Always Was. Ian Welsh. Sep 18, 2017.
Obama’s just an evil man. He has always been an evil man. He has spent his time since office hobknobbing with billionaires and getting rich off the very people he helped bail out as president, and whom he refused to prosecute despite their clear crimes. 
He’s just a bad man. He was never left wing in any sense, and he’d rather see vast amounts of cruelty than see any sort of socialist anywhere near power.

Ilhan Omar: Obama's just a prety face who got away with murder. NYPost. Mar. 8, 2019.

If Progressives Don’t Wake Up to How Awful Obama Was, Their Movement Will Fail. Caitlin Johnstone, Observer. May 2, 2017.
... the answer, of course, is America. That’s what America is now. The man who continued and expanded all of Bush’s most evil policies, created a failed state in Libya, exponentially expanded the civilian-slaughtering US drone program which Chomsky calls “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” to unprecedented levels, facilitated the Orwellian expansion of the US surveillance state while prosecuting more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined, and used charm and public sympathy to evade the drastic environmental policy changes we’ll need to avert climate disaster and lull the progressive movement into a dead sleep for eight years now gets paid nearly half a million dollars an hour to continue bolstering the exploitative corporatist nightmare he’s dedicated his life to. 
... 
I can understand why pro-establishment liberals are defending this man; he stands for everything they stand for. If all you stand for is vapid tribalism and vanity politics and you are willing to sacrifice integrity along with economic and social justice and the lives of other people’s kids in corporatist wars overseas in order to feel like you’re on the right team, Obama is your man. But if you’re an actual, real progressive and not just a latte-sipping NPR listener with a sense of self-righteousness and a pro-choice bumper sticker, you’ve got no business regarding Obama with anything but disgust.
... 
When you’re dealing with a government that in 2013 gave itself the legal right to use media psy-ops on its own citizens, you can’t afford to have any stray strands of sympathy laying around out there. The war we’re fighting against the oligarchy is first and foremost a media war, and we may be certain that any sympathies progressives maintain toward their establishment oppressors will be exploited. By letting ourselves really see Obama for the vicious ecocidal warmongering corporatist that he is and letting the resulting disgust wash through us, we are inoculating ourselves against sympathy for him and everyone like him. That disgust will serve as a kind of psychological gag reflex that rescues us from swallowing any more of their bullshit.

Obama Starts to Cash In. Ian Welsh. Mar. 1, 2017.
This is why I don’t get very worked up about Trump’s conflicts of interest. They are real, but the only difference is that he’s getting paid now as opposed to later. Politicians exist to do what rich people want, Trump is only cutting out the middle man and the partial delay. 
This is an important point, and I want to encourage you to read this longer article on how politicians are paid by rich people to fuck over ordinary people. It’s not about donations for elections. 
Obama continued the trend, which has gotten worse for decades, of the rich getting more and more of all the gains of the economy. He did not try, in any way, to reverse it. And that’s because he knew he was being paid to funnel money to the rich. That was his job, he did it, and now he is getting his reward.

Obama’s Department of Justice’s Prime Job Is to Immunize Rich Wrongdoers. Ian Welsh. Oct. 8, 2016.
This is deliberate government policy and, yes, it comes from the top, from Obama. 
Obama and his DOJ engage in what should be considered routine criminal behavior, as far as I’m concerned: Helping criminals get away with their actions is itself criminal and that’s even before we talk about his actions in Libya, and so on. 
Scum. Absolute scum. People die when lifesaving drugs are raised to high prices. This is is immunizing negligent homicide. 
I want to be real clear, corporate criminals generally do more actual harm than the worst serial killer. 
Meanwhile, “liberals” act like Obama’s the greatest president ever, even though he left the US economy far worse for most Americans, was a warmonger, and engaged in the largest immunization of corporate crime in at least 90 years. 
He talks pretty but the man is scum. Scum to the bone. He took Bush’s America and regularized most of it and made some parts worse: kicking out more Hispanics, being far worse on whistleblowers, continuing to sign continuations of the AUMF and so on. 
That Obama is scum does not mean, for the less bright, or more partisan, that he is not better than certain alternatives. Beelzebub being the lesser evil to Satan doesn’t mean you want to sup with him. 
Scum.

I Am So Happy About Gay Marriage Being Legal in the US. Ian Welsh. Jun 26, 2015.
Obama, as a rule, is happy to give you things that the oligarchy doesn’t mind. They don’t, overall, mind gay rights. A large chunk of the oligarchy wanted Obamacare (it was and is a huge subsidy to insurance and pharma companies, among others). There is a reason the public option was never seriously considered by Obama; it was a potential threat to insurance companies. 
None of this is to say Obama is all bad, he certainly isn’t. But he is not your friend if you want widespread economic prosperity, and he never has been. Nor will he ever be. Nor, to point out what should be obvious, is Hilary Clinton (also not always for marriage equality). 
You set yourself up for immense hurt when you trust the wrong people with political power and it is important not to engage in revisionism about what is, after all, very recent history.

The Obamacare Fiasco. Ian Welsh. Nov 14, 2013.
When you are dealing with bad people, you must assume bad faith; bad behavior. You must plan for it. The best option was always Medicare-for-all (and I was told by at least one House staffer that they could pass it if they really wanted to and were willing to go nuclear.) The problem with Obama has always been this sickening need to be one of the boys. He appears to genuinely like and genuinely admire the people who have “made it” in this society—people like Jamie Dimon and the people who run insurance and drug companies. He thinks you can make deals with these people, and make sure everyone wins. 
You can’t. These people are the most successful parasites ever produced by our nasty form of sociopathic capitalism. You can only give them what they want or you can rip them from the body politic, so they stop sucking the blood from the host they’re killing. 
So the insurance companies have bitten the hand that fed them. Obama gave them everything they wanted and made sure nothing of importance they didn’t want (like a public option) was in the bill. Now they’re chomping and chewing, destroying what remains of his presidency. 
He has reaped as he sowed.

If you’re pro-Obama you’re an idiot, on the payroll, or evil. Ian Welsh. Aug. 4, 2011.
Look folks, at this point, Obama has made possible what a Republican president like McCain couldn’t do. What a Republican president like Bush failed to do: he is gutting social security and Medicare. 
Americans would have been better off with McCain because the Democratic party would not have allowed what just happened, and the GOP would have just passed McCain’s debt limit increase. 
This doesn’t mean the next Republican president won’t be worse than Obama, he probably will. But he will be worse in large part because of Obama, because Obama has institutionalized Bush’s constitutional order and taken it even further, in creating the so-called Super Congress to end run the democratic process. He will be worse because Obama, by legitimizing “deficits are evil” and delegitimizing civilian Keynesian stimulus (by screwing it up, which I predicted the day he announced his botched stimulus bill) he has made the only possible Keynesian stimulus a military one. At some point President Teabag will realize that the only thing which will provide enough help to the economy to get him reelected is a new, even bigger war.

Obama isn’t about compromise. Ian Welsh. Dec. 3, 2010.
People, Obama is not and never has been a left winger. Nor is he a Nixonian or Eisenhower Republican, that would put him massively to the left of where he is and to the left of the majority of the Democratic party. Instead his a Reaganite, something he told people repeatedly. 
Until folks get it through their skulls that Obama is not and never was a liberal, a progressive or left wing in any way, shape or form they are going to continue misdiagnosing the problem. That isn’t to say Obama may or may not be a wimp, but he always compromises right, never left and his compromises are minor. He always wanted tax cuts. He gave away the public option in private negotiations near the beginning of the HCR fight, not the end. He never even proposed an adequate stimulus bill. He bent arms, hard, to get TARP through. 
He’s a Reaganite. It’s what he believes in, genuinely. 
... 
Let me put it even more baldly. Obama is, actually, a bad man. He didn’t do the right thing when he had a majority, and now that he has the excuse of a Republican House he’s going to let them do bad thing after bad thing. This isn’t about “compromise”, this is about doing what he wants to do anyway, like slashing social security.

Obama's Whitewash. Arthur Silber, Power of Narrative. March 19, 2008.
Obama states: "I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy." What Obama has "condemned, in unequivocal terms" is the truth -- the truth that is forbidden by the fictions that feed the myth of American exceptionalism. Obama has fully embraced the lies at the heart of mythologized America -- an embrace that is underscored by his inclusion of this phrase: "a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam." In this manner, Obama confirms that he will continue our policy of global interventionism including our endless interventions in the Middle East, which have been unceasing ever since World War I. Obama embraces all the lies that support that policy, and he will challenge none of them. (See "Songs of Death" for many more details concerning Obama's embrace of this murderous policy.) 
Almost every politician lies, and most politicians lie repeatedly. Yet in one sense, Obama's speech is exceptional, rare and unique -- but not for any of the reasons offered by Obama's uncritical, mindless adulators. It is exceptional for this reason: it is rare that a candidate will announce in such stark, comprehensive terms that he will lie about every fact of moment, about every aspect of our history that affects the crises of today and that has led to them, about everything that might challenge the mythological view of America. But that is what Obama achieved with this speech. It may be a remarkable achievement -- a remarkable and detestable one, and one that promises endless destruction in the future, both here and abroad. 
Is that what many Americans want? Tragically, the answer appears to be yes. Truth must be destroyed, no matter how many lives and how much suffering are required. Americans will accept anything else -- war, genocide, economic collapse, further terrorist attacks in the U.S. -- but the truth must be denied.

8 ways Obama sucks on climate. Ben Adler, grist. Feb 17, 2015.

The new conventional wisdom among the political class is that President Obama is doing everything he can without the cooperation of Congress to fight climate change. His administration set higher fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks. It has proposed the first-ever regulations on carbon emissions from power plants, and on methane leakage from oil and gas wells and pipelines. He got China on board with a plan to limit emissions, potentially paving the way for an international climate agreement later this year in Paris. Obama feeds this perception with his public statements, such as emphasizing the importance of climate change in his State of the Union address and musing to Vox.com about how the media fails to cover climate change with the urgency of other national security threats. But many of the administration’s moves, including a string of recent actions by federal agencies under Obama’s control, show this conventional wisdom to be false.

Why “Incremental Change” Is Worse Than No Change At All. CaitOz. July 15, 2019.
Another reason why the so-called “centrists” pose such a grave threat to our world is because their platform of slow, moderate, incremental change is actually worse than no change at all.

President Obama was elected on the platform of hope and change. He promised big, sweeping changes, and, at the end of eight years, had continued and expanded all the most depraved foreign and domestic policies of his predecessor while killing the push for universal healthcare and creating a climate initiative which was the equivalent of a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. He now defends his near-complete lack of progress by claiming that compromising with the plutocrats and achieving a small amount of change is better than not compromising and achieving no change at all.

...

In both the Obama and the Trump administrations, voters ordered a box of hope and change, received a package labeled “slow, incremental change”, then opened it up and found no meaningful change whatsoever.

This pattern has been repeating for years.