This is scary-ridiculous and ridiculous-scary: 45C!... in the Arctic circle!
Many air Thermometer records have recently been broken in #Siberia. On 19 June Land Surface Temperature (LST) reached 45°C at several locations in the #Arctic Circle
Why scary? As Prof Nick Cowern says: This is the land of permafrost, trapped CO2 and methane.
Observed temperature anomaly (from GISSTEMP) over June 2019 - May 2020 vs projected average temperature anomaly from 34 CMIP6 climate models over 2016-2025 using the worse scenario ssp585. Unfortunately observations confirm the worse[case] IPCC projections...
Just a reminder: CMIP-6 models have higher climate sensitivity than the previous one
Kevin Anderson et al: A factor of two: how the mitigation plans of ‘climate progressive’ nations fall far short of Paris-compliant pathways
The Paris Agreement establishes an international covenant to reduce emissions in line with holding the increase in temperature to ‘well below 2°C … and to pursue … 1.5°C.’ Global modelling studies have repeatedly concluded that such commitments can be delivered through technocratic adjustments to contemporary society, principally price mechanisms driving technical change. However, as emissions have continued to rise, so these models have come to increasingly rely on the extensive deployment of highly speculative negative emissions technologies (NETs). Moreover, in determining the mitigation challenges for industrialized nations, scant regard is paid to the language and spirit of equity enshrined in the Paris Agreement. If, instead, the mitigation agenda of ‘developed country Parties’ is determined without reliance on planetary scale NETs and with genuine regard for equity and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’, the necessary rates of mitigation increase markedly. This is evident even when considering the UK and Sweden, two nations at the forefront of developing ‘progressive’ climate change legislation and with clear emissions pathways and/or quantitative carbon budgets. In both cases, the carbon budgets underpinning mitigation policy are halved, the immediate mitigation rate is increased to over 10% per annum, and the time to deliver a fully decarbonized energy system is brought forward to 2035-40. Such a challenging mitigation agenda implies profound changes to many facets of industrialized economies. This conclusion is not drawn from political ideology, but rather is a direct consequence of the international community’s obligations under the Paris Agreement and the small and rapidly dwindling global carbon budget.
Key Policy Insights
- Without a belief in the successful deployment of planetary scale negative emissions technologies, double-digit annual mitigation rates are required of developed countries, from 2020, if they are to align their policies with the Paris Agreement’s temperature commitments and principles of equity.
- Paris-compliant carbon budgets for developed countries imply full decarbonization of energy by 2035-40, necessitating a scale of change in physical infrastructure reminiscent of the post-Second World War Marshall Plan. This brings issues of values, measures of prosperity and socio-economic inequality to the fore.
- The stringency of Paris-compliant pathways severely limits the opportunity for inter-sectoral emissions trading. Consequently aviation, as with all sectors, will need to identify policies to reduce emissions to zero, directly or through the use of zero carbon fuels.
“This work highlights that solar geoengineering is not reversing climate change, but is substituting one unprecedented climate state for another,” Gertler says. “Reflecting sunlight isn’t a perfect counterbalance to the greenhouse effect.”
Adds O’Gorman: “There are multiple reasons to avoid doing this, and instead to favor reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.”
Steve Keen video: Thermodynamics 2.0 keynote: Macroeconomics, Minsky, & fraud in Neoclassical climate change economics
The conference organizers state that Thermodynamics 2.0 is about the "bisociation of thermodynamics with other academic disciplines such as physics, biology, sociology, economics... It is about merging two cultures, not just bridging the gap."
I argue proper scientific methods should take economics over, not merge with what is currently there. I show that macroeconomics doesn't need microeconomics, illustrate modeling both financial dynamics and pandemics using the Minsky system dynamics software, & expose the appallingly bad work of Neoclassical climate change economists.
Climate change has become intertwined with the global economy. Here, we describe the importance of inertia to continued growth in energy consumption. Drawing from thermodynamic arguments, and using 38 years of available statistics between 1980 to 2017, we find a persistent time-independent scaling between the historical time integral W of world inflation-adjusted economic production Y, or W(t)=∫t0Y(t′)dt′, and current rates of world primary energy consumption E, such that λ=E/W=5.9±0.1 Gigawatts per trillion 2010 US dollars. This empirical result implies that population expansion is a symptom rather than a cause of the current exponential rise in E and carbon dioxide emissions C, and that it is past innovation of economic production efficiency Y/E that has been the primary driver of growth, at predicted rates that agree well with data. Options for stabilizing C are then limited to rapid decarbonization of E through sustained implementation of over one Gigawatt of renewable or nuclear power capacity per day. Alternatively, assuming continued reliance on fossil fuels, civilization could shift to a steady-state economy that devotes economic production exclusively to maintenance rather than expansion. If this were instituted immediately, continual energy consumption would still be required, so atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would not balance natural sinks until concentrations exceeded 500 ppmv, and double pre-industrial levels if the steady-state was attained by 2030.
'Humans are not prepared to protect nature'. DW.com. June 23, 3030.
Why do we find it so hard to change our behavior? German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk explains how this is connected to the climate crisis.
Peter Sloterdijk describes change as the modern name for something that classical philosophy called becoming, because everything that is, is not given in stable, everlasting forms but has to become what it is. He says modernity is all about interfering with this process of becoming, and putting it or pushing it into a direction that fits better with human purposes.
DW: So we are always changing then?
Peter Sloterdijk: Yes. Nature as such is a self-changing entity. And all we can do is — as it were — keep riding on the wave of change.
As we look to the future and that wave gets bigger and bigger with regard to the danger of climate change, there are some big changes that we have to make as a species. And it seems at the moment we're not able to make them. Why?
Human beings are not prepared to protect nature in any sense. Because in all our history as a species, our deepest conviction always was that we are the ones who have to be protected by the powers of nature. And we are not really prepared for this inversion. Just as a baby cannot carry his or her mother, human beings are not prepared — or not able — to carry nature. They must learn to deal with this immensity. This is a huge challenge because there is no longer the classical excuse that we are too little or too small in order to deal with such immensities.
Not prepared, or not willing to protect nature?
Is it a narcissism that is preventing it? What is the problem?
I sense the problem is one of scale. We are almost physiologically unable to add up the results of our own behavior — to cosmic consequences. We are deeply convinced that all we do could and should be forgiven. From an ecological point of view, we are living in a period of time of lost innocence.
Read more: Am I a narcissist?
Have I understood you correctly that on a planetary scale, we're all looking for a sense of forgiveness? That we want to purge ourselves of what we've done?
And there will be lots of sins to be forgiven. And the more we understand that the higher the likelihood that one day we will develop patterns of behavior to cope with the new situation.
One of the questions we've been thinking about in this interview series is the idea of comparing the two crises. Our response to the pandemic was immediate, almost unbelievably fast and unified. And then our response to the climate crisis seems to be stymied or stalled. Is there any way to look at these two forms of crisis in a similar light?
What our response to the coronavirus is proving is that the globalization through media is an almost accomplished project. The world as a whole is more or less synchronized and pulls together into one hothouse for contagious news. The infection by information is as strong, even stronger, than the infection by the virus. And so we have two pandemics at the same time: one, a pandemic of fear, and the other of real contagion.
Coronavirus has dominated headlines for months
You say that modernity has stopped us from becoming who we are. Can we change who we are?
Yeah. So I do not think that we can change our DNA simply by changing our thoughts. But we can change the grammar of our behavior. And that is what the 21st century will teach to the global community…
What does that mean to change the grammar of our being?
Not of our being, but behavior. The grammar of our behavior.
What is that?
Everything we do adheres to a structure — similar to a language. And acting is something that is ruled by hidden structures, such as every sentence we produce is ruled by grammar and lexicon. And I think that we are still uneasy on the level of lexical change. So we are now learning new terms, a new vocabulary, but, by and by, we shall also learn a new grammar.
Read more: Disinformation and propaganda during the coronavirus pandemic
So we're in the process of putting the building blocks of language together. Do you think we'll be able to speak before the destruction written on the wall comes true?
What I have found especially impressive in the behavior of the masses during this crisis is the incredible docility with which vast parts of the population in the West — as in the East — were ready to obey the new rules of precaution and distance. These are already new elements of a different social grammar.
Read more: Rutger Bregman: 'The virus is contagious, and so is our behavior'
But that can also be quite scary, right? That we in a matter of weeks were able to give up very basic freedoms…
Oh yes. At the same time, it shows that we must not underestimate the plasticity of the human element. But who knows how long this patient behavior will last. I think we should continue our reflections in one year or so. I would be surprised if you are not a little bit more intelligent.
According to Sloterdijk, we are already witnessing elements of a new social grammar
Thinking about the human element, has our response to the coronavirus — something none of us has really encountered before — changed your outlook on humanity in any way?
Yes and no. Certainly, I'm as surprised as many contemporaries are. But at the same time, it also confirms something I have been developing for decades on a theoretical level. What I mean is that it confirms my assumption that the human race has reached a situation of synchronicity on the basis of a stream of information. We really are globally connected and are living more and more in the same time dimension. There's something like the eternal presence of globalization, and this has been an important feature of this crisis. Everything happens more or less at the same time. And the only differences we see are delays between different foci of events. But, on the whole, there is one big chain of events and connectedness.
Read more: 'The time has come for humanity to go through its next evolution'
On a personal level, Peter, can you remember the last time you felt a change within yourself?
Yeah, I experienced a deep change in my existential mood at the age of about 33. I went to India and spent approximately four months there. That was a disruptive event in my own life. But the most similar event and the most comparable to now, even if it sounds quite unlikely, were those sublime days when the Berlin Wall fell down. For a span of time of approximately two months, I was not able to hear or see anything else but news from the political front.
And this was the sublime — as it were — music of reunification. And when that was over, I understood that it was over only when I was able to watch an ordinary movie for the first time afterwards. And right now I am still waiting for the moment when I will be able to listen to the music and to watch movies as I could before.
Why do we find it so hard to change our behavior? German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk explains how this is connected to the climate crisis.
Peter Sloterdijk describes change as the modern name for something that classical philosophy called becoming, because everything that is, is not given in stable, everlasting forms but has to become what it is. He says modernity is all about interfering with this process of becoming, and putting it or pushing it into a direction that fits better with human purposes.
DW: So we are always changing then?
Peter Sloterdijk: Yes. Nature as such is a self-changing entity. And all we can do is — as it were — keep riding on the wave of change.
As we look to the future and that wave gets bigger and bigger with regard to the danger of climate change, there are some big changes that we have to make as a species. And it seems at the moment we're not able to make them. Why?
Human beings are not prepared to protect nature in any sense. Because in all our history as a species, our deepest conviction always was that we are the ones who have to be protected by the powers of nature. And we are not really prepared for this inversion. Just as a baby cannot carry his or her mother, human beings are not prepared — or not able — to carry nature. They must learn to deal with this immensity. This is a huge challenge because there is no longer the classical excuse that we are too little or too small in order to deal with such immensities.
Not prepared, or not willing to protect nature?
Is it a narcissism that is preventing it? What is the problem?
I sense the problem is one of scale. We are almost physiologically unable to add up the results of our own behavior — to cosmic consequences. We are deeply convinced that all we do could and should be forgiven. From an ecological point of view, we are living in a period of time of lost innocence.
Read more: Am I a narcissist?
Have I understood you correctly that on a planetary scale, we're all looking for a sense of forgiveness? That we want to purge ourselves of what we've done?
And there will be lots of sins to be forgiven. And the more we understand that the higher the likelihood that one day we will develop patterns of behavior to cope with the new situation.
One of the questions we've been thinking about in this interview series is the idea of comparing the two crises. Our response to the pandemic was immediate, almost unbelievably fast and unified. And then our response to the climate crisis seems to be stymied or stalled. Is there any way to look at these two forms of crisis in a similar light?
What our response to the coronavirus is proving is that the globalization through media is an almost accomplished project. The world as a whole is more or less synchronized and pulls together into one hothouse for contagious news. The infection by information is as strong, even stronger, than the infection by the virus. And so we have two pandemics at the same time: one, a pandemic of fear, and the other of real contagion.
Coronavirus has dominated headlines for months
You say that modernity has stopped us from becoming who we are. Can we change who we are?
Yeah. So I do not think that we can change our DNA simply by changing our thoughts. But we can change the grammar of our behavior. And that is what the 21st century will teach to the global community…
What does that mean to change the grammar of our being?
Not of our being, but behavior. The grammar of our behavior.
What is that?
Everything we do adheres to a structure — similar to a language. And acting is something that is ruled by hidden structures, such as every sentence we produce is ruled by grammar and lexicon. And I think that we are still uneasy on the level of lexical change. So we are now learning new terms, a new vocabulary, but, by and by, we shall also learn a new grammar.
Read more: Disinformation and propaganda during the coronavirus pandemic
So we're in the process of putting the building blocks of language together. Do you think we'll be able to speak before the destruction written on the wall comes true?
What I have found especially impressive in the behavior of the masses during this crisis is the incredible docility with which vast parts of the population in the West — as in the East — were ready to obey the new rules of precaution and distance. These are already new elements of a different social grammar.
Read more: Rutger Bregman: 'The virus is contagious, and so is our behavior'
But that can also be quite scary, right? That we in a matter of weeks were able to give up very basic freedoms…
Oh yes. At the same time, it shows that we must not underestimate the plasticity of the human element. But who knows how long this patient behavior will last. I think we should continue our reflections in one year or so. I would be surprised if you are not a little bit more intelligent.
According to Sloterdijk, we are already witnessing elements of a new social grammar
Thinking about the human element, has our response to the coronavirus — something none of us has really encountered before — changed your outlook on humanity in any way?
Yes and no. Certainly, I'm as surprised as many contemporaries are. But at the same time, it also confirms something I have been developing for decades on a theoretical level. What I mean is that it confirms my assumption that the human race has reached a situation of synchronicity on the basis of a stream of information. We really are globally connected and are living more and more in the same time dimension. There's something like the eternal presence of globalization, and this has been an important feature of this crisis. Everything happens more or less at the same time. And the only differences we see are delays between different foci of events. But, on the whole, there is one big chain of events and connectedness.
Read more: 'The time has come for humanity to go through its next evolution'
On a personal level, Peter, can you remember the last time you felt a change within yourself?
Yeah, I experienced a deep change in my existential mood at the age of about 33. I went to India and spent approximately four months there. That was a disruptive event in my own life. But the most similar event and the most comparable to now, even if it sounds quite unlikely, were those sublime days when the Berlin Wall fell down. For a span of time of approximately two months, I was not able to hear or see anything else but news from the political front.
And this was the sublime — as it were — music of reunification. And when that was over, I understood that it was over only when I was able to watch an ordinary movie for the first time afterwards. And right now I am still waiting for the moment when I will be able to listen to the music and to watch movies as I could before.
