Pages

Pages

Pages

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Climate Links: 11/09/2016

Some Fun Facts for A Dystopic Future. Collapse of Industrial Civilization.
... James Hansen (et al) has argued all along that 5 meters of sea level rise by the end of the century is possible, taking decades to happen rather than centuries. They conclude that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates. The last time CO2 levels were at 400ppm was during the Pliocene Era when sea level was 5 to 40m higher (16-131ft); unfortunately, Earth is warming 50 times faster than when it comes out of an ice age. Professor Harold R. Wanless who has studied the geologic sedimentary record says that we are in for a big surprise within this century:
Most of the models projecting future sea level rise assume a gradual acceleration of sea level rise through this century and beyond as ice melt gradually accelerates. Our knowledge of how sea level rose out of the past ice age paints a very different picture of sea level response to climate change. At the depth of the last ice age, about 18,000 years ago, sea level was some 420 feet below present level as ice was taken up by large continental ice sheets. Subsequent ice melt was not a gradual acceleration and then deceleration process. Rather it was a series of very rapid pulses of sea level rise followed by pauses. These rapid pulses of rise, from three to thirty feet, were fast enough to leave drowned reefs, sandy barrier islands, tidal inlet deltas, and other coastal deposits abandoned across the continental shelf. That is what happens when climate change warms enough to destabilize some ice sheet sector. It rapidly disintegrates, resulting in a rapid rise.
We are already witnessing the demise of the Great Barrier Reef, the oldest and largest living organism on the planet, which continues to suffer the lethal effects of a warming and acidifying ocean. We’ve destroyed the planet’s air conditioner in the Arctic and set the stage for an impending Blue Ocean Event where 24 hours a day of summer sunlight penetrating the uncovered dark Arctic waters will create another tipping point for runaway climate change. The Arctic climate is changing so fast science can barely keep track of what’s happening or predict global consequences. On top of this, nature’s carbon sinks have been severely weakened over the last few centuries, hindering the ability of the planet to absorb ever-increasing greenhouse gases. And these things are happening before a large destructive pulse of SLR hits the planet. 
History has proven considerably worse than the Club of Rome’s projections. The original report made only passing reference to some of the most critical environmental problems of today. In response to this, the Stockholm Resilience Centre identified a set of nine ecological processes regulating land/ocean/atmosphere and their accompanying boundaries within which humans must stay to avoid biospheric collapse. In 2015, researchers found that four of these planetary boundaries had already been breached: biodiversity loss, damage to phosphorous and nitrogen cycles, climate change and land use. None of these critical boundaries were picked up by the original Limits to Growth report. We have destroyed the stability of the Holocene Epoch and continue to wreak havoc with every passing day. In other words, there are many other environmental crises too numerous to list that are coming to a head, and catastrophic sea level rise is just the icing on the burned cake. The last time Earth had such a disruptive species, cyanobacteria altered the atmosphere and killed off all the anaerobic life forms including itself. Ironically, oxygen was the byproduct of the cyanobacteria that proved lethal to those ancient lifeforms and paved the way for the rise of photosynthetic organisms. The cyanobacteria had a 500 million year run, but modern man has only been around for 0.01% of that time. Our large brain has made it possible for us to destroy ourselves in record time.

Global warming is happening 5,000 times faster than a major food source can adapt. As the global monoculture food system breaks down and leaves vulnerable Third World countries to fend for themselves, I expect the last remaining vertebrates to be hunted to extinction in short order while wealthy nations carry out land grabs in an effort to keep their citizens fed. Humans are pushing all other life off the planet; the ‘Sixth Mass Extinction’ is not a metaphor.

So you would think that these stark facts laid out before us would be causing panic in the global markets and seats of power around the world because, clearly, no one is safe from this unfolding apocalypse. In what many call the ‘most powerful nation on Earth’, surely a leader must be on the verge of taking the helm of this sinking ship. In any rational world, they would be compelled to battle this planetary emergency with the war-time urgency it demands. In the election year of 2016 there are only two prospects in our corporatocracy, one of whom is so frightening that hundreds of the world’s scientists felt compelled to issue a warning against his possible election. The other candidate seems much more palatable on the surface, but her record and recent emails illustrate just how tortured her positions are on environmental issues. Anyone who has studied the numerous practices that make modern civilization truly unsustainable, the depths of corruption and waste in its global socio-economic system, and how predatory one has to be in order to survive and “succeed’ in it realizes in the end that it wouldn’t matter much who fills that figurehead position. Towing the line of the dominant culture is a prerequisite for the job. That’s one reason why nations are building walls in response to climate change refugees and putting faith in unproven and unrealistic techno-fixes to save us while drilling for new oil, financing new coal plants, allowing climate goals for corporations to add up to only a quarter of the amount needed to limit warming to 2°C, and giving the shipping industry a pass on curbing its emissions (if shipping was a country it would be the world’s 8th biggest carbon polluter).

Meanwhile, CO2 levels continue to climb at breakneck speed and recent paleoclimate research indicates today’s greenhouse gas levels could eventually result in up to 7°C of warming. We already have no carbon budget left for a 1.5°C warming limit from 2017 onwards. We’re betting our species’ future on vaporware, and no country on Earth is taking the 2°C climate target seriously. Celebrity breakups get more attention than real threats to the continuation of our species. Apocalypse tourism has become a ‘thing‘.
The biosphere is collapsing under the weight of 7.5 billion people living off the combustion of a one time endowment of ancient carbon energy, ... It’s a shell game of sorts. Industrialized countries will say their carbon footprint has gone down without telling you they’ve moved their dirty industrial operations to Third World countries. Developing countries will make promises of “green growth” while their state-owned banks and companies expand fossil fuel production overseas. We’ve been fooling ourselves for a very long time about what is truly sustainable and will continue to do so as the system falls apart, geoengineering fixes are applied, interstellar space colonization fantasies are dreamed up, and wars are fought for what remains. Humans have constructed a reality incompatible with the well-being of the natural world and the stability of the biosphere, but we won’t be able to escape the rules of physics, chemistry, and biology. We’ve spent generations making the bed we’re going to be lying in, never realizing it’s also our death bed. Time is not on our side.
Most are not listening and our leaders are misleading, so it bears repeating: ‘The Oil Age’ made us all confident idiots with short attention spans. To both candidates: runaway, catastrophic climate change resulting in loss of habitat and mass starvation is our biggest threat.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Canada and Climate Change

‘Town Halls’ in Toronto challenge Trudeau’s inaction on climate. John Riddell, Climate and Capitalism. Jul. 6, 2016.

Justin Trudeau is not your friend. Jordy Cummings, Jacobin. Sep. 9, 2016.

Is Win-Win Possible? Can Canada's Government Achieve its Paris Commitment... And Get Re-Elected? Mark Jaccard. Sep 20, 2016.

The New Climate Denialism: Time for an intervention. Seth Klein and Shannon Daub, PolicyNote.ca. Sep. 22, 2016.

Mark Jaccard on Political Viability, ‘Untruths’ And Why You Should Actually Read His Latest Report. James Wilt, DeSmog Canada. Sep 26, 2016.

Canada’s New Carbon Price: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Carol Linnitt, DeSmog Canada. Oct. 3, 2016.

Trudeau and the Environment: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Brad Hornick, Ricochet. Oct. 4, 2016.
Don’t get fooled again, carbon pricing isn’t the solution we need.

Canada Undermines Targets for Protecting Oceans by Increasing Oil Exploration. Jerri-Lynn Scofield, naked capitalism.


Climate Links: 10/10/2016

The fallacy of economic growth. Yavor Tarinski, Resilience.org. Oct. 5, 2016.

Exploring the gap between business-as-usual and utter doom. Richard Heinberg, Post Carbon Institute. Sep. 19, 2016.

A pocket handbook of soft climate denial. Michael Hoexter, New Economic Perspectives. Oct. 6, 2016.

‘We’d have to finish one new facility every working day for the next 70 years’—Why carbon capture is no panacea. Andy Skuce, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Oct. 4, 2016.

Just 2-3 years to lock in climate positive infrastructure investment: New Climate Economy report. Elena K. Johansson, Responsible Investor. Oct. 10, 2016.
Report recommends four major changes to make infra climate future proof rather than damaging.

Two degrees of climate change may be too much. Dawn Stover, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Sep 4, 2015.

It's time to get serious about climate change. Seriously. Noam Chomsky, The Nation. Jun. 13, 2016.

There is no market-driven solution to our climate catastrophe. Paul Mason, Literary Hub. Feb. 22, 2016.
Capitalism cannot survive the problem it created.
Faced with a clear warning that a 4.5-billion-year-old planet is being destabilized, those in power decided that a 25-year-old economic doctrine held the solution. They resolved to incentivize lower carbon use by rationing it, taxing it and subsidizing the alternatives. Since the market is the ultimate expression of human rationality, they believed it would spur the correct allocation of resources to meet the target of the two-degree cap. It was pure ideology and it has been proved plain wrong.

Tomgram: Michael Klare, The Rise of the Right and Climate Catastrophe. Michael Klare, tom dispatch. September 15, 2016.

Hillary Clinton is in her own form of climate denial. Kate Aronoff, In These Times. Oct. 6, 2016.

Planetary crisis: we are not all in this together. Ian Angus. May 25, 2016.


Friday, October 7, 2016

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Monday, September 12, 2016

Climate Links: 09/09/2016

Photographs by Benjamin Grant, Bernhard Edmaier and Alex MacLean.

Justin Trudeau is not your friend. Jordy Cummings, Jacobin. Sep. 9, 2016.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Climate Links: 08/30/2016

World is Warming at Rate 'Unprecedented' for 1,000 Years. Nadia Prupis, Common Dreams. Aug. 30, 2016.
Another day, another dire warning about the global climate emergency.
NASA's top climate scientist announced Tuesday that the Earth is warming at a pace not seen in at least the past 1,000 years, making it "very unlikely" that global temperatures will stay below the 1.5°C limit agreed to in the landmark climate treaty negotiated in Paris last December.
"In the last 30 years, we've really moved into exceptional territory," Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the Guardian. "It's unprecedented in 1,000 years. There's no period that has the trend seen in the 20th century in terms of the inclination [of temperatures]."
...
'People who think this is over are viewing the world through rose-tinted spectacles. This is a chronic problem for society for the next 100 years'

Environment minister defends Alberta's oil sands 'gas' cap. BBC. Aug. 23, 2016.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Feature Reference Articles #5

The 'Fat Tail' of Climate Change Risk. Michael E. Mann, HuffPost. Sep. 11, 2015.


A World at War. Bill McKibben, New Republic. Aug. 15, 2016.


We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII. 
There are powerful forces, of course, that stand in the way of a full-scale mobilization. If you add up every last coal mine and filling station in the world, governments and corporations have spent $20 trillion on fossil fuel infrastructure. “No country will walk away from such investments,” writes Vaclav Smil, a Canadian energy expert. As investigative journalists have shown over the past year, the oil giant Exxon knew all about global warming for decades—yet spent millions to spread climate-denial propaganda. The only way to overcome that concerted opposition—from the very same industrial forces that opposed America’s entry into World War II—is to adopt a wartime mentality, rewriting the old mindset that stands in the way of victory. “The first step is we have to win,” says Jonathan Koomey, an energy researcher at Stanford University. “That is, we have to have broad acceptance among the broader political community that we need urgent action, not just nibbling around the edges, which is what the D.C. crowd still thinks.”

Should We Respond to Climate Change Like We Did to WWII? Emma Foehringer Merchant, New Republic. May 12, 2016.

The controversial theory of "climate mobilization" says we should.
These proponents of climate mobilization call for the federal government to use its power to reduce carbon emissions to zero as soon as possible, an economic shift no less substantial and disruptive than during WWII. New coal-fired power plants would be banned, and many existing ones shut down; offshore drilling and fracking might also cease. Meat and livestock production would be drastically reduced. Cars and airplane factories would instead produce solar panels, wind turbines, and other renewable energy equipment. Americans who insisted on driving and flying would face steeper taxes.
... 
Despite these inroads, climate mobilization remains a fringe idea. Its supporters don’t entirely agree on the answers to key questions, such as: What will trigger this mobilization—a catastrophic event or global alliance? Who will lead this global effort? When will the mobilization start? And perhaps the greatest hurdle isn’t logistical or technical, but psychological: convincing enough people that climate change is a greater threat to our way of life than even the Axis powers were.

Climate Disruption: Are We Beyond the Worst Case Scenario? Michael Jennings, Wiley Online Library. Sep. 3, 2012.
Abstract 
The inability of world governments to agree on and implement effective mitigation response policy for anthropogenic climate change has resulted in the continuation of an exponential growth in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) that averages 3.1 per cent per year since 1870. With the exception of 2009, world GHG emission levels surpassed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2000) worst case scenario every year since 2004. Because of increasing temperatures due to GHG emissions a suite of amplifying feedback mechanisms, such as massive methane leaks from the sub-sea Arctic Ocean, have engaged and are probably unstoppable. These processes, acting in concert with the biological and physical inertia of the Earth system in responding to atmospheric loading of GHGs, along with economic, political and social barriers to emission reduction, currently place Earth’s climate trajectory well within the IPCC’s A1FI future climate change scenario. There is a rapidly diminishing chance of altering this trajectory as time goes on. There is also now a very real risk of sudden climate change. The pace of this quickly advancing situation, along with our scientific understanding of it, has substantially outstripped policy discussion. This article examines current primary science literature and data on today’s climate condition in a policy relevant context. 
Policy Implications 
• An all out shift to a broad range of adaptive response policies is urgently needed. Climate change will force reevaluations of present day governance agreements on trade, finance, food supply, security, development, environment, and similar sectors.
• Easy to understand scientific data driven visualizations and culturally appropriate interpretations of probable future conditions are needed to facilitate realistic adaptive policy responses from all levels of governance.
• Multilateral policies for an international crop seed cooperative could significantly lessen the impacts of crop failures and low yields, reducing the risk of famine and economic effects of unstable food prices. There is a need to store a large enough volume of crop seed varieties to allow for quick switching of varieties one year to the next based on dynamic forecasts of seasonal climates.
• Harmonization of international, national, subnational, and local policies for the orderly resettlement of coastal populations should begin now. This will become a chronic condition involving very large numbers of people. Improved and coordinated policies are needed for refugee services and related issues of migration and integration as well as planning for land use change and infrastructure development.

Psychology and Disaster: Why We Do Not See Looming Disasters and How Our Way of Thinking Causes Them. Andreas Glöckner, Global Policy Journal and Wiley Online Library. May 2016.
Abstract 
To be able to decide and act quickly and efficiently in a complex world, individuals rely on mechanisms that reduce information in a meaningful way. Instead of holding a set of partially contradicting cognitions, individuals construct coherent interpretations or stories to make sense of the available information using interactive activation. Interactive activation describes cognitive processing as bidirectional propagation of activation among simple processing units, which allows individuals to integrate large amounts of information quickly and with little cognitive effort. However, interactive activation also has important downsides that can prevent individuals from detecting looming disasters and can even contribute to their emergence. I describe the functioning of interactive activation and how it can be modeled using connectionist networks. Later I explain how interactive activation causes a set of biases (e.g. coherence effects, overconfidence, hindsight bias and status-quo bias) that make it hard to detect looming disasters and how these biases lead to discontinuities in understanding of problems and rapid behavioral switches that can contribute to the emergence of disasters. 
Policy Implications 
  • Individuals construct coherent interpretations (narratives, stories) to make sense of the available information using interactive activation.
  • Interactive activation causes a set of biases that make it hard to detect looming disasters.
  • Interactive activation leads to discontinuities in perception and rapid behavioral switches that can contribute to the emergence of disasters.
  • Standard rational models for individual behavior should be replaced by descriptively more adequate interactive activation models.
  • This would allow us to derive qualitatively different and more efficient policy measures to support individuals in detecting and avoiding looming disaster.

The Tragedy of the Uncommons: On the Politics of Apocalypse. Jonathan B. Wiener. Global Policy Journal and Wiley Online Library. May 2016.

Abstract 
The ‘tragedy of the commons’ is a classic type of problem, involving multiple actors who face individual incentives to deplete shared resources and thereby impose harms on others. Such tragedies can be overcome if societies learn through experience to mobilize collective action. This article formulates a distinct type of problem: ‘the tragedy of the uncommons’, involving the misperception and mismanagement of rare catastrophic risks. Although the problem of rare and global catastrophic risk has been much discussed, its sources and solutions need to be better understood. Descriptively, this article identifies psychological heuristics and political forces that underlie neglect of rare catastrophic ‘uncommons’ risks, notably the unavailability heuristic, mass numbing, and underdeterrence. Normatively, the article argues that, for rare catastrophic risks, it is the inability to learn from experience, rather than uncertainty, that offers the best case for anticipatory precaution. The article suggests a twist on conventional debates: in contrast to salient experienced risks spurring greater public concern than expert concern, rare uncommons risks exhibit greater expert concern than public concern. Further, optimal precaution against uncommons risks requires careful analysis to avoid misplaced priorities and potentially catastrophic risk–risk trade-offs. The article offers new perspectives on expert vs public perceptions of risk; impact assessment and policy analysis; and precaution, policy learning and foresight. 
Policy Implications
• As societies succeed in overcoming ‘tragedies of the commons’, they can and should pay increasing attention to ‘tragedies of the uncommons’.
• Public perceptions may neglect routine familiar risks, and may overreact to unusual experienced risks (especially crises affecting identified individuals). But a third type – ultra-rare catastrophic risks – may be neglected due to factors such as psychological unavailability, mass numbing, and underdeterrence. Expert assessment is needed to overcome public neglect of such uncommons risks.
• Much risk regulation is spurred by policy learning from experience and experimentation. But rare one-time threats to the existence of life or civilization will not offer such opportunities for learning. This absence of adaptive learning offers a stronger rationale for precaution than mere uncertainty. Foresight and anticipation are essential to preventing such rare catastrophic risks.
• Overcoming neglect of rare catastrophic risks is necessary but not sufficient to choose optimal policy responses. Policies to prevent rare catastrophic risks may also misplace priorities, or induce catastrophic risk–risk trade-offs. Optimal precaution against tragedies of the uncommons must be based on careful foresight, impact assessment and policy analysis.

Climate Links: 08/25/2016

Bracing Ourselves for the Climate Tipping Point. Eric Holthaus, Pacific Standard. Aug. 16, 2016.
Sure, humanity has agreed to these temperature goals, but there’s a difference between agreeing to do something and actually doing it. The steady stream of new global temperature records point to the possibility that those goals might no longer be in reach.
... the document warns that a “wholesale transformation is required to avoid warming beyond 1.5 degrees and a wholesale transformation will be required if the globe warms beyond it.” 

Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can. Jason Hickel, The Guardian. Jul. 15, 2016.
When it comes to climate change, the problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it’s what we’re doing with it. What would we do with 100% clean energy? Exactly what we are doing with fossil fuels: raze more forests, build more meat farms, expand industrial agriculture, produce more cement, and fill more landfill sites, all of which will pump deadly amounts of greenhouse gas into the air. We will do these things because our economic system demands endless compound growth, and for some reason we have not thought to question this.

Can Justin Trudeau Strike Canada’s Balancing Act? Andrew Tanabe, Global Policy Journal. Aug. 18, 2016.
Pledging a new commitment to climate action, the liberal government of Justin Trudeau will have to reconcile these initiatives with the economic boom generated by oil extraction. Canada faces tough decisions in responsibly managing its natural resources.

The Ends of the World. Paul Kingsnorth. Dark Mountain Project.
Russia’s Yamal peninsula rarely makes the news, even in Russia. Situated inside the Arctic Circle, it is sparsely populated, mostly by reindeer herders living traditional nomadic lifestyles in what is normally a cold and austere environment. 
Last month, though, the environment changed. In what the director of Russia’s Institute of Global Climate called ‘a colossal, unprecedented anomaly’, a heatwave inside the Arctic circle took Yamal’s temperature up to 34° celsius, The heat began to melt the icy ground – the permafrost – and things which had been frozen for decades began to thaw. Among those things were the bodies of reindeer which had died more than seven decades ago; and among those bodies were the spores of the deadly bacterial disease anthrax.
The anthrax spread among the local reindeer population, killing more than 2000 of them, and then jumped to humans. One boy died; unconfirmed reports suggest his grandmother died too. Then the Russian government took action. Doctors and soldiers poured into the territory and began a programme of mass vaccinations and antibiotic treatment which seems to have stemmed, so far, the further spread of the disease. At the time of writing, hundreds of Russian troops are burning infected reindeer carcasses across the region, and a 12,000km exclusion zone is being disinfected to ensure no spores remain in the soil. According the region’s governor, ‘it is unlikely that anything will grow there ever again.’ 
Across the world, the ice is melting at rates much faster than predicted even five years ago, and as it does so it is bringing buried things to the surface. Viktor Maleyev, deputy chief of Russia’s Central Research Institute of Epidemiology, warns that the smallpox virus could be released again from thawing graves; so too could recently discovered viruses from extinct and as-yet-frozen mammoths. In Greenland, researchers fear that melting ice may lead to the release of underground toxic waste, buried during the Cold War. 
What is certain is that the thawing will not stop; it is only likely to accelerate. In Antarctica, monitoring stations reported three months ago that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have now exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in four million years. Five of the first six months of 2016 set records for the lowest ever levels of monthly Arctic sea-ice extent, according to NASA, while every one of those six months has set new records for high temperatures globally. 
If there’s a positive side to runaway global warming, it’s that it should, at least in theory, put human problems into perspective. Down at the human level, though, there seem to be enough examples of runaway politics and runaway economics to distract us from the bigger picture. From the rise of Trumpism in America and nativism across Europe – both symptoms of the cultural and economic turmoil caused by the globalisation project – to the continuing crisis in the Middle East and north Africa, political ructions in South America, spiralling rates of inequality, record rates of migration … every day the old normal is replaced by a new one, and the new one never seems to last very long. All is not well in the citadels of progress. 
‘We live in a time of social, economic and ecological unravelling,’ we wrote seven years ago in the Dark Mountain manifesto. ‘All around us are signs that our whole way of living is already passing into history.’ When we wrote those words they were, to many, highly debatable. They seem less debatable today, and I would bet they will seem a lot less debatable in a decade’s time. I sense that already there is no turning back; that all over the world, people are pulling their fingers out of the dams and starting to reluctantly turn their minds to the big question: what happens now?
Learning from Failure: A Modest Introduction. John Michael Greer. Aug. 24 2016.
And the movement against anthropogenic climate change? If you’ve been following along,.. you’ll already have noticed that it fell victim to all four of the bad habits just enumerated—the four horsepersons, if you will, of the apocalyptic failure of radicalism in our time. It allowed itself to be distracted from its core purpose by a flurry of piggybacking interests; it got turned into a captive constituency of the Democratic Party; it suffers from a bad case of purity politics, in which (to raise a point I’ve made before) anyone who questions the capacity of renewable resources to replace fossil fuels, without conservation taking up much of the slack, is denounced as a denialist; and it has consistently pandered to the privileged, pursuing policies that benefit the well-to-do at the expense of the working poor.  Those bad habits helped foster the specific mistakes I enumerated in my earlier post-mortem on climate change activism, and led the movement to crushing defeat.

That wasn’t necessary, nor is any future climate change activism required to make the same mistakes all over again. 

Climate Change Activism: A Postmortem. John Michael Greer. Jul. 27, 2016.
As I write these words, much of North America is sweltering under near-tropical heat and humidity. Parts of the Middle East have set all-time high temperatures for the Old World, coming within a few degrees of Death Valley’s global record. The melting of the Greenland ice cap has tripled in recent years, and reports from the arctic coast of Siberia describe vast swathes of tundra bubbling with methane as the permafrost underneath them melts in 80°F weather. Far to the south, seawater pours through the streets of Miami Beach whenever a high tide coincides with an onshore wind; the slowing of the Gulf Stream, as the ocean’s deep water circulation slows to a crawl, is causing seawater to pile up off the Atlantic coast of the US, amplifying the effect of sea level rise.

All these things are harbingers of a profoundly troubled future. All of them were predicted, some in extensive detail, in the print and online literature of climate change activism over the last few decades. Not that long ago, huge protest marches and well-funded advocacy organizations demanded changes that would prevent these things  from happening, and politicians mouthed slogans about stopping global warming in its tracks. Somehow, though, the marchers went off to do something else with their spare time, the advocacy organizations ended up preaching to a dwindling choir, and the politicians started using other slogans to distract the electorate.

The last gasp of climate change activism, the COP-21 conference in Paris late last year, resulted in a toothless agreement that binds no nation anywhere on earth to cut back on the torrents of greenhouse gases they’re currently pumping into the atmosphere. The only commitments any nation was willing to make amounted to slowing, at some undetermined point in the future, the rate at which the production of greenhouse gas pollutants is increasing. In the real world, meanwhile, enough greenhouse gases have already been dumped into the atmosphere to send the world’s climate reeling; sharp cuts in greenhouse gas output, leading to zero net increase in atmospheric CO2 and methane by 2050 or so, would still not have been enough to stop extensive flooding of coastal cities worldwide and drastic unpredictable changes in the rain belts that support agriculture and keep all seven billion of us alive. The outcome of COP-21 simply means that we’re speeding toward even more severe climatic disasters with the pedal pressed not quite all the way to the floor. 

Climate Links: 08/25/2016

Bracing Ourselves for the Climate Tipping Point. Eric Holthaus, Pacific Standard. Aug. 16, 2016.
Sure, humanity has agreed to these temperature goals, but there’s a difference between agreeing to do something and actually doing it. The steady stream of new global temperature records point to the possibility that those goals might no longer be in reach.
... the document warns that a “wholesale transformation is required to avoid warming beyond 1.5 degrees and a wholesale transformation will be required if the globe warms beyond it.” 

Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can. Jason Hickel, The Guardian. Jul. 15, 2016.
When it comes to climate change, the problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it’s what we’re doing with it. What would we do with 100% clean energy? Exactly what we are doing with fossil fuels: raze more forests, build more meat farms, expand industrial agriculture, produce more cement, and fill more landfill sites, all of which will pump deadly amounts of greenhouse gas into the air. We will do these things because our economic system demands endless compound growth, and for some reason we have not thought to question this.

Can Justin Trudeau Strike Canada’s Balancing Act? Andrew Tanabe, Global Policy Journal. Aug. 18, 2016.
Pledging a new commitment to climate action, the liberal government of Justin Trudeau will have to reconcile these initiatives with the economic boom generated by oil extraction. Canada faces tough decisions in responsibly managing its natural resources.

The Ends of the World. Paul Kingsnorth. Dark Mountain Project.
Russia’s Yamal peninsula rarely makes the news, even in Russia. Situated inside the Arctic Circle, it is sparsely populated, mostly by reindeer herders living traditional nomadic lifestyles in what is normally a cold and austere environment. 
Last month, though, the environment changed. In what the director of Russia’s Institute of Global Climate called ‘a colossal, unprecedented anomaly’, a heatwave inside the Arctic circle took Yamal’s temperature up to 34° celsius, The heat began to melt the icy ground – the permafrost – and things which had been frozen for decades began to thaw. Among those things were the bodies of reindeer which had died more than seven decades ago; and among those bodies were the spores of the deadly bacterial disease anthrax.
The anthrax spread among the local reindeer population, killing more than 2000 of them, and then jumped to humans. One boy died; unconfirmed reports suggest his grandmother died too. Then the Russian government took action. Doctors and soldiers poured into the territory and began a programme of mass vaccinations and antibiotic treatment which seems to have stemmed, so far, the further spread of the disease. At the time of writing, hundreds of Russian troops are burning infected reindeer carcasses across the region, and a 12,000km exclusion zone is being disinfected to ensure no spores remain in the soil. According the region’s governor, ‘it is unlikely that anything will grow there ever again.’ 
Across the world, the ice is melting at rates much faster than predicted even five years ago, and as it does so it is bringing buried things to the surface. Viktor Maleyev, deputy chief of Russia’s Central Research Institute of Epidemiology, warns that the smallpox virus could be released again from thawing graves; so too could recently discovered viruses from extinct and as-yet-frozen mammoths. In Greenland, researchers fear that melting ice may lead to the release of underground toxic waste, buried during the Cold War. 
What is certain is that the thawing will not stop; it is only likely to accelerate. In Antarctica, monitoring stations reported three months ago that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have now exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in four million years. Five of the first six months of 2016 set records for the lowest ever levels of monthly Arctic sea-ice extent, according to NASA, while every one of those six months has set new records for high temperatures globally. 
If there’s a positive side to runaway global warming, it’s that it should, at least in theory, put human problems into perspective. Down at the human level, though, there seem to be enough examples of runaway politics and runaway economics to distract us from the bigger picture. From the rise of Trumpism in America and nativism across Europe – both symptoms of the cultural and economic turmoil caused by the globalisation project – to the continuing crisis in the Middle East and north Africa, political ructions in South America, spiralling rates of inequality, record rates of migration … every day the old normal is replaced by a new one, and the new one never seems to last very long. All is not well in the citadels of progress. 
‘We live in a time of social, economic and ecological unravelling,’ we wrote seven years ago in the Dark Mountain manifesto. ‘All around us are signs that our whole way of living is already passing into history.’ When we wrote those words they were, to many, highly debatable. They seem less debatable today, and I would bet they will seem a lot less debatable in a decade’s time. I sense that already there is no turning back; that all over the world, people are pulling their fingers out of the dams and starting to reluctantly turn their minds to the big question: what happens now?
Learning from Failure: A Modest Introduction. John Michael Greer. Aug. 24 2016.
And the movement against anthropogenic climate change? If you’ve been following along,.. you’ll already have noticed that it fell victim to all four of the bad habits just enumerated—the four horsepersons, if you will, of the apocalyptic failure of radicalism in our time. It allowed itself to be distracted from its core purpose by a flurry of piggybacking interests; it got turned into a captive constituency of the Democratic Party; it suffers from a bad case of purity politics, in which (to raise a point I’ve made before) anyone who questions the capacity of renewable resources to replace fossil fuels, without conservation taking up much of the slack, is denounced as a denialist; and it has consistently pandered to the privileged, pursuing policies that benefit the well-to-do at the expense of the working poor.  Those bad habits helped foster the specific mistakes I enumerated in my earlier post-mortem on climate change activism, and led the movement to crushing defeat.

That wasn’t necessary, nor is any future climate change activism required to make the same mistakes all over again. 

Climate Change Activism: A Postmortem. John Michael Greer. Jul. 27, 2016.
As I write these words, much of North America is sweltering under near-tropical heat and humidity. Parts of the Middle East have set all-time high temperatures for the Old World, coming within a few degrees of Death Valley’s global record. The melting of the Greenland ice cap has tripled in recent years, and reports from the arctic coast of Siberia describe vast swathes of tundra bubbling with methane as the permafrost underneath them melts in 80°F weather. Far to the south, seawater pours through the streets of Miami Beach whenever a high tide coincides with an onshore wind; the slowing of the Gulf Stream, as the ocean’s deep water circulation slows to a crawl, is causing seawater to pile up off the Atlantic coast of the US, amplifying the effect of sea level rise.

All these things are harbingers of a profoundly troubled future. All of them were predicted, some in extensive detail, in the print and online literature of climate change activism over the last few decades. Not that long ago, huge protest marches and well-funded advocacy organizations demanded changes that would prevent these things  from happening, and politicians mouthed slogans about stopping global warming in its tracks. Somehow, though, the marchers went off to do something else with their spare time, the advocacy organizations ended up preaching to a dwindling choir, and the politicians started using other slogans to distract the electorate.

The last gasp of climate change activism, the COP-21 conference in Paris late last year, resulted in a toothless agreement that binds no nation anywhere on earth to cut back on the torrents of greenhouse gases they’re currently pumping into the atmosphere. The only commitments any nation was willing to make amounted to slowing, at some undetermined point in the future, the rate at which the production of greenhouse gas pollutants is increasing. In the real world, meanwhile, enough greenhouse gases have already been dumped into the atmosphere to send the world’s climate reeling; sharp cuts in greenhouse gas output, leading to zero net increase in atmospheric CO2 and methane by 2050 or so, would still not have been enough to stop extensive flooding of coastal cities worldwide and drastic unpredictable changes in the rain belts that support agriculture and keep all seven billion of us alive. The outcome of COP-21 simply means that we’re speeding toward even more severe climatic disasters with the pedal pressed not quite all the way to the floor. 

Friday, August 5, 2016

Climate Links: 08/05/2016

“The Liberals seem to be thinking that if they say the right things, it’s somehow the same as doing the right things.”

Trudeau Just Broke His Promise to Canada's First Nations
“This Liberal government is no different than the previous Harper government. They’re just sneaky. At least with Harper they were upfront about it.”

Tar Sands in the Atlantic Ocean: TransCanada's Proposed Energy East Pipeline. Joshua Axelrod and Anthony Swift, NRDC. Jul. 28, 2016.
The pipeline would also bring a significant increase in carbon pollution, equivalent to the annual emissions of as many as 54 million passenger vehicles, and lock in high-carbon infrastructure expected to operate for at least 50 years.

Something Is Causing Siberia's Tundra to Literally Bubble Underground. Motherboard. Jul. 20, 2016.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Feature Reference Articles #4

Living in Climate Truth, Sections I-V. Margaret Klein Salamon, The Climate Psychologist. Aug. 27, 2013.
Our society is living within a massive lie. The lie says, “Everything is fine and we should proceed with business as usual. We are not destroying our climate and, with it, our stability and our civilization. We are not committing passive suicide.” 
The lie says we are fine—that climate change isn’t real, or is uncertain, or is far away, or won’t be bad enough to threaten humanity. The lie says that small changes will solve the problem. That recycling, bicycling, or closing the Keystone Pipeline will solve the problem. The lie allows people to put climate change in the back of their minds. To view it as someone else’s issue—the domain of scientists or activists. The lie allows us to focus on other things. To proceed with business as usual. To be calm and complacent while our planet burns.

Recently at COP21 (Paris Climate Conference) the leaders of the world sealed the deal on human history. I wasn’t under any illusion that any agreement would “save” humankind. I also realize that climate change isn’t just about those of us who live in the dominant industrial culture. What happened in Paris at the climate conference only confirms the insanity of a culture built upon infinite growth on a finite planet. It confirmed our predicament. Our current living arrangement is killing us and everything in its path and there’s little to nothing we can do about it.

A Global Temperature Rise Of More than Ten Degrees Celsius By 2026? Sam Carana, Arctic News. July 15, 2016.



The Politics and Science of Our Demise. Guy McPherson, Nature Bats Last. Aug. 1 2016.
In total, Carana ends up with 10.02 C above baseline by mid-2026, or about 23.5 C. That’d be the highest global-average temperature on this planet during the last 2,000,000,000 years. Taking a conservative approach at every step, I conclude “only” an 8.21-degree rise in temperature by mid-2026. As a result, I conclude global-average temperature at that time will be about 21.7 C (13.5 C + 8.21 C). This is barely below 22 C, the temperature at which Earth has most commonly found itself during the last 2,000,000,000 years. There is no reason to expect Earth to start cooling until the heat engine of civilization is turned off and dozens of self-reinforcing feedback loops are inexplicably reversed. 
For context, the Great Dying wiped out nearly all complex life on Earth. It involved a global-average rise in temperature from about 12 C to about 23 C during a span of several tens of thousands of years. To conclude that humans will survive a similar rise in temperature within only a couple hundred years, with the vast majority of the heating occurring within a decade, is exceedingly — and probably insanely — optimistic. Considering Homo sapiens is strongly dependent upon myriad other species for our own survival, it’s difficult to imagine our favorite species will have the habitat requisite for survival as we barrel into 2026, only a decade from now. 
But perhaps we will survive. Perhaps the heat engine known as civilization will be repaired by soon-to-be-developed “tools that cool” created — of course — via the heat engine known as civilization. Perhaps we can bomb the deserts and roam the ocean in nuclear submarines while eating Soylent Green. And then, a few million years later, assuming the planet cools, perhaps we will pop out the other side of a substantial bottleneck in sufficient numbers to do it all over again

Looming Danger of Abrupt Climate Change. Robert Hunziker, counterpunch. Dec. 26, 2013.
The National Research Council of the National Academies (NRCNA) has pre-published an extensive 200-pg study: “Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change, Anticipating Surprises.”

The goal of the report is to prepare society to anticipate the ‘otherwise unanticipated’ before it occurs, including abrupt changes to the ocean, atmosphere, ecosystems and high latitude regions. The NRCNA timescale for “abrupt climate change” is defined as years-to-decades. 
“The history of climate on the planet— as read in archives such as tree rings, ocean sediments, and ice cores— is punctuated with large changes that occurred rapidly, over the course of decades to as little as a few years,”
.... 
Once again, in the ocean, as well as on the land, excessive carbon dioxide (CO2) is the problem. 
Reiteratively, there is no worldwide plan on how to move forward to avoid an extinction event. 
As a consequence, except for a few scientists, the world community will be shocked by the carnage because nobody anticipates it really happening. Otherwise, the governments of the world would be furiously working on solutions, but they are not. 
Scientists have been publishing ominous reports for years in vain because they have not been taken seriously enough to prompt corrective action, as for example, a wholesale switching from fossil fuels to renewables, like wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, wave, and hydro.

Democratic Party Platform 7/1/16 Draft Would Lock In Catastrophic Climate Change. Michael Hoexter, Ph.D, New Economic Perspectives. Jul. 8, 2016. 
The Brexit vote is being taken by some commentators as a sign that the basic competence of leadership groups throughout Western countries is in question. Unfortunately not enough media attention has been paid, public concern raised, and action taken about the most massive and long-standing failure of the political leadership classes, a failure to protect by governments that threatens humanity itself. Governments and government leaders have failed to lead on climate change, even as most recently in Paris, they have sworn to hold Earth’s surface temperature below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels and target 1.5 degrees as the “optimal” goal.  This failure of leadership both in governments and also in the nongovernmental organizations that nominally address environment and climate is almost absolute and is terrifying to behold.
... 
What is required now of government leaders is a full-scale, society-wide mobilization of economic, social and political resources to rapidly (within a decade) change the energy basis of civilizations, all of this led and supervised by governments.  A government-organized and –financed multi-year mobilization has always been the option that was necessary at some point to transform our societies away from our increasingly deadly dependence on fossil fuels.  Yet in the fog of neoliberal economic and political reasoning, government leaders and non-governmental organizations have not been able to conceive of, let alone undertake the transition away from a fossil-fueled to a largely or completely renewable energy powered society. 
... 
With the emergence of what is to be a full-scale climate emergency, the embrace of half-measures whether out of ignorance, out of fealty to misbegotten neoliberal ideology/neoclassical economics or out of fear of rabid climate deniers, is itself a form of climate and science denial.  This fashionable form of “green” climate denial that can be spoken in liberal salons and party meetings, wrings its hands about “Republican Congressional gridlock” and climate denial and holds up the meager climate-related achievements of the current and previous Presidential Administrations as holy writ.  Talk is limited to various measures that do not suggest a leading role for government office-holders and government in pointing the way to the post-fossil fuel future.  Nothing that inconveniences the consumer or corporations is discussed at any length out of fear or a thoughtless repetition of tired received wisdom.

A US Climate Platform: Anchoring Climate Policy in Reality (1/3). Michael Hoexter, New Economic Perspectives. Sep. 17, 2015. 


COP21 and Beyond: Outlines of an Actually-Effective International Climate Policy Architecture. Michael Hoexter, New Economic Perspectives. Dec. 4, 2015. 
Outline of an Actually-Effective International Climate Policy Framework

1. Declare a Climate Emergency

2. Guard & Enhance Human & Political Rights During the Long Emergency

3. Target 1.5 °C Warming or Less

4. Net-Zero Worldwide GHG Emissions by 2035

5. Commit to (Aggressive) Mechanisms First

6. Primary Mechanism: National Climate Mobilizations Led by National Governments

7. Secondary Mechanism: Ascending Carbon Tax & Tariff Regime

8. Tertiary Mechanism: Coordinated Treaty on Emergency Global Cooling

9. Remove Fossil Fuel Economic Interests from UNFCCC

10. Reinforce National Sovereignty via the UN Against Treaties that Undermine Climate Regulation


Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Climate Links: 06/20/2016

Antarctica’s CO2 Level Tops 400 PPM for First Time in Perhaps 4 Million Years. Bob Berwyn, Moyers & Co.

Shattered records show climate change is an emergency today, scientists warn. Damian Carrington, The Guardian.
May was the 13th month in a row to break temperature records

Toward a more reflective planet. David Keith and Gernot Wagner, Project Syndicate.
The last time the atmosphere held as much carbon dioxide as it does today was about three million years ago – a time when sea levels were 10-30 meters higher than they are now. Climate models have long struggled to duplicate those large fluctuations in sea levels – until now. Indeed, for the first time, a high-quality model of Antarctic ice and climate has been able to simulate these large swings. That is smart science, but it brings devastating news....
We need to turn down the heat – and fast. To this end, albedo modification – a kind of geoengineering intended to cool the planet by increasing the reflectivity of the earth’s atmosphere – holds tremendous promise.

Globalization made economic production more vulnerable to climate change. Phys.org.
"Our study shows that since the beginning of the 21st century the structure of our economic system has changed in a way that production losses in one place can more easily cause further losses elsewhere." The study examines the example of local heat-stress-related productivity reductions causing global effects.

“We continue to see banks signing up to voluntary commitments like the Paris Pledge for Action, strongly stating their support for the implementation of the Paris Agreement. But in reality they continue to finance sectors and projects that are completely incompatible with that transition,”
Citigroup and Bank of America are named “the Western World’s coal banks”, based on financing patterns over the past three years, while JPMorgan Chase, Barclays and Bank of America are called “the bankers of extreme oil and gas”. Royal Bank of Canada is identified as the biggest banker of tar sands.

Mark Carney: Green Investments need ground rules, fast. Craig Mellow, Institutional Investor.


Greening the trillions. Nick Robins and Simon Zadek. Huffington Post.
The sheer scale of the investment requirements to deliver the world’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change has stimulated a new conversation on how to mobilise private capital. Strong sector policies to channel private capital to sustainability priorities from agriculture through cities to energy and transport are required more than ever. Real pricing of natural resources and pollution is vital to generate attractive risk:return profiles for sustainable solutions. And smart deployment of scarce public finance is essential to pay for things that the market will not provide and to ‘crowd in’ private capital to critical areas of green infrastructure and clean tech innovation.

WATCH: Nicholas Stern, Robert Orr, and Sri Mulyani Indrawati discuss what it will take to deliver on the Paris climate agreement. Planet Policy. Brookings.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

Climate Links: 06/02/2016

Let Them Drown. Naomi Klein, London Review of Books. Jun 2, 2016.
A recent paper in Nature Climate Change predicts that, unless we radically lower emissions and lower them fast, large parts of the Middle East will likely ‘experience temperature levels that are intolerable to humans’ by the end of this century. And that’s about as blunt as climate scientists get.
... 
We have dangerously warmed our world already, and our governments still refuse to take the actions necessary to halt the trend. There was a time when many had the right to claim ignorance. But for the past three decades, since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created and climate negotiations began, this refusal to lower emissions has been accompanied with full awareness of the dangers. And this kind of recklessness would have been functionally impossible without institutional racism, even if only latent. It would have been impossible without Orientalism, without all the potent tools on offer that allow the powerful to discount the lives of the less powerful. These tools – of ranking the relative value of humans – are what allow the writing off of entire nations and ancient cultures. And they are what allowed for the digging up of all that carbon to begin with.
... 
Every new government comes to power promising a new era of respect for Indigenous rights. They don’t deliver, because Indigenous rights, as defined by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, include the right to refuse extractive projects – even when those projects fuel national economic growth. And that’s a problem because growth is our religion, our way of life. So even Canada’s hunky and charming new prime minister is bound and determined to build new tar sands pipelines, against the express wishes of Indigenous communities who don’t want to risk their water, or participate in the further destabilising of the climate.
... 
Fossil fuels require sacrifice zones: they always have. And you can’t have a system built on sacrificial places and sacrificial people unless intellectual theories that justify their sacrifice exist and persist: from Manifest Destiny to Terra Nullius to Orientalism, from backward hillbillies to backward Indians. We often hear climate change blamed on ‘human nature’, on the inherent greed and short-sightedness of our species. Or we are told we have altered the earth so much and on such a planetary scale that we are now living in the Anthropocene – the age of humans. These ways of explaining our current circumstances have a very specific, if unspoken meaning: that humans are a single type, that human nature can be essentialised to the traits that created this crisis. In this way, the systems that certain humans created, and other humans powerfully resisted, are completely let off the hook. Capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy – those sorts of system. Diagnoses like this erase the very existence of human systems that organised life differently: systems that insist that humans must think seven generations in the future; must be not only good citizens but also good ancestors; must take no more than they need and give back to the land in order to protect and augment the cycles of regeneration. These systems existed and still exist, but they are erased every time we say that the climate crisis is a crisis of ‘human nature’ and that we are living in the ‘age of man’.
Some people insist that it doesn’t have to be this bad. We can clean up resource extraction, we don’t need to do it the way it’s been done in Honduras and the Niger Delta and the Alberta tar sands. Except that we are running out of cheap and easy ways to get at fossil fuels, which is why we have seen the rise of fracking and tar sands extraction in the first place. This, in turn, is starting to challenge the original Faustian pact of the industrial age: that the heaviest risks would be outsourced, offloaded, onto the other – the periphery abroad and inside our own nations. It’s something that is becoming less and less possible. Fracking is threatening some of the most picturesque parts of Britain as the sacrifice zone expands, swallowing up all kinds of places that imagined themselves safe. So this isn’t just about gasping at how ugly the tar sands are. It’s about acknowledging that there is no clean, safe, non-toxic way to run an economy powered by fossil fuels. There never was.
... 
We need to understand that what is happening on Nauru, and what is happening to it, are expressions of the same logic. A culture that places so little value on black and brown lives that it is willing to let human beings disappear beneath the waves, or set themselves on fire in detention centres, will also be willing to let the countries where black and brown people live disappear beneath the waves, or desiccate in the arid heat. When that happens, theories of human hierarchy – that we must take care of our own first – will be marshalled to rationalise these monstrous decisions. We are making this rationalisation already, if only implicitly. Although climate change will ultimately be an existential threat to all of humanity, in the short term we know that it does discriminate, hitting the poor first and worst, whether they are abandoned on the rooftops of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina or whether they are among the 36 million who according to the UN are facing hunger due to drought in Southern and East Africa.
*** 
This is an emergency, a present emergency, not a future one, but we aren’t acting like it. The Paris Agreement commits to keeping warming below 2°c. It’s a target that is beyond reckless. When it was unveiled in Copenhagen in 2009, the African delegates called it ‘a death sentence’. The slogan of several low-lying island nations is ‘1.5 to stay alive’. At the last minute, a clause was added to the Paris Agreement that says countries will pursue ‘efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°c’. Not only is this non-binding but it is a lie: we are making no such efforts. The governments that made this promise are now pushing for more fracking and more tar sands development – which are utterly incompatible with 2°c, let alone 1.5°c. This is happening because the wealthiest people in the wealthiest countries in the world think they are going to be OK, that someone else is going to eat the biggest risks, that even when climate change turns up on their doorstep, they will be taken care of.
... 
Overcoming these disconnections – strengthening the threads tying together our various issues and movements – is, I would argue, the most pressing task of anyone concerned with social and economic justice. It is the only way to build a counterpower sufficiently robust to win against the forces protecting the highly profitable but increasingly untenable status quo. Climate change acts as an accelerant to many of our social ills – inequality, wars, racism – but it can also be an accelerant for the opposite, for the forces working for economic and social justice and against militarism. Indeed the climate crisis – by presenting our species with an existential threat and putting us on a firm and unyielding science-based deadline – might just be the catalyst we need to knit together a great many powerful movements, bound together by a belief in the inherent worth and value of all people and united by a rejection of the sacrifice zone mentality, whether it applies to peoples or places. We face so many overlapping and intersecting crises that we can’t afford to fix them one at a time. We need integrated solutions, solutions that radically bring down emissions, while creating huge numbers of good, unionised jobs and delivering meaningful justice to those who have been most abused and excluded under the current extractive economy.


How much warming have humans caused? Sam Carana, Arctic News. May 28, 2016.


Feature Reference Articles #3

Human Error. Survival Guilt in the Anthropocene. Jennifer Jacquet, Lapham's Quarterly.


Let This Earth Day Be The Last. Wen Stephenson, The Nation. Apr 22, 2014.

“Environmentalism” has failed. The planet now needs a movement far more radical
Because, I’m sorry, this is not a test. This is really happening. The Arctic and the glaciers are melting. The great forests are dying and burning. The oceans are rising and acidifying. The storms, the floods—the droughts and heat waves—are intensifying. The breadbaskets are parched and drying. And all of it faster and sooner than scientists predicted. The window in which to act is closing before our eyes. 
Any discussion of the situation must begin by acknowledging the science and the sheer lateness of the hour—that the chance for any smooth, gradual transition has passed, that without radical change the kind of livable and just future we all want is simply inconceivable.

...

But the world’s climate scientists and leading energy experts are telling us that unless the major economies drastically and immediately change course—leaving all but a small fraction of fossil fuel reserves in the ground over the next four decades—we are headed for a temperature rise of four or five or even six degrees C within this century. The World Bank has warned that four degrees “must be avoided.” But we’re not avoiding it. Global emissions are still risingeach year. We’re plunging headlong toward the worst-case scenarios—critical global food and water shortages, rapid sea-level rise, social upheaval—and beyond.

The question is not whether we’re going to “stop” global warming, or “solve” the climate crisis; it is whether humanity will act quickly and decisively enough now to save civilization itself—in any form worth saving. Whether any kind of stable, humane and just future—any kind of just society—is still possible.

...

Coming to grips with the climate crisis is hard. A friend of mine says it’s like walking around with a knife in your chest. I couldn’t agree more. 
So I ask again, in the face of this situation, how does one respond? Many of us, rather than retreat into various forms of denial and fatalism, have reached the conclusion that something more than “environmentalism” is called for, and that a new kind of movement is the only option. That the only thing, at this late hour, offering any chance of averting an unthinkable future—and of getting through the crisis that’s already upon us—is the kind of radical social and political movement that has altered the course of history in the past.

Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans. Richard Smith, Truthout. Nov 10, 2013.


IEA: World on Pace for 11°F Warming, “Even School Children Know This Will Have Catastrophic Implications for All of Us”. Joe Romm, Climate Progress. Jan 4, 2012.


An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces. Joe Romm, Climate Progress. Sep 28, 2011.


The climate of history: Four theses. Dipesh Chakrabarty, Eurozine. Nov 30, 2009.


Friday, May 20, 2016

Climate Links: 5/20/2016

10 things you should know about sea level rise and how bad it could be. James White, Steven Nerem and Rob Motta, Washington Post. May 20, 2016.

How Melting Arctic Ice Contributes to Global Warming. Kristina Pistone of NASA’s Ames Research Center, at Yale Climate Connections. May 16, 2016.

Islamic Declaration on Climate Change. Yale Climate Connections. 

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Climate Links: 5/11/2016

World's carbon dioxide concentration teetering on the point of no return. Michael Slezak, Guardian. May 11, 2016.
“No matter what the world’s emissions are now, we can decrease growth but we can’t decrease the concentration.
“Even if we stopped emitting now, we’re committed to a lot of warming.”
Why renewables are not enough. Ajay Mathur and Adair Turner, Project Syndicate. May 11, 2016.

Ontario ministers to debate climate change strategy as tensions simmer. Adrian Morrow and Greg Keenan, Globe and Mail. May 10, 2016.




Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Monday, May 9, 2016

Climate Links: 5/9/2016

Inside Hillary Clinton's climate and energy plans. Anne C. Mulkern, Environment & Energy Publishing. May 9, 2016.

Avoiding the fossil fuel cliff. Danielle Fugere, Responsible Investor. May 9th, 2016.
Even with the sure knowledge that two-thirds of today’s already-discovered, proven fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground if we are to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, oil majors continue to pour hundreds of billions into new exploration — nearly $166 billion in 2014 and, even in the face of dramatic oil price drops, over $136 billion in 2015.
Catastrophic Canadian Wildfire Is a Sign of Destruction to Come. Scientific American. May 6, 2016.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Film Reviews


Merchants of Doubt
Reviewed by Laura M. Zahn
“I'm not a scientist, although I do play one on TV occasionally,” says Marc Morano, founder of the climate-change-denying website ClimateDepot.com. This statement summarizes the premise of Merchants of Doubt, a film that exposes the public relations tactics that are employed to cast doubt on science. Based on Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway's 2010 book of the same name (reviewed in Science, 4 June 2010, p. 1230), the film explores the early groundwork laid by the tobacco companies to sell “doubt [as] our product” and examines how tactics to deny science have been, and continue to be, applied to flame retardants and, most prominently, climate change. 
The film features interviews with players on both sides of these contentious issues. With some notable exceptions, most of those on the “science side” of the debate are scientists, whereas their counterparts appear to be people with no scientific expertise who are hired to seed uncertainty among nonexperts by those with interests contrary to scientific results. Interestingly, these individuals often function as publicists across a slew of topics, writing letters to Congress discouraging stricter cigarette laws one day and op-ed pieces questioning global warming the next. 
Despite the fact that there is almost no debate in the scientific community regarding human-caused climate change, a small but well-funded group of individuals is succeeding in spreading misinformation and creating skepticism in the American public. If we as a scientific community choose to ignore this reality, we're only making their jobs easier.
Merchants of Doubt Robert Kenner, director. USA, 2014, 96 min.



How to Let Go of the World
Reviewed by Julia Fahrenkamp-Uppenbrink
This unusually uplifting film about climate change starts and ends with a dance. At the start, filmmaker and narrator Josh Fox dances with joy because local protests have prevented oil and gas exploration in Delaware—only to realize that this local victory is not enough: The warming climate is allowing parasites to spread north, destroying hemlock forests in their wake. 
Interviews with climate scientists and activists follow, painting a bleak picture, and Fox almost gives in to despair. As the camera zooms out on him lying on the snowy ground, he looks up into the sky at “all those greenhouse gases hanging there like a century of human regret." 
Yet at the end of the film, he is dancing with joy again, having found hope in human courage, resilience, ingenuity, and civil disobedience around the world in the face of climate change. He has seen climate scientists lost for words at the scale of the challenge; he has watched an activist reduced to tears as his ancestral land is washed away by sea-level rise. But he has also joined local activists cleaning up oil spills from rotting pipelines in the Amazon, interviewed indigenous people in Ecuador who prevented oil exploration on their lands, blocked coal tankers from leaving port with the Pacific climate warriors, and met a tribal leader who is helping to bring solar power to one of the poorest regions in Zambia. 
What unites these people is that they imagine a different world; that they believe they have a choice and are taking responsibility. Told in a highly personal and idiosyncratic style, How to Let Go of the World does that rare thing: inspires hope in the face of climate change.
How to Let Go of the World (And Love All the Things Climate Can't Change) Josh Fox, director. USA, 2016, 125 min.



Ice and the Sky
Reviewed by Brent Grocholski
Claude Lorius arrived in Antarctica for the first time in 1956 on a trip that lasted 16 months but hooked him into a life dedicated to returning to the bitter cold.Ice and the Sky is a film that traces the French glaciologist's life and discoveries. Director Luc Jacquet combines Lorius's commentary with archival footage of his scientific expeditions that range from the bare-bones three-man operation in 1956 to the much larger international deep-ice-drilling collaboration at the Vostok research base decades later. Interspersed are more recent scenes depicting the bright and brilliant landscapes of Antarctica as Lorius, now in his 80s, makes what may be his final return to the continent. 
Lorius's discoveries had a profound impact on our understanding of climate change. He was the first to recognize that tiny gas bubbles trapped in ancient ice tell a story of our planet's temperature in the deep past. The film succeeds in demonstrating the strong tie between greenhouse gases like CO2 and temperature, making the connection between humans and global warming obvious. Surprisingly, it was the discovery of radioisotopes from an atmospheric nuclear test, not the results of his own research, that eventually shocked Lorius into the realization that no place on Earth has escaped the imprint of humanity. 
Despite having recognized and raised the alarm about human-induced climate change decades earlier than most, Lorius strikes an optimistic tone about the potential for humanity to avert disaster. “Man is never so sublimely in his element than when faced with adversity,” he maintains near the end of the film. Perhaps we should expect nothing less from a man who knows the power of teamwork to overcome what seem to be insurmountable obstacles.
Ice and the Sky Luc Jacquet, director. France, 2015, 89 min.



Catching the Sun
Reviewed by Marc Lavine
Would a switch from fossil fuels to solar power create or destroy more jobs? Would the installation of solar panels on houses and businesses empower individuals and communities? Would it truly shift wealth from megacorporations to the less wealthy? Although not directly asked, these questions emerge from the stories told in Catching the Sun from filmmaker Shalini Kantayya. The documentary begins by detailing the health and environmental consequences of the 2012 Chevron fire and explosion in Richmond, California. The disaster became a catalyst for the environmental movement and shined a spotlight on the close relationship between Chevron and the local government, as Richmond's mayor at the time, Gayle McLaughlin, describes in the film. 
Against this backdrop, Kantayya proceeds to focus on companies, entrepreneurs, activists, and nonprofits in the United States and China who are trying to advance the solar revolution. A key theme emerges through interviews with Van Jones, author of The Green Collar Economy, who sees solar energy as a way to be more environmentally responsible while also creating jobs, particularly in low-income communities. We see the potential for the latter in the work of Solar Richmond, a nonprofit that offers training and green business ownership opportunities for low-income and underemployed residents. One would think that this sort of win-win situation would be politically appealing, but many barriers prevent widespread adoption, particularly in the absence of a clear national policy. 
In contrast, Wally Jiang is able to grow his Chinese solar business by 50% a year through the support of the government. In the film, we see his attempts to advance his business as he pursues a range of international partnerships. Catching the Sun is thin on numbers, from how much solar technology really costs to how well it might integrate into the electricity grid on a large scale to a proper comparison of the successes of different countries in implementing renewable energy. But it does show the personal side of solar energy and is thus an important part of the broader story.
Catching the Sun Shalini Kantayya, director. USA, 2015, 74 min.