Monday, March 27, 2017

Climate Links: 03/28/2017

Massive Permafrost Thaw Documented in Canada; Huge Carbon Release May Be Coming. Gaius Publius, naked capitalism. Mar. 4, 2017.
I’ve called this tendency to under-anticipate the pace of climate change “being wrong to the slow side.” We have a strong (and encouraged) tendency to believe that the relentless march out of the climate range that nurtured human civilization will happen slowly, incrementally, gradually — yet we consistently find out, again and again, in instance after instance, that these changes can also occur in unanticipated leaps and collapses as well. 
These leaps and collapses are going to become more frequent, as the pace of change accelerates and larger and more significant elements of the climate system destabilize. Leave a glass of ice sitting at room temperature, and the ice will melt slowly at first, but that melt-rate will inevitably accelerate. Same with a destabilized, out-of-equilibrium climate system. 
You could call the accelerating pace of climate change a kind of Snowball Effect — a mirror of what happens when a snowball starts rolling down a hill. After a period of slow and gradual movement, it picks up both speed and momentum (added mass) until it becomes a large, destructive force.
...
There’s twice as much carbon in the permafrost as there is in the air today. Let that sink in. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm (parts per million by volume). Pre-Industrial atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm. There’s enough carbon in the permafrost to more than double today’s 400 ppm number before natural processes start to remove it — and that net-removal of CO2 assumes that humans stop adding their own, something we show no sign of doing.

Release of Arctic Methane "May Be Apocalyptic," Study Warns. Dahr Jamail, Truthout. Mar 23, 2017.
A scientific study published in the prestigious journal Palaeoworld in December issued a dire -- and possibly prophetic -- warning, though it garnered little attention in the media. 
"Global warming triggered by the massive release of carbon dioxide may be catastrophic," reads the study's abstract. "But the release of methane from hydrate may be apocalyptic."

Methane Hydrate: Killer cause of Earth's greatest mass extinction. Science Direct.com.


The Day Earth Was Murdered. Paul Craig Roberts. Mar. 24, 2017.
“Change you can believe in” disappeared in the early days of the Obama regime as the same Washington insiders filled the new government’s ranks. David Brooks sung the praises of those who made change impossible: “the best of the Washington insiders, Achievetrons who got double 800s on their SATs.”

Eight years later Donald Trump was specific about the changes he intended, the two most important being normalized relations with Russia and the return home of the middle class jobs and associated state and local tax base that US corporations had moved offshore to foreign locations. But Trump’s government quickly became home to corporate polluters, Wall Street executives, defense contractors, and Russophobic generals.

Obama’s disappointed supporters held firm to their conviction that their man would set the agenda and not the Washington insiders who occupied his government. Trump’s disheartened deplorables are currently finding refuge in this same conviction. But it looks like we will not get the good part from Trump, only the bad part of more pollution and more damage to the social safety net.
Those who agree about this disagree over the explanation. Some insist that Trump, not Hillary, was the establishment’s choice from the beginning and that the fierce opposition to Trump played out in the press and on the airwaves was only an orchestration to convince flyover America that Trump stood for them. My view is different. Trump threatened the power and budget of the military/security complex and the profits of Wall Street before he had an organization and a team in place to impose his agenda. Unlike Michael Corleone, Trump was rash. 
Consequently, the CIA, FBI, NSA, Democrats, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the presstitute media boxed Trump in by portraying him in collusion with Russian President Putin to steal the election from Hillary. Marches worldwide were instantly choreographed, and there were constant and escalating accusations portraying Trump and his associates as puppets on Putin’s string. Lists were made of Internet media sites that took exception to Washington’s wars and dangerous provocations of Russia, China, and Iran. 
The attack on Trump seems to have succeeded. Trump lost his National Security Adviser who favored normalized relations with Russia. Trump was forced to prove he was not working for Putin by appointing a Russophobe as National Security Adviser. Trump backed off from an early meeting with Putin to reduce the tensions in the relationship caused by the past three US presidents.

The CIA won the fight by creating an atmosphere hostile to any thought that Russia is not a dangerous adversary and the main threat that the US faces. In other words, a preference for reduced tensions between nuclear powers has become evidence that one is a Russian agent or Putin’s dupe. 
The CIA’s victory means that the prospect of nuclear Armageddon remains on the table, but the budget of the military/security complex is safe and rising. Is this an acceptable trade-off for you? 
I was astonished to see the liberal/progressive/left line up with the CIA against peace and with globalism and Identity Politics against the working class. The liberal/progressive/left has turned against heterosexual white males and transformed the working class from a victim group into alleged victimizers of women, blacks, homosexuals, and Muslim refugees. The American left has degenerated into the Identity Politics that originated with Zionism. (See for example the article by Eric Draitser, the host of CounterPunch Radio, http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/24/donald-trump-and-the-triumph-of-white-identity-politics/.)

The political left, once a force for peace, has transitioned into a force for war, as war is the likely outcome of the high level of tension that now exists between the US and Russia. By helping the CIA handicap President Trump and prevent him from reducing these tensions, the liberal/progressive/left has responsibility for the impending danger.

These tensions are very dangerous. They have resulted in high-readiness nuclear alert postures, which together with short warning times, false signals of incoming missiles and distrust, create a dangerous strategic nuclear situation.

It is reckless for Washington to convince Russia (and China) that the US is preparing a pre-emptive nuclear strike against them. But that is what Washington is doing when it puts anti-ballistic missiles on Russia’s border and tells the Russians the lie that the missiles are there to protect Europe from Iranian ICBMs. The entire world knows that Iran does not have nukes or ICBMs. All Washington’s lie does is to make the purpose of the missiles obvious to the Russians. 
The continuous anti-Russian propaganda issuing from Washington, NATO and the despicable Western presstitutes has the purpose of orchestrating a Russian Threat and preventing a reduction of tensions between the nuclear powers. The demonization of Russia’s president and the clearly false charges against Russia, such as interference in the US presidential election, invasion of Ukraine, reconstruction of the Soviet empire—are understood by the Russians as a propaganda campaign to prepare Western populations for a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Russia. The conventional NATO forces conducting military exercises and deployed on Russia’s border are understood by the Russians as being too small and lacking in strength to be of any consequence. They are merely an orchestration to emphasize the Russian Threat for insouciant Western populations. The Russian government understands that all of this is preparation for an attack on Russia. Just as Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi, and Assad were demonized by US government officials, now it is Putin. The dangerous situation could not be more obvious. 
Yet Hillary supporters are completely blind to what is occurring in front of their noses, as is the liberal/progressive/left, the idiot EU governments, and the Western presstitute media. As President Putin himself has stated, “no one listens to us when we point out the impending danger.” 
As environmentally damaging as a pipeline can be, it is nothing compared to nuclear war. In the opposition to Trump, emotion has prevailed over reason and hate has prevailed over judgment. The consequences for life on earth will be dire.

Just as the CIA is indifferent to the threat to life on earth that the agency’s orchestration of the Russian Threat presents, and the liberal/progressive/left is too absorbed in hatred of Trump to comprehend that it is enabling the march to nuclear war, the Trump forces are enabling another catastrophic/apocalyptic threat by dismissing global warning as a hoax. 
That the obvious, observable melting of Artic ice can be dismissed as a plot against capitalism by left-wing scientists demonstrates a detachment from reality that is difficult to fathom. For whatever reason the ice is melting, the consequence is the sudden enormous release of life-destroying methane into the atmosphere. As far as I am aware, the dire consequences of massive methane release are not controversial. 
For a world that sees itself as based on science, it is amazing how uninfluential scientists are. They warn of the consequences of nuclear war, and Western governments continue escalating tensions between nuclear powers. Scientists warn of the consequences of global warming, and the polluting economic interests and their supporters cry “hoax.”

Read Dahr Jamail’s report on the latest published scientific report on the likelihood of a sudden and gigantic release of methane, and then go read the report itself. This is not the fake news that you get from the New York Times, BBC, CNN, Washington Post, Le Monde, MSNBC and the rest of the presstitutes. This report is peer-reviewed scientific opinion based on the known facts at hand. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/39957-release-of-arctic-methane-may-be-apocalyptic-study-warns 
What is known among scientists as the Artic “Methane Time Bomb” has been studied intensely. Scientists believe that a 50-gigaton “burp” of methane could be released in a brief period of time from the melting of the Artic ice. This would be the sudden addition to the atmosphere of ten times the amount of methane currently in the atmosphere. Scientists equate this to an increase in carbon dioxide of 1,000 gigatons. 
In other words, based on our existing scientific knowledge, life on earth depends on the Arctic ice not melting. But it is melting. 
With the two apocalyptic scenarios described in this article both possibly close at hand, why is the liberal/progressive/left concerned with tranny toilet facilities and the freedom of Muslims to immigrate to Europe and the US? Is this the way they distract themselves from the real threatening issues? 
Why are the timber companies cutting down forests and why are the remaining rain forests being massacred when it is trees that absorbe carbon dioxide and emit oxygen?

Why is there intense commercial farming of beef and pork when the methane release from the vast numbers of animals is extraordinary and a factor in the rising temperatures that are melting the Artic ice? 
The answer is that profit-seeking has only short-term motivations, and the profits come mainly from the external costs imposed on third parties and the environment. The effort to control what economists call externalities requires thoughtful and determined regulation. Yet, the Trump administration declares regulation to be a hindrance to business. In other words, regulation interferes with the ability of capitalism to generate profits by externalizing its costs, and, thereby, regulation must be abolished. 
We have reached the point where the externalities of economic activity and the externalities of the military/security complex’s need for a Russian threat are on the verge of bringing life on Earth to an end. 
The idiocy of Identity Politics is that the ideology has no idea that we are all victims of the real victimizers—the US military/security complex and a carbon-based life style. 
Considering the dire circumstances, it really doesn’t matter if more Muslim refugees, whose countries and prospects we have destroyed with our wars of hegemony and who may be seeking revenge for what they have suffered, are admitted to the West. The danger of being run over on a London bridge or at a German bus stop by a Muslim seeking revenge is miniscule compared to thermo-nuclear war and catastrophic changes in the biosphere. 
But don’t expect any intelligent awareness from any Western government or from any member of the Western presstitute media. Truth is the last thing that interests these purveyors of fake news. They are interested in manufacturing fake threats, not confronting real ones. 
What these hyper-criminals are doing is murdering planet Earth.

Global Warming Is Real Say the Academies of Sciences of All of the Major Countries, But a Handful of my Readers Know Better. Paul Craig Roberts, Mar. 27, 2017.
I find it difficult to believe that the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the European Space Agency, The University of Bremen’s Institute of Physical Analysis, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Danish National Space Center, The Russian Academy of Sciences, the UK Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Accademia dei Lincei of Italy, the French Academie des Sciences, the Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias, Canada’s Royal Society, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Indian National Science Academy are in a conspiracy against capitalism. “Climate change is real” declares the Joint Science Academies’ statement. http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Global Warming Wrap-up. PCR, Mar 27, 2017.
The mental convolutions in which some will engage in order to ignore the evidence that the polar ice caps are melting—and if not from warming from what?—is as astounding as the convolutions and denial of basic facts that characterize those who believe the government’s official 9/11 fairy tale.

The Globalization of Environmental Degradation, George Abert and Paul Craig Roberts. Feb. 13, 2017.
Figuratively speaking, a ginormous asteroid is hurtling to a cataclysmic rendezvous with earth, but we are not supposed to notice. The asteroid is the rising threat from environmental degradation. Evidence is accumulating that environmental degradation is becoming global. 
We can either act responsibly by accepting the challenge or take refuge in denial and risk the consequences. 
There is nothing new about climate change. It has been ongoing for as long as earth has had an atmosphere. Through change nature produced an atmosphere supportive of life. We know for a fact that human activities can have adverse impacts on the air, water, and land resources. If these impacts become global, as independent scientists believe, life on earth might be at risk. 
We’re in a state of perpetual crisis 
Moreover, environmental degradation can contribute to, and be worsened by, other changes that are not under our control. Presently humanity is challenged by three revolutions which collectively constitute a perpetual crisis: the technological revolution that is displacing humans in the production of goods and services, the volatility and instability of the global financial system, and environmental degradation. Our focus is on environmental degradation.

It’s a matter of balance 
The weight of the atmosphere, at 14.7 PSI, has remained relatively constant throughout much of earth’s existence. What has varied is the makeup of the atmospheric gaseous mix. The mixes that existed prior to the current era would prove toxic to the contemporary biosphere. As the biosphere evolved over the hundreds of millions of years prior to the current era, the gaseous mix of the atmosphere and the biosphere came into perfect, or indeed as some might say, heavenly balance. 
Indeed, our very existence as well as the existence of the biosphere depends on this balance. There is no question that human activities can affect this balance. Perhaps not enough that nature wouldn’t eventually be able to reset the balance, but perhaps enough to end civilization before nature could correct the disturbance. While some are cavalierly dismissive, others have concluded that things are already so irreversibly out of balance that civilization as we know it will cease before the middle of this century.

Easter Island is an example of death by environmental degradation on a local level. When the island was first settled, it was covered by a forest. Soil analysis suggests that the natural environment was reasonably diverse and, absent human settlement, resilient enough to recover from natural disturbances that included volcanic eruptions. The humans that settled on Easter Island thrived until the population degraded the environment to the point that it could not support the population.

Tree removal was one of the activities that proved detrimental to the island’s natural balance. As trees were removed, so too was the island’s natural diversity and its ability to support human habitation. Many have wondered what Easter Islanders were thinking as they cut down the last tree. 
Environmental degradation’s role in the collapse of civilizations is well told in Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse. At least two pre-Columbian empires fell to sudden environmental collapse. Environmental degradation even contributed to Rome’s fall. 
Throughout history, empires and civilizations have collapsed once they degrade the environment below its capacity to carry the human footprint imposed on the environment. 
Global warming introduces a difference. In the past environmental destruction was local or regional. But what is now underway appears to be global. It can take a long time to unbalance the biosphere, but once the line is crossed, collapse can be rapid and irreversible. 
Global Warming a hoax? 
Humans and animals convert oxygen to carbon-dioxide, and trees and plants convert carbon-dioxide to oxygen. It’s a simple truth that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric carbon-dioxide. Carbon-dioxide is one of several greenhouse gases so named because they contribute to atmospheric warming. The atmospheric carbon-dioxide molecular count has steadily increased since measurements were first made decades ago. Analysis of ice cores extracted from glaciers and polar ice indicate that carbon dioxide levels were never as high as they are now for millions of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. In addition, vast amounts of woodlands have been cleared thus reducing the biosphere’s capacity to absorb and process carbon-dioxide. For example, by 2030 it’s predicted that just 40% of the Amazon rain forest, itself a massive percentage of the biosphere, will remain. 
But carbon-dioxide isn’t the only concern. In addition, vast amounts of methane, also known to be a potent greenhouse gas, are also being released into the atmosphere. 
The oceans also contain gasses that if released into the atmosphere could prove toxic to the biosphere. The earth itself contains gasses, such as methane, which is routinely released into the atmosphere through coal and petroleum extraction operations. Animal farming adds more methane. Even larger amounts of methane are estimated to be locked up in polar ice. Based on recent measurements and observations, vast amounts of methane, estimated to be in excess of ten times as much as is presently contained in the atmosphere, are predicted to be released in a sudden volcanic-like eruption as the ice melts. A sudden release of methane could cause the atmosphere to rapidly heat to a temperature where most agricultural activities, except perhaps for hydroponic operations housed in controlled environments, would cease. 
The Pace is Quickening 
From one day to the next it is difficult to discern changes in the environment. Yet those of us old enough to have been around for decades know that the weather has changed. Predictions made by scientists are being met sooner than expected. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster and glaciers and polar ice are melting faster. The release of methane locked in arctic ice could quicken environmental change so that it is noticeable in real time. 
The simple truth is that the atmospheric gaseous mix is changing and altering the natural balance. This is in addition to the historical kinds of local and regional environmental degradation associated with human activity. When humans destroy watersheds with deforestation, turn fertile lands into deserts, and pollute local sources of water, they can move on. But when the global environment degrades, there is no where else to go. 
As climate changes, so does the geographical location for the best crop yields. Climate change has produced a new occupation: climatologists who predict for Wall Street investment bankers the best geographical locations for the highest crop yields. 
Environmental changes, even a temporary one such as a multi-year drought, can cause turmoil in societies that result in deadly conflict. During the three years that preceded the “Arab Spring” of 2011, the Levant (Eastern Mediterranean) suffered from an extended drought. In Syria as water became more scarce, the government favored the most loyal elements of the population. Crop failures in the unfavored regions prompted a migration to the cities and produced political unrest. The US used this unrest to intervene against the Assad government which had alienated the US by pursuing an independent foreign policy. 
The global spread of corporate monoculture agriculture and the global timber corporations’ exploitation of the remaining virgin forests are spreading environmental fragilities. On Easter Island the population declined into disappearance. For a thousand years after the Roman Empire collapsed the Italian peninsula was an environmental disaster with soils so depleted, agriculture was reduced to marginal subsistence farming barely sufficient to support a population a fraction of what it had been. Unlike our time, the Romans achieved environmental degradation without burning fossil fuels or fertilizing their fields with toxic petrochemicals and herbicides known to deplete soils to the point where continued land use is predicated on artificial fertilizers and ever larger applications of herbicides, the runoffs from which produce algae blooms and destroy marine life. 
Today in locations where multinational agribusiness has replaced traditional farming, it can take years for soils to regain their natural fertility and for the societies to regain their economic balance from the imbalance that agricultural monoculture produces. 
Environmental degradation can be destructive irrespective of global warming. Throughout history, humans have degraded their environments to the point that their societies failed or were weakened to the point that they were conquered in whole or part by invaders. However, global environmental failure can terminate life in general. 
Environmental failure can result from ignorance, careless practices, and the short time horizon associated with profit maximization which encourages disposing of waste products directly into the environment where they damage, air, water, and land resources. When emissions alter the atmospheric balance, what has historically been local and regional damage becomes global. 
In other words, human activities can put life in general at risk. This risk is too total to justify dismissing accumulated evidence as a hoax or as “a plot against capitalism.” We must assess the risk without being shouted down by material interests. There is no prospect of finding a solution to an unacknowledged risk. 
Just as Easter Islanders did not understand the consequences for them of deforestation, today many in government do not acknowledge the risks of global degradation. President Trump has appointed a climate change skeptic as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. This is not enough for US Rep. Matt Gaetz who wants the EPA abolished. Is humanity now globally on the same path and in the same denial as led to the extinction of human life on Easter Island?

A View We Don’t Often Hear. Paul Craig Roberts. Mar. 28, 2017.
Little wonder some of you prefer the Koch brothers propaganda. No global warming is a much happier story. I like it better myself. From a reader: 
Hi Paul,
Right you are. The Arctic sea ice is steadily diminishing, the temperature of the Arctic seas is steadily rising. and if these trends continue, some near future month or year, there will be a sudden, massive eruption of gigatons of methane from the Arctic region into the atmosphere. 
The primary, secondary and tertiary effects will be global and dramatic. Most humans will probably be dead as a result within a matter of a very few years or less. It will alter everything: climate (precipitation, winds, temperature), atmospheric chemistry, global ecology, global crop production (meaning lack thereof — hence no food), and much more. 
This scenario could even kick in with a vengeance as soon as later this year, or in 2018 or 2019. We are drawing closer and closer to the big event. It will happen if we continue on the present global trajectory, and it won’t take decades to arrive. 
This is quite apart from the concomitant Fukushima nuclear crisis (likely a global extinction level event in itself), the accelerating collapse of the global ecology, accelerating global deforestation, accelerating chemical contamination of global ecosystems, accelerating extinction of a whole wide range of flora and fauna, etc. 
In other words, we are fucked, largely at our own hands. Some experts give the world ten years or less until the global decline and chaos on all fronts becomes so severe that even the most willfully stupid and the most willfully ignorant realize that all around them, the planet is swiftly dying. I am reasonably well informed and I would say that by 2035, at the outside, it all falls irretrievably apart, if humanity continues on our present, unimaginably stupid trajectory. That’s just 18 years from now. But I would not argue with those who say we have only ten years left, maybe less. The situation is extreme. 
Donald Trump says nothing about any of this. Hillary Clinton says nothing about any of this. Angela Merkel says nothing about any of this. John McCain says nothing about any of this. The Bushes say nothing about any of this. And none of them offer any solutions, apart from the fact that their mental horizons don’t even extend 10% as far as mine. And yet they are so-called “leaders”. 
They are all a bunch of political whores, goddamned sock puppets for the Big Banks, Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, the international multi-billionaire class and the CIA. 
What’s needed is a massive, global reforestation project. A massive, global, sea cleaning operation. A massive, global de-nuclearization initiative. A massive, global, non-GMO, non-chemical agricultural movement. A massive, global roll-out of so-called “free energy” technology, which the compartmentalized Black World has and uses. 
Absent these initiatives, we are cooked. It’s game over, as humanity and the planet die. 
regards,

For what the scientific story is worth, it goes like this: 
As a biosphere evolved that supports life on planet earth, toxic gases were locked away in various places, such as ice and permafrost. 
The atmosphere is in delicate balance. Animal life absorbs oxygen and emits carbon dioxide. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. This balance has been under assault for 150 years. Deforestation has reduced the ability of the planet to process CO2, while a carbon-based existence of 7 billion people pour CO2 into the atmosphere. 
The CO2 buildup is believed to be the cause of the warming that is melting the polar ice caps and the permafrost. A sudden release of methane equivalent to 1,000 gigatons of CO2 could be the consequence. This is about as much CO2 as industrial civilization has released in 150 years. 
Warming also has effects on the oceans, on the acid level of the water, and the ability of oceans to absorb CO2 and retain oxygen. The great barrier reef in Australia is dying.
There are many feedbacks, and once the process begins it feeds upon itself regardless of human measures. For example, the more polar ice is lost, the faster the warming.
 
Previous events that destroyed the balance in the biosphere resulted in life extinctions. The belief that a 7 billion population in a carbon-based culture cannot alter the balance in the biosphere seems to be wishful thinking not supported by science.  
It suits me fine if the Koch brothers climate spokespersons are correct. Even if they are not correct, why escape from The Matrix when not even Neo can repair the damage to the biosphere?


Apocalypse Tourism? Cruising the Melting Arctic Ocean. Katie Orlinsky and Eva Holland. Bloomberg. Sep 2016.

Climate Links: 03/25/2017

For well over a decade I have written that we are past the point of no return on climate change. My reasoning was that hothouse gasses already in the atmosphere or which were for sure going to enter the atmosphere given our lack of action, were enough to trigger massive carbone and methane releases. 
Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon…
We’ve seen that methane, which accounts for only 14 percent of emissions worldwide, traps up to 100 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 5-year period. This means that even though carbon dioxide molecules outnumber methane 5 to 1, this comparatively smaller amount of methane is still 19 times greater a problem for climate change over a 5 year period, and 4 times greater over a 100 year period. 
It is even more potent in the short run. Meanwhile, the arctic circle was about 30 degrees warmer this year than normal, and permafrost is un-perma-ing.
Huge slabs of Arctic permafrost in northwest Canada are slumping and disintegrating, sending large amounts of carbon-rich mud and silt into streams and rivers. A new study that analyzed nearly a half-million square miles in northwest Canada found that this permafrost decay is affecting 52,000 square miles of that vast stretch of earth—an expanse the size of Alabama… 
…Similar large-scale landscape changes are evident across the Arctic including in Alaska, Siberia and Scandinavia 
There is no way we are avoiding near worst case scenarios for climate change without aggressive geo-engineering (completly unproven, and requires political willpower). We will see temperature increases in some parts of the world which are currently highly populated make those places uninhabitable outside of air conditioning. We will see changes in rainfall patterns which will cause large areas which are currently agricultural powerhouses to fail; an effect which will be compounded by the fact that we have vastly drained and polluted our groundwater in prime agricultural areas. 
Later on we will see vast rises in the ocean level. Virtually every city sitting on the seashore today will be gone in a hundred years, some a lot sooner. 
This stuff is baked into the cake. It is essentially unavoidable. It has been effectively, politically, unavoidable for quite some time now. 
Do not expect political, economic and social arrangements you favor to survive this. The waves of refugees will be magnitudes larger than those currently shaking the Middle East and Europe. There will be water wars; people will not sit still why they are dying, they will fight. Some of those wars will involve, at the least, the use of tactical nukes. 
Capitalism, Democracy, the Chinese Communist Party, etc… any system and group of people who can reasonably be blamed for this, will likely be on the block. When hundreds of millions to billions start dying, this will not go easy into that long dark night, no, they and those they leave behind will look for people and ideologies and organizations to blame, and they will find them in plenty, because everyone and everything in power has failed to prevent an entirely forseen and largely preventable disaster. 
Our failure will not be considered acceptable to those who pay the bill, and our “capitalism” and “democracy” and “corporations” and “free trade” and everything else you can think of will be on the block, liable for destruction. 
This is coming on faster than many expected. Added to ecosphere collapse, the current cyclical capitalist sclerosis, and vast arsenals, it is going to be vastly damaging. 
If you aren’t old, or sick, you’re going to suffer some of this. If you’re young, you’re going to suffer a lot of this, assuming you aren’t an early casualty. 
So it is. So it shall be. We were warned, we chose not to act, because corporations needed profits or something. 
So be it.

The Basic Psychological Structure of Our Society Does Not Work, Ian Welsh. Mar 20, 2017.
Here’s the thing. Our society only works after generational crises which don’t destroy it. After the Napoleonic Wars, the survivors make Europe more or less work. They get a good long run out of it, a surprisingly long one, but it goes south starting around 1870, and blows with WWII. 
It goes south in ways that are recognizable, by the way. For example, the British Empire pushes laissez-faire trade policies which make the rich richer but gut the British manufacturing base over time, moving much of it to, ironically, America. 
The system goes into crisis from 1914 to 1945, and the Americans take it over and run it basically well up until the early 70s, about 25 years. Then it goes into decline. It’ll be hard to tell exactly when the end-game crisis start(ed) till we can look back, but if we aren’t in it, we’re close. 
...
But the core point here is that it’s very hard to create people who can run a system.
The common refrain is that prosperity destroys character. But that’s not quite right: the people who created the good post-war economy were the FDR types, mostly. People who were adults in the 20s and 30s, who saw what went wrong. 
People have a hard time learning from other people’s experiences. They have to see it themselves. So, in the early 70s there is an attempt to get rid of the short-sale uptick rule (you can only short a stock on an uptick of the stock) and it dies in the face of massive backlash. A couple decades later, those people are dead, and even more wholesale revisions to the rules put in place to stop another Depression from happening pass. 
Finally Clinton kills Glass-Steagall, the main spar, wholesale, something entirely unthinkable in 1960 when the population lived thru the reasons it existed. 
But the rot goes deeper than just “it’s hard to learn what you didn’t experience”, it goes to the core of how we raise ourselves; our children. 
School, as we do it, is a terrible way to raise people. What it actual teaches is “do what you’re told, when you’re told, wait to be told how to do things, don’t figure out things for yourself, and give the approved answer, not one you came up with yourself.” 
It trains drones. It trains people who are meant to spend their adult lives under supervision, doing what they are told, when they are told and giving their bosses the answers their bosses want. 
Those people make fine wage slaves, yes, but they don’t make good citizens. They have not only not learned to think for themselves, they have been taught not to. Even worse, they have been taught that if a thought of their own should come up, they should keep it to themselves. 
Meanwhile school interactions with peers are terrible. When we call something “high school” we mean horrible peer pressure bullshit. A few people love high school, most people remember it as one of the worst times of their lives. 
Wage slavery, and I use the term slavery very deliberately, is a terrible system if you want a democracy or a republic. Mass production consumer societies, where we choose from menus rather than creating anything ourselves, are terrible for democracies or Republics. 
The way we school people, the jobs most people work at, and how we distribute goods to people (thru money gained by sitting down, shutting up and doing what you are told) are antithetical to free, egalitarian societies. Only a crisis which forces people to think for themselves and where they have to be trusted for a while can briefly create people suited to political freedom. 
But we can’t have world wars and depressions all the time, for what I assume are obvious reasons. So we stagger along, brief good periods sliding into shit periods regularly. 
Of course there is more to it than this, such as cycles of destruction of capital and labor and so on, but much of that is manageable in theory. It isn’t manageable in practice, not because it couldn’t be done, but because our society; we, don’t create the people who can do it. 
Freedom, democracy, equality: these things are not compatible with how we order our economic affairs; how we raise our children, or how we condition our adults. 
We will not reverse course, this cycle, that doesn’t happen and won’t. It’s too late. But there is always another cycle. If we don’t want it to be as disastrous as ours, we must figure out a better way to run our economy; to educate our children, and not to live as adults. A way suited to people fit to be free. 
...
All of this is do-able. In some sense most of it isn’t even all that complicated. But that doesn’t mean any of it is easy, and it is hardest because we have been trained to have a poverty of imagination; an inability imagine world’s that are much better than the one we live in. 
We have the technology. What we don’t have is the people. We aren’t the people who can run a good society (this is obvious, we haven’t.) 
But as the people we can re-create ourselves and our descendants. Biology is only half destiny, the rest is in our hands. 
So far we’ve been acting like bacteria in a petri dish, rushing to destroy our environment thru unchecked stupid growth. 
Let us hope we can prove ourselves wiser than that. Or, instead of us instructing ourselves, Nature will instruct, and her lessons will be harsh.

Monday, February 6, 2017

Book Review: The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable


as reviewed at:
Outside imagination. Tabish Khair, The Hindu. Jul. 23, 2016.

Amitav Ghosh says climate change is a crisis not so much of nature as of culture. 
There was one negative consequence of Amitav Ghosh’s major international success as a novelist in recent years: it obviously prevented him from writing any extensive book of non-fiction. This, for admirers of In an Antique Land (1992), was a matter of serious regret. But the drought is over: The Great Derangement is here. 
Ghosh’s book is about droughts — and cyclones and floods. It is about climate change and thinking (or not being able to think) about it. This set of concerns should not surprise anyone who has read Ghosh’s recent novels, especially The Hungry Tide (2004), but it is a natural development of authorial concerns that distinguished Ghosh’s earliest works too. 
As a major cross-generic work of non-fiction, In An Antique Land was partly about those other human routes, links, stories that are erased by dominant discourses. These small human voices behind and under the Empire-Enlightenment-capitalised ‘Human’ had also concerned Ghosh in the two novels that he had published before In An Antique Land, and they were turned into a brilliant sci-fi narrative in the novel that followed: The Calcutta Chromosome (1995). What we speak is not just our speech, as one character suggested in that novel. 
With The Great Derangement, Ghosh moves from hidden human voices to the many, and even more obscured (but by no means powerless) non-human voices that echo us when we speak. And he basically asks the question: when can we learn to listen to — let alone speak with — the non-human voices of the earth that have always spoken to us as ‘humans,’ and will do so with greater urgency in an age of ‘unthinkable’ climate change? 
Like most people who try to stay abreast of an accelerating world, I occasionally read books on climate change, though probably more to assuage my conscience and pamper my intellect than because I feel that I, or the books, can make a difference. Usually, the books are full of facts, numbers and figures, which are impressive, but oddly deadening. 
Even though Ghosh’s The Great Derangement is informed by research in the area — and in related areas like the evolving fields of Dark Ecology and Non-Human Studies — he hardly uses numbers and figures, and never succumbs to academic jargon. Instead he approaches the topic with what human beings have always used to think with most naturally and powerfully: stories. 
This does not just make the book immensely readable, it also sustains Ghosh’s main axis of argument. For the book is a three-legged stool. One of the legs is the fact of climate change and our inability to think about it. The other two are its relationship to fiction and politics. 
Ghosh argues that contemporary culture has largely failed to confront climate change, partly because of the historical elision of various modernities in favour of the one monolithic paradigm of European modernity, currently being toted even by supposedly West-sceptic ideologues, such as those of Hindutva. And recent fiction has failed in particular, because of its self-definition of being ‘en avant’, not despite it. 
In this book, climate change is not viewed just as a crisis of ‘nature’, but also as “a crisis of culture, and thus of the imagination”. Not only does Ghosh (expectedly) break with the romanticism of earlier environmentalist thinkers, he also (unexpectedly) critiques the ‘moralism’ of current ones, and offers convincing grounds for it. 
Climate change is uncanny, because, as is the case with the uncanny in Gothic fiction, it is the “mysterious work of our own hands returning to haunt us in unthinkable shapes and forms”. But being too powerful, grotesque, dangerous and accusatory to be written about in a lyrical, elegiac or romantic vein, climate change has not been fully confronted in literature, particularly in the novel, where the realist “concealment of its scaffolding of events” is essential. Magic realism, Ghosh shows, also fails in this context. 
At its simplest, Ghosh’s three-legged argument can be put in these words: the uncanniness of climate change is rendered even more unthinkable in contemporary culture because of historical developments that have turned both fiction (especially the novel) and politics into just “a search for personal authenticity, a journey of self-discovery” for many people. 
Ghosh illustrates this development by stitching together widely separated narratives, such as that of the construction of ‘Nature’ and the ‘Human’ in the light of Enlightenment discourses and the powerful argument that our shift to the oil economy (from a coal one) has had drastic consequences not just for climate but also for literature and politics. 
As Ghosh points out, referring to Timothy Mitchell, the economy of drill-and-pipeline oil flows is far less in the hands of large numbers of workers than coal extraction and transportation used to be. This has affected literature and politics, the latter because no matter how many people march on the streets, “they cannot put their hands on the real flows of power because they do not help to produce it. They only consume.” (Roy Scranton) 
This is as much a book about fiction (which Ghosh considers essential to the currently ‘unthinkable’ task of imagining other forms of human existence) and the tragedy of ‘post-political spaces’ where politics, including that of religious fundamentalism, has been “largely emptied of content in terms of the exercise of power” and, like fiction, become a forum for the secular venting of opinions, “a baring-of-the soul”. The main stream of Ghosh’s argument is replenished by minor tributaries that are interesting on their own; for instance, when he discusses the relationship of genre fiction (as science fiction) with literary fiction. Even his two-line aside on Karl Ove Knausgaard says more than entire (predictable) articles that I have read on “one of the literary icons of our age”. 
Like a river in spate, this is a book one travels on precariously and obsessively — thinking, trusting, terrified.

Climate Links: 02/06/2017

Are we deranged? (global warming, part 2). Leanne Ogasawara, 3 Quarks Daily. Feb. 6, 2017.

Climate Science Denial Shifts to a New Tactic Among Trump Appointees. Jeff Masters. Feb. 3, 2017.

Obama: The sham environmentalist. Ian Sinclair, Morning Star Online. Jan. 26, 2017.

History of global temperature 1880-2016. EarthSky.
2016 is officially the warmest year on record, edging out previous record holder 2015, according to NOAA. It’s the third year in a row that global average surface temperature set a new record, and the fifth time the record has been broken since the start of the twenty-first century. 
Greenland ice sheet melting 600% faster than predicted by current models. Naked Capitalism. Feb. 4, 2017.
Now, when you think about the sea level rise that results from that, our models right now, almost all the models we use in climate science, are conservative, relative to what we’re seeing when we go out and do field studies. That’s a general statement that’s true across both hemispheres. If we were to start… if we were to not meet our goals that we have, we will be in serious trouble if sea level rise within this century. ..
.. So, I think it’s a big concern and something we have to get the politicians to realize, is that they’re trying to set targets for things that appear to be happening much faster than our models are predicting. So, the models are giving us even a bit of a sense of optimism, when they really shouldn’t be, because the observations are much more dramatic than the models predict.

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.


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