Saturday, September 3, 2022

Monica Lee's Realism is a breath of fresh air

Monica Lee: Climate Crisis and Bullshit Optimism. May 21, 2022.

I’m so amazed by anyone who is optimistic with regard to our current climate crisis.

I suspect that this optimism prevails maybe because almost every mainstream article or discussion on the topic by a scientist ends with a message of hope that we can turn things around in time if we just work together and cooperate to cut our emissions.

They keep telling us that all the shit hits the fan by 2050 or 2100, so we assume that we have some time before we really need to buckle down and make some sacrifices.

I also suspect that no scientist really believes this and it’s really insulting to those of us who see through the bullshit message. Even if they know that there’s realistically nothing we can do at this point to stop and reverse the warming, it’s bad PR to not at least appear hopeful. Great, the ship’s going down and why not whore yourselves out to corporate media with your bullshit message of hope instead of telling the truth?

Surely, you’ve notice what’s happening around you. You don’t need someone else to tell you that things are headed off a cliff, or are you that frog in the boiling pot?

Excess carbon dioxide heating up the atmosphere? That’s okay, we’ll develop carbon sequestration technology that will remove the excess carbon and store it underground indefinitely and not worry about the environmental degradation that accompanies this technology and the fact that we’re already several decades too late for it to be a current viable solution.

Currently, the biggest carbon sequestration plant in the world may​ negate an equivalent of three seconds’ worth of emissions per year. There aren’t enough of these extremely costly plants in existence to even make a dent in offsetting the emissions.

Let’s plant more trees! Sure, we’ll just ignore the fact that there’s not enough available land due to its appropriation for agricultural usage and that there’s not enough time to plant the amount of trees needed to grow to their full potential to sequester enough carbon to slow down the warming caused by the increasing rate of carbon dioxide and methane and warming that’s already baked in the atmosphere.

And guess what? All of these increasing wildfires release even more of that sequestered carbon creating an endless feedback loop of increasing temperatures which leads to more wildfires, etc., because trees can’t adapt fast enough to the increasing temperatures.

In the past two years alone, twenty percent of the giant sequoias were wiped out of existence due to wildfires. Twenty percent of some of the oldest living organisms on the planet that were once considered fireproof are wiped out forever. Don’t count on restoring them anytime soon. It takes hundreds of years for them to reach their full height if they are allowed to grow in a temperate climate which no longer describes California.

In fact, every year, wildfires are getting worse, and at the time of this writing, the wildfire season started four months earlier than usual in the Southwestern United States where it’s also experiencing extreme drought. The water level of Lake Mead is so low that they’re discovering more remains of discarded dead bodies from the 70s or 80s.

In California, Gavin Newsom asked residents to conserve their water usage by about 15%, but instead, usage is up dramatically. If people living in California can’t be convinced to conserve water during an unprecedented drought and in fact do the opposite, what hope is there for other regions of the world?

How about we focus on the lack of insects? We’re losing more than 70% of our insects including bees. No problem, we can hand pollinate the fruit and vegetables and mimic what the bees and insects do to ensure our food supply. We don’t need the bees if there are enough of us willing to do their work for free. If bees are disappearing from our region, we’ll just steal them from somewhere else because that’s the trend these days in the world of beekeeping.

.....

Forget about sociopathic power-hungry leaders, the average person doesn’t care either. Just try to bring up the topic with friends or family, you will either get an angry reaction, outright dismissal, or pleas to seek treatment for mental health because they think you’re insane to feel anxiety over such a trivial matter.

..

We should have been protesting the shit out of our crisis many decades ago and worked furiously to come up with solutions to slow and reverse the damage that we’re seeing now. We should have looked beyond the profit motive as a solution to all of our problems.

It’s pathetic and sad that the climate crisis spokesperson who berates world leaders for not making this issue the number one priority is a teenage girl who knows that we didn’t care enough to leave a sustainable planet for her and future generations.

Unfortunately, we have proved to be incapable of divorcing ourselves from this profit-driven system to come up with any meaningful solutions to save our asses and secure the viability of future generations.

Human reactions to this crisis tell me that there is no hope. I already knew this years ago, but I thought that at the very least a lot more people with all of the glaring evidence of the current environmental collapse would “look up”.


Monica Lee: The Best Kept Secret in Climate Science. July 10, 2022.


Disclaimer: Please stop reading if you are “doomed out” and would rather read solution-oriented articles sprinkled with sugar-coated positivity. I understand your need to avoid our harsh reality in order to cope with daily life, but some of us realists are unable to build up a wall of protective denial around us and pretend that everything will be okay.

We’ve disrupted the Earth’s climate systems to the extent that ironically, the only thing that’s kind of saving our asses right now and keeping us from experiencing a summer hotter than Hades is also what’s killing about four to seven million of us every year — industrial aerosols, or pollution.

We don’t truly understand the climate crisis and just how fucked we are unless we understand the concept of global dimming, or the Aerosol Masking Effect (AME).

...

The general idea of AME is that some of the pollution we’re emitting in the form of sulphur dioxide is actually keeping us cooler. Tiny water particles bind more readily to SO2 particles, reflect sunlight, and prevent further global warming.

If you live in one of the areas inflicted by never-ending heatwaves right now, you don’t want to know how hot it would get without the cooling effect of aerosols, but scientists estimate that aerosols offset the effects of global warming, depending on the source, anywhere from a whopping 40 to 55%.

Therefore, the potential risks of reducing our emissions quickly and abruptly at this late stage after our long history of poisoning the planet are akin to an alcoholic abruptly quitting alcohol — dangerous and life-threatening.

So why is the most important news that affects all living organisms on the planet being kept secret?

Scientists have attempted to warn the public for decades that we need to cut our emissions. While it’s true that we can’t continue to poison the planet at this rate because it’s killing anywhere from about four to seven million people every year, the loss of cooling aerosols and the AME would kill us faster, thus creating a sort of Sophie’s Choice-type paradox.

Say what?

...

Perhaps the AME is deliberately left out of mainstream discussion because it complicates the general message that we need to cut our emissions, and populations don’t seem to respond to simple messages too well, let alone complicated ones.

It’s as if our leaders and scientists collectively decided to not further confuse and frighten the already confused and frightened public.

...

Wet-bulb temperatures, with previous maximum temperatures of human survivability at 35°C (95°F) with 100% humidity, have been lowered in a recent study to 31°C (87°F) with 100% humidity even for young, healthy subjects. For older subjects, the temperature is likely lower.

I don’t need to be told what this spells out for all of us.

Dr. Michael Mann, scientist and corporate whore who praised Joe Biden for his “climate plan” after his election, blatantly lies in this interview posted here on Medium:
“There’s no science that supports the idea that we are committed to some sort of runaway warming. The science pretty clearly now indicates that how much warming we get is a function of how much carbon we burn. And the flip side of that is if we bring our carbon emissions to zero, the warming, at least of the surface of our planet, stabilizes very quickly. We basically stop the warming of the planet if we stop polluting the atmosphere with carbon.”
I don’t know how these kinds of comments go unchallenged.
[they do, but by too few, and on Twitter, Mann blocks anyone who tries to debate the point with him

And Joe Biden never had a plan. In case you were optimistic that we were going to get our shit together in the United States as the world’s biggest carbon emitter historically— and currently the world’s second biggest emitter — and take the first steps to reverse course and serve as an example to other nations, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling just dealt a crushing blow to the EPA’s power to regulate emissions.

Most of us haven’t even noticed that we’ve run out of time to “really do something”, and the only choices we currently have are to continue with business as usual like we’ve been doing and watch mass die-offs in horror, or attempt to geoengineer ourselves out of this mess and hope against all odds that luck is on our side.

Do you ever wonder why geoengineering solutions to save the planet have even been considered in the first place?

More scientists are now admitting that if we don’t consider them, we are positively screwed. Even if we were able to curb our emissions to net zero right now, the rate of warming would continue to increase due to the built-in warming from CO2 emitted about a decade ago and the tendency for CO2 to linger in the atmosphere from hundreds to a thousand years.

If we attempt geoengineering solutions, the best-case scenarios of implementing these Hail Mary attempts could theoretically buy us some time, but more likely, we’ll cause more harm to the planet in the process and cause ourselves to become extinct faster.

Those are our choices?

Yes, apparently.

What former NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen has referred to as the “Faustian bargain”, the devil has come to collect. The stakes are much higher today than they were decades ago.

We’ve waited way too long, and instead of curbing our emissions when it really mattered, we’ve doubled down driving exponential growth of human population and expansion, global carbon emissions, and resource depletion thanks to capitalism.

Dr. Hansen noticing an unusually hot July in 2021, considering that it should have been relatively cooler in a fairly strong La Niña phase but was later confirmed to be the hottest month ever recorded, admitted in a study published in August 2021 that scientists are underestimating and ignoring the climate impact of the AME.

He recently stated that reducing aerosol pollution could double the rate of global warming over the next 25 years. That’s not good news considering that the amount of heat that the Earth traps has doubled since 2005 and is warming “faster than expected.”

The AME is the biggest wild card in climate change, perhaps the least understood climate forcing impacting global warming, and it complicates any geoengineering solution that exists today.

The most recent and well-known examples of real-world immediate impacts of the AME on global warming were the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, the temporary grounding of all airline flights after 9–11, and the temporary halting of production and manufacturing during the lockdown in China in 2020.

How did each scenario affect global temperatures?

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo caused a reduction in global temperature by about 0.6°C (1.1°F) for about two years. The vast amounts of aerosols injected high into the stratosphere created a cooling affect.

The period of September 11–14 when all flights were temporarily grounded had the biggest diurnal temperature range of about about 1.1°C (2°F) of any three-day period within the previous 30 years due to clear skies and lack of contrails that normally reflect solar radiation during the day and trap heat during the night.

...

Despite the large drop in CO2 emissions of 5.4% in 2020, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate compared to previous years, and methane grew by 0.3%, at a faster rate than any other year within the decade due to the reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx).

This is quite disconcerting considering that scientists are finally beginning to admit that we need to also focus on rising methane emissions.

...

Most people don’t even know that our climate crisis is heading toward not just a crisis, but a total annihilation in the very near term.

It’s not just a mass annihilation of all humanity.

It’s a mass annihilation of all living organisms on our planet, and it’s happening now, not in the distant future.



They’d be cheaper, too.

...................

We’re going to live harder lives than our parents.

We’re going to have to get scrappier.

A lot of knowledge hasn’t been passed down from prior generations, so we’re going to have to get it from places like books. Some good ones include David Pogue’s How to Prepare for Climate Change, and Carleen Madigan’s The Backyard Homestead.

Hey, I know.

We were preparing for a different future, one stripped of upward mobility and easy retirement like we were promised. We’re looking at a future where it’s smart to know how to build an outhouse.

The future of our old dreams is gone.

It’s not going to happen.

Adopt a new mindset.

This isn’t an exhaustive list, just a starting point.

It’s a different way of thinking.

It’s a way of investing that most Americans don’t think about, because they’re too busy worrying about stocks and crypto. It’s about redesigning a future where we actually feel some hope.

I don’t know about you, but just knowing that I could pull water out of the air if I needed makes me sleep a little better.

You could even just dig a hole.

There’s options.

There’s no point in working all the time and dreaming of the things that we’ll never afford, especially when those things were creating enormous inequality and destroying the planet. There’s also no point in curling up into a ball and crying yourself to sleep every night.

Imagine if millions of us adopted this new mindset. Imagine if we gave up our dreams of making millions and owning big homes, and instead we started thinking about how to live better with less. We could live happier and more in tune with our environment.

We could be more equal.

Instead of wasting our last resources on mansions in the desert, we could be building smaller, cheaper homes that use less energy. We could be housing more people with less. We could be designing and building homes for a better future for everyone, not just the super rich.

It’s what we always talk about anyway, right? Let’s apply this trendy minimalism in ways that actually matter.

Endless growth was killing us.

This way is better.

Sunday, May 1, 2022

Ishi Nobu: Self-Extinction

The Litany of Self-Extinction. Ishi Nobu. April 16, 2022.


Though the cause of human self-extinction may be singularly attributed to unsustainable lifestyles, it involves so much more than just “climate change.”

An unbroken continuity to human existence has been to employ technology to make men money by making living more comfortable for the masses. Ecological abuse from technology has been the modus operandi to self-destruction.

The hominid diaspora ended up with this apex predator on most every dot of land on Earth where survival could be eked out: if not from the earth itself, by trading with others.

Everywhere they have lived, people tried to make their claimed patch of land a Nature-exclusion zone. Homes and farmlands were cleared of “weeds” and “pests” using biocides. Heading into hothouse, cities have become heat islands precisely because vegetation has been replaced by asphalt and concrete.

The relentless taking of land, including the extensive network of roads – ribbons of death – has been a factor in the mass extinction event underway. Chopping habitats into fragments has been a death sentence to billions of other mammals.

Real-estate retrenchment, by restoring bits of land back to Nature, would be wholly inadequate to reverse what has already been done. Planting trees may make people feel good about Nature, but it has no significance.

Material extraction to support the industrial lifestyle is an odious extension of land use. It exacerbates taking from Nature by profuse pollution. Mining and drilling invariably turns the land into single-use human consumption for centuries, if not millennia. No extraction or use of oil does not happen without petrol spilling and polluting.

The fouling of the air & water which is causing global warming is just one aspect of the endless poisoning which has turned green fields into brownfields, strangled sea life in plastic, and made precious freshwater forever undrinkable for animals or plants.

Another aspect of resource extraction, to use the concept loosely, has been the wanton killing of wildlife, including chronic overfishing. Beyond merely taking away the homes of other life, men have actively killed off any animal that might be of some use or got in the way of how he wanted to live.

The ubiquitous system of free-market trade seemed to have worked well enough until the machine age. The terminal problem with industrial capitalism is that it just does not scale into sustainability; quite the opposite. There are a few ways to look at this holistic dilemma, but one sticks out: there simply are too many people on the planet, all aspiring to unsustainable lifestyles.

The application of technology cannot possibly remedy what technology created in the first place. There is no “green” energy. There is only more taking.

At this late juncture in civilization’s fragile existence, the only possible path to species survival would be an abrupt change in collective lifestyle and way of living: away from do-as-you-like individualism to a conservation-oriented communalism.

Even that would prove inadequate given what has already gone down. The Gaia momentum now ushering humanity to its own demise isn’t going to stop just because we change our minds. The momentum instead is only picking up speed.

The plutocracy which reigns over the status quo remains unmoved, and the masses are not calling for a revolution toward unpalatable frugality.

With democracies holding sway in most of the world, radical action would require a public consensus which is nowhere in sight. Humanity does not have decades to come to this critical revelation.

The road ahead is, alas, clear. It is a dead end.

Saturday, April 23, 2022

awesome post by Raelle Kaia, worth posting in full

The Moral Reckoning. by Raelle Kaia. April 23, 2022


To where have we arrived? Has the New Normal truly come and gone?

This spring, many of us find ourselves warily adjusting to the apparent conclusion of two utterly surreal years in human history. We wonder if it is really possible to cast aside the legacy our leaders left us—the mask and vaccine mandates, the terror, division, social paranoia, and isolation—free to resume to the numb, hypnotic trance of life as we once knew it. Shall we continue our march into the soul-sucking banality of digitally mediated virtual life, with ever-increasing surveillance, alienation, and ubiquitous technological overwhelm of our humanity? Are we really free to wake up from the nightmare-dream of covid-induced fear, condemnation, segregation, and authoritarianism?


We wonder whether our fearless leaders have truly released us from our obedience training—from our dutiful imperatives to serve the greater good through compliance and self-sacrifice. It kind of looks that way on the surface, but an eerie feeling hangs in the air. In my old life, I still clung to scraps and shreds of trust in our society’s leadership. Now, in the wake of the calamity wrought through the course of these past two years, my trust has been irreparably broken. Millions share in this journey with me.

As one result of this, I no longer tune into the promulgations of the mainstream media and its corporate press. But through my contacts with others who remain plugged in, I still pick up on some of its prevailing messages and narratives. As such, I’ve gleaned that our leaders have radically altered their instructions to the populace in recent months. Previously, we were all supposed to be obsessed with covid at the exclusion of all else, implored to eliminate the virus by harassing, haranguing, and expelling the unvaccinated and maskless from society. Now it seems we’re supposed to believe that the most important thing is “standing with Ukraine,” vilifying Russia and Russians, and worrying about World War III. Or at least we were for a while. Then it seemed like the thing we were all supposed to care about was Will Smith slapping Chris Rock.

This 1984-style narrative shift has us all confused about whether Eurasia or East Asia is the enemy we’ve always been at war with. We seem to remember it both ways. Meanwhile, behind our muddled confusion, all the foundations of covid tyranny are still lying in place—just waiting to be reactivated. Governments have established their prerogative to abrogate all personal freedoms and human rights any time they declare an emergency. We are now supposed to accept total surveillance, the automation of everything, the end of medical privacy and bodily autonomy, and the unaccountable rule of technocratic corporations, NGOs, and oligarchs. We are supposed to have internalized our new role as obedient soldiers in the fight against (insert cause célèbre here), ready to surrender our speech, our minds, and our critical thinking the moment we receive instructions to do so. We are now supposed to vilify and persecute whatever proffered enemy our masters supply us with whenever the narrative changes.

This is called “getting our freedoms back.” On April 18, I was waiting for a flight at the Tucson Airport when one of the staff announced that the federal mask mandate in airports and airplanes no longer applied, effective immediately. And just like that, almost two years of forcing masks on travelers was gone. One moment, it’s absolutely necessary we do this—the next moment, it makes no difference at all. I wandered around the airport, observing as others gradually got the news and began to show their faces, the hallways still littered with imposing signs about the grave necessity to keep one’s face covered at all times—artifacts of an ancient bygone era that ended 10 minutes earlier.

When I got on the plane, I took note of how many people continued to wear a mask of their own volition. It seemed to be about half the people. I also noted that none of the airplane crew chose to continue wearing masks. In the airports, very few of the airline staff continued to wear masks either. Are people who work for airlines naturally disposed to right-wing, anti-science, white-supremacist, conspiracy-theorizing, anti-mask sentiments? Or is it possible that having existed at the center of this mask controversy for the past two years, airline employees actually looked into the thing on a deeper level than the average person—and in so doing discovered the absurdity of the whole enterprise?

Later, I discovered why the mandate had been lifted. Earlier that day, a federal judge ruled that the mandate had been illegal all along. It seems that as long as someone in authority (or with presumed authority) orders anyone to do anything, most people will just obey as if they had no rights at all. They will never look into the question of whether that authority is illegally derived, or whether the orders are morally grounded or rationally sound. Instead, most people will act as if they were subjects of a monarch or a dictator rather than citizens with inalienable rights, governed by representatives with limited powers. They will assume it’s someone else’s job to tell them whether they have to stop following the authority’s dictates or whether they have to continue. They will defer to another authority to tell them which authority they must obey. All this time—even though half of airline travelers and almost all airline staff did not believe in wearing masks—they all collectively went along with illegally promulgated mask orders until the moment they were told not to anymore.

What else will people do as long as they are ordered to? What else have people already done? This is the moral reckoning that faces us as people.


Segregation and Discrimination

During the nightmare of covid governance, the populace has been strongly encouraged to practice segregation and discrimination. Millions enthusiastically answered the call in their private lives as well as public lives. Millions more went along with the segregation and discrimination without enthusiasm, but simply because they were told to.

When I was a child in the ‘80s, I learned about how in the bad old days of America, black people were banned from all kinds of jobs, were banned from restaurants, hotels, and other public venues, were segregated from white people regarding the neighborhoods they could live in, the section of the bus they sat in, the schools they attended, and even the swimming pools and water fountains they drank from. This system was called Jim Crow. I also learned that this was still going in in South Africa, but it was called Apartheid there. I was told that these things were wrong, but I also didn’t need to be told that. I immediately identified them as wrong as soon as they were described to me.

“You don’t need to explain to me what Jim Crow was or what Apartheid was,” I hear you say. “I know what those things were. I know they were wrong.”

Well, that’s a relief. Because it seems as if a lot of people either don’t know what those things were—or they do know, but they don’t realize they were wrong. How else could so many people have supported the discrimination and segregation regime of vaccine passports and mandates? These regimes also segregate and discriminate against a targeted class of people, but apply even stronger restrictions than Jim Crow or Apartheid did. Instead banning the targeted people from some jobs, some commercial establishments, and some schools, they were (in many places) banned from all jobs, all commercial establishments, all schools, and all public places. Instead of being forced to occupy the back of the bus, they were banished from the bus entirely.

The justification seems to be as follows: “Jim Crow and Apartheid were only wrong because those systems targeted the incorrect people to be stripped of their humanity, rights, and equality under the law. It’s actually good to institute segregation and discrimination regimes as long as the correct people are targeted to lose all their rights and humanity—and as long as it’s for an important enough reason.

This is different from the moral lesson I took away from Jim Crow and Apartheid. The lesson I learned was that it is always wrong to discriminate against people, and that it is always wrong to segregate society. It doesn’t matter how good your reasons are, or how good you think your reasons are. It’s wrong to treat human beings this way, no matter who they are, no matter how superior one believes oneself to be, no matter how inferior or dangerous the targeted group is believed to be.

Perhaps I’m the one who’s mistaken here. Perhaps I’m the one who is morally undeveloped. Perhaps I’m the one who has not realized that although we used to believe discrimination and segregation were always wrong—were always a gross violation of human rights and dignity—we know better now. We received a new memo: it teaches us that from now on, segregation and discrimination are not only permissible, but are good things. Our leaders will inform us when it is appropriate to do so, and who the new targeted classes of people are to be stripped of human considerations. My moral failing was in questioning this memo rather than abandoning my own moral sense when instructed to do so by the powerful.

Perhaps I’m the one who dropped the moral ball here, but I really don’t think so. I think we had it right before. In fact, I’m quite confident that the wrongness, dare I say the evils, of segregation and discrimination are as reprehensible today as they ever were in the past. I’m quite confident there is no correct group to discriminate against or segregate from society. There is no correct group to strip of basic human rights as a consequence of belonging to that group.

As society regains its (relative) sobriety, the depth and gravity of the moral crimes committed in the name of fighting covid will become increasingly apparent. The moral bankruptcy of leaders across the world will become evident, and the moral weight that adheres to those who followed them will be felt. Some will come to recognize their support for systems of segregation and discrimination after years of believing they had just been “doing what’s right.” They will look at their old Black Lives Matter signs lying in their closets and will start to ask themselves “Who am I really? What have I become? How did this happen?” Others will come to recognize that they are willing to support (or at least go along with) any atrocity, any societal crime, as long as it enjoys popular approval and the plaudits of our brave leadership class. It will be someone else’s responsibility—someone wielding power—to tell them what is right and wrong.

Jobs lost. Careers ended. Families riven. Homes and livelihoods shattered. Friendships destroyed. Hearts broken. Humanity divided. These are some of the consequences of the vaccine segregation and discrimination regime that thankfully seems to have receded, gradually passing into the annals of history as a moral stain on the human conscience of the 2020s. But no problem, right? There was never anything to worry about. It was always safe to do nothing and say nothing in protest of what was happening. It was always inevitable that other people would resist these measures and prevent them from becoming permanent.

Except it wasn’t inevitable. These measures would have become permanent if no one had resisted them—if there hadn’t been protests around the world, week after week, month after month—protests like that of the Canadian trucker convoy. We owe it to those truckers and other protestors whose very bank accounts were frozen by the Canadian government for the crime of opposing official state policies of segregation and discrimination. We owe it to them, and to everyone the world over who saw what was happening and said a word against it, lifted a sign or a voice in protest, donated a dollar to resistance movements, or refused to comply with an immoral mandate. We owe it to them for sparing us the horror of plumbing the depths of humanity’s moral weakness and vacant conscience—spared from witnessing how far human beings of the ‘20s are willing to be led down the path of moral atrocity.


No Reckoning for the Leadership

Most will not wish to invite a moral reckoning regarding these matters. It doesn’t feel great. And if no one is forcing a moral reckoning to occur, it’s only natural to push that reckoning aside and retreat into denial and amnesia. If our brave leaders implore us to forget what was done in the name of fighting covid, to let it all flutter down the memory hole, why not permit ourselves to do so? Didn’t we allow ourselves to be led by them without question? Didn’t we trust them when they assured us that anyone who questioned their policies, their reasoning, their morality, or their scientific assertions should be censored, silenced, and ignored? Why not trust them again when they assure us that no moral crimes were committed—that no lies or deceptions occurred, only mistakes—that we can continue to trust them in silencing and stripping rights from their enemies? Why not do so? Why have a moral reckoning when the corrupt leaders of society are willing to give you a free pass? It’s an all-around good deal: no moral reckoning for them, and no moral reckoning for us either.

Among the most astonishing examples of memory-hole denialism the general public seems willing to offer these leaders is in regards to the origins and existence of covid and SarsCov2 itself. Do you remember how they self-righteously proclaimed back in March 2020 (and for the next year) that SarsCov2 had a natural origin, that it couldn’t possibly have originated in a bioweapons research lab? Do you remember how they censored and deplatformed anyone who insisted that a laboratory origin made sense, or that evidence pointed to this as a reality? Do you remember how Dr. Fauci and others denied having funded the gain-of-function research that resulted in the creation of SarsCov2 in American and Chinese laboratories? Do you remember how the funding for this research was found to have originated in DARPA, the technological development arm of the Pentagon? Do you remember how the government and the media quietly retracted everything they said about the natural origin pangolin/bat/wet market mythology they had invented from whole cloth and foisted upon the public? Do you remember how our corporate press eventually admitted that SarsCov2 was “probably” an artificially created chimeric virus? One that would never have existed but for the illegal and immoral bioweapons research of the US and Chinese governments?

It doesn’t seem that anyone remembers these things aside from me and a few other disreputable troublemakers who can’t just let bygones be bygones. We can’t seem to accept that part of the price of having governments is that highly contagious bioweapons are going to be created by them and released from time to time. We can’t just accept that when our hapless governments create and release these microscopic frankenviruses, we will all be duty-bound to allow those same governments to strip our rights away from us, to institute immoral segregation and discrimination regimes, and to issue illegal mandates in order to “win the fight” against the atrocious bioweapons they were responsible for creating and unleashing on us in the first place.

“Let’s not get crazy,” I hear you say, speaking with the voice of kind, gentle, wise reason. “Let’s have compassion for our brave leaders in the military and government, and for their courageous talking puppet heads in the corporate press. You can’t possibly be saying they would release such a virus on purpose! It was just an accident! It could happen to the best of us.”

Does it matter if it was on purpose or an accident? They created it on purpose. They violated international treaties on bioweapons in doing so on purpose. They lied about doing so on purpose. I don’t care if they released it on purpose or if it was just an accident. I demand accountability. Every citizen in the world ought to demand accountability. Where is the reckoning for our morally reprehensible leadership class? It’s nowhere to be found. Even among those of us who have protested all of these covid measures and the long-term technocratic agenda behind them—there is little interest in a moral accounting for the creation and release of SarsCov2, nor for the lies about doing so. It’s as if both supporters and opponents of unaccountable government and military criminality have just resigned themselves to this as the inevitable state of affairs. Of course we’re going to have criminal governments that create bioweapons with no other purpose than infecting and harming as many human beings as their mad scientists can figure out how to achieve. The only question is whether or not to allow those governments to impose authoritarian public health regimes on the populace after their bioweapons are unleashed on them.

We ought to have Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Peter Daszak, Tony Fauci, Xi Jinping—and anyone else who had any part or responsibility in this happening—on trial and under oath. They ought to be giving us the names of the scientists, politicians, financiers, officials, generals, and journalists who had a hand in creating this damned thing or covering it up. Head should roll (figuratively of course). If all those who are guilty don’t go to jail, they should at least be removed from their positions of power. There should be consequences for this kind of crime. Any of these amoral leaders who have us all by the balls in this world ought to think twice before afflicting the planet with their reckless science experiments in the future. They won’t think even once about it if there are never consequences; they’ll just keep making more of these diseases. And it seems almost certain there will be zero consequences for these people or for those who follow in their footsteps in the years to come. Our leaders have a blank check to do whatever they want to us and the world because the people of that world are suffering from collective amnesia, denial, and moral resignation.

When one truly stops to consider this issue, the situation is utterly abhorrent. Billions around the world have been panicked and terrorized by their fear of this virus for two years. Some have lost their lives to it. And yet there is no public discussion about the fact that these bioweapons programs exist, no questioning about whether they should exist, no scrutiny regarding who has responsibility for oversight of these programs, no scrutiny of safety procedures, no risk evaluations of the programs themselves, no discussion of accountability for those who lied about these programs, no demands for those responsible for SarsCov2 to be affirmatively identified and removed from power. Nothing. Nothing but the deafening silence of a terrorized, demoralized populace that has come to expect that their governments will spend years creating viruses designed to harm human beings, infect the world with such viruses once created, lie about doing so, and then impose draconian lockdowns and mandates on the afflicted populace, along with ubiquitous propaganda and censorship campaigns to control public perception and protect the criminals responsible for it. All of this is accepted as a matter of course.

We are living in a moral vacuum—a dreamspell of hypnosis, denial, and programmable reactivity. The public has been trained to export their moral agency to the institutional leaders of government, science, medicine, academia, business, and the mass media. The public has been instructed that the way to be a good person is to obey whatever rules and commands are promulgated by these leaders—to leave the moral reasoning to them. It’s no wonder the public does not demand a moral reckoning. Once the abject lack of any recognizable moral sense is clearly revealed and acknowledged among this leadership class, the people would no longer be able to abdicate their own moral reasoning to them—they would be forced to engage in this reasoning themselves, to assume personal responsibility for it—and this would bring up a whole host of further moral reckonings.


The Moral Consequences of Medical Malfeasance

There is much more to reckon with. At the time of this writing, in April 2022, large numbers of people still have no idea at all that the covid vaccines have caused high numbers of deaths and injury. Most Americans have no idea what VAERS (the vaccine adverse event reporting system) is; they have no idea that the CDC runs this database to catalog vaccine deaths and injuries. They have no idea that over 25,000 American deaths and 1,000,000 injuries from the covid vaccines have already been catalogued in this database, nor do they suspect that these deaths and injuries may be vastly underreported. Please consult prior articles of mine for information and external links that will confirm these facts—that is, if you really want to know. The wealth of links and resources I provided in How to Inform Oneself While Living Under a Censorship Regime will be more than adequate as a starting place.

Most people likewise have no idea that numerous studies have demonstrated time and time again that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin D3, among other covid treatment and preventative protocols have stellar efficacy and safety records. They have no idea that in countries around the world where these medications and protocols were employed, cases of covid and deaths from the disease plummeted to very low levels. They have no idea that these treatments were deliberately suppressed by Western governments, and by their institutional and media leaders, in order to pave the way for the covid vaccines as the only accepted remedy. They have no idea that officially sanctioned hospital treatments of ventilators and Remdesivir have resulted in thousands of needless deaths rather than saving lives. They have no conception of the hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths these policies have wrought across the world, or the millions of injuries.

In most cases, when paragraphs like the ones I’ve written above somehow sneak through the censorship dragnet and enter the eyes of a reader who still trusts and obeys the institutional powers that shape our perception, the words and meaning they convey will never register. The dutiful reader has already been informed that any negative information about covid vaccines and any positive information about other treatments are all to be considered dangerous misinformation. This information is to be considered so dangerous and so insidious it should never be examined to determine whether it might actually be true, other than by clicking on a spurious debunking blurb from a self-appointed “fact-checker.” Misinformation, you see, is so powerful, and so cleverly constructed that anyone who actually engages with it is bound to be deceived into believing it is actually true. The actual truth has no chance to prevail in the light of day when challenged by covid misinformation, probably created by Russian assets to turn the minds of pliant Westerners into mishmash and mush.

That’s what happened to me, I’m afraid. You see, I’m one of those people who trusts my own ability to discern truth and logic more than I trust established authorities to decide for me what is true and what I should believe

I should have known that these elite authorities are the only people in the world who have the mental power and acuity required to unweave the mind-altering deceptions promulgated by Putin and other enemies of decency. As a result, I listened to both sides of every dispute, I reviewed the evidence cited on every side, I considered the critiques and counter-critiques offered in all directions, I applied reasoning, logic, and context, informed by values and moral principles—and became hopelessly transformed into a deranged QAnon, Trump loving, right-wing fanatic and Putin puppet. My feeble mind proved too weak for their dastardly manipulations.

Or did it? If the above narrative about my brainwashing (and that of millions of others) is losing credibility in your mind, dear reader, perhaps you might consider the alternative—that I, like millions of others, have arrived at these views because evidence, logic, and reason support these views. And if that is true, it means our leaders have abused their power in unconscionable ways—and their moral reckoning awaits.


Coming to Terms with Responsibility

It’s quite understandable that most people would choose to continue believing the prevailing narrative of the institutional leaders, rather than come to terms with the moral consequences of what has been done. The gravity of the harm inflicted on the people of the world is truly staggering, especially since they recruited all of us to be willing (but unwitting) accomplices. Like good soldiers, we were supposed to do our part. We were supposed to sacrifice, follow orders, remain faithful and loyal, and harm the enemies selected for us by our generals. We were supposed to trust—and we were promised that we could contribute to the greater good by doing so. The noblest instincts of care and compassion for humanity were activated in the people of the world and then callously subverted and betrayed. This has enriched and empowered the predator class who issued our orders and grievously harmed millions throughout the world.

Let us summarize some of the harms:

1. Creating and (intentionally or not) releasing a highly contagious bioweapon on the people of the world—then lying about having done that.

2. Deceiving the public regarding the nature of the harms and dangers of the bioweapon (including exaggerating these harms to instill greater levels of terror and justify stricter lockdowns and mandates).

3. Deceiving the public into rejecting safe and effective covid treatments already available at the time the bioweapon was released.

4. Preventing the public from accessing these treatments, resulting in untold thousands of preventable deaths and injuries.

5. Using lockdowns to psychologically terrorize the people of the world, devastate world economic systems, seize power, transfer wealth upwards, and induce unquestioning obedience to authority.

6. Disrupting food security and access to medical care for millions through these lockdowns, causing uncounted thousands of deaths.

7. Afflicting millions with psychological distress through imposed isolation, job loss, and business closures, with uncounted thousands of additional deaths as a result.

8. Forcing masks on people (through more deception), which impaired health through lack of fresh air, disrupted social connections, turned people against one another, and psychologically abused them further.

9. Promoting dangerous and ineffective vaccines that did almost nothing to protect people from covid while exposing them to risk of injury and death, killing or maiming many thousands in the process.

10. Imposing a censorship regime to stifle knowledge, restrict access to the truth, and shield the powerful from all criticisms and accountability.

11. Introducing societal systems of discrimination and segregation to separate people from their rights, their dignity, and their humanity.


None of these measures did anything to prevent the spread of covid. None of these measures were capable of stopping the spread of SarsCov2, let alone eliminate it. Yet at the time of implementation, those who critiqued or even questioned the measures were met with bile and opprobrium. Consider the harm that could have been prevented if critiques had been permitted. Consider the lives that could have been saved if not for the self-righteous surety that our institutional leaders could never lead us astray—and if not for the willingness to act on that misplaced surety. The moral reckoning beckons.

The only measure that could have spared the world from SarsCov2 would have been to refrain from creating it in the first place. Since it is not possible to go back in time and prevent global military biotech interests from creating SarsCov2, the only measure left to us—the only measure that makes sense—is to demand accountability and consequences for those who did so. This, at least, may prevent the creation and release of new bioweapons in the future. The measure we need, and the one that is not happening, is that of a moral reckoning.

Worse than all the harms listed above are the harms that have been done to the children of the world. As adults, we can be held responsible for ourselves and our actions, even though most of us have abdicated that responsibility to leaders in government, media, and industry. But our children have no choice but to rely on us for guidance and provision of safety. They have no choice but to trust us, and that trust has been deeply betrayed. Our children have been psychologically terrorized as well. They have been forced into masks at school that distort their sense of their own humanity, warp their social relationships, and humiliate them into obedience training while stifling their breath and access to fresh air. They are left utterly confused about questions of risk, health, and safety. Moreover, millions of children have received covid vaccines they do not need (and which do very little to protect against covid anyway), bearing almost zero risk from covid at that age. Thousands of these children have been injured or killed as a result.

In particular, the potential long-term damage done to the immune systems of millions of children and adults by these vaccines represent another massive harm, the scope of which still remains to be seen.


A River in Egypt

When it comes to the harms caused by these vaccines, we are all encouraged, even implored, to deny any possibility of the harm they have caused. Denial is the coin of the realm in our global technocratic biohacking medical regime. We are required to believe that synthetic toxins in our food, water, air, and medicine cannot possibly be harming us. We are required to believe that DNA and RNA modification imbedded in our food and vaccines could not possibly harm the natural immune function of our bodies. All over the world, people discover themselves to be suffering from mysterious bouts of chronic fatigue, inflammation, malaise, allergies, and digestive disorders. We discover ourselves to be suffering from neurological conditions and autoimmune disorders with no understanding of their origin. We are told that such conditions must be due to our own faulty genetics, that they occur spontaneously. We are told to ignore the explosive rate of growth in these conditions over the past 30 years as our bodies have become bombarded with glyphocate, GMO foods, EMF radiation, and a vastly expanded childhood vaccine schedule.

To understand the role of this denial, consider a lens on two different worlds.

In World A, we view masked children at school with appreciation. We are thankful for this precaution to guard their safety. As parents, we dutifully learn the steps to take from our trusted leaders to provide for our children and keep them safe from harm so they can grow and flourish. We conscientiously ensure they receive every recommended vaccine at the scheduled time throughout their lives to protect them from disease, and we get them vaccinated and boosted with covid shots as soon as we’re able, adding a further layer of protection, love and care. Our children’s autism, ADHD, allergies, immune disorders, and other chronic health conditions are all the consequence of genetic circumstance. When our children receive these diagnoses, we lovingly provide them with recommended pharmaceutical interventions to support them as best we can. We are thankful to live in a world of advanced medical science and trusted authorities so our children are able to receive treatment for these conditions and stay safe from infectious disease.

In World B, on the other hand, we view masked children at school as victims of psychological child abuse, forced to cover their faces in service to a series of lies, training them to view their own breath as a threat to themselves and others, obscuring the unique and precious humanity expressed by their beautiful faces, instilling them with fear, shame, and conformity, arresting their spirits. We are wracked with guilt and doubt, wondering if the food we fed them, or the vaccines they received at our insistence were responsible for their immune, neurological and allergic conditions. We see a medical-state-industrial establishment that refuses to answer our questions about these pharmaceuticals, refuses to acknowledge or engage with the evidence we’ve found of the risks they pose to our children’s health. We see this establishment with its mask and vaccine mandates, conveying one uniform message: your body is not your own, you are not allowed to question, you do not deserve honest or thorough answers—your only duty is to obey, and to place your health and body, and the health and body of your child, wholly in the hands of a faceless, profit-driven bureaucracy that views human beings as numbers. And your duty is to socialize your children to do the same when they come of age.

It’s thoroughly clear why most parents would choose to live in World A, given the option. And it’s so easy to do. All that’s required is to trust authority and leave the decision-making to them. There is one more requirement: one must never look into the perspective that informs the parents who live in World B. One must never honestly engage in the research and evidence that supports it. One must never listen to the stories of parents with vaccine-injured children, or to those children themselves, or to the doctors who have studied the issue. One must simply look the other way. Just look the other way.

I’ve never met someone who honestly looked into the perspective of World B in good faith and came away from it still living in World A

One does not always emerge with total confidence regarding what’s true after engaging in World B—there may be questions about some, but not all vaccines; some, but not all pharmaceuticals; some, but not all synthetic foods; some, but not all covid restrictions. But however one emerges, there will be grave doubts about the tenets of World A. There will be deep concerns and distrust regarding the ways that these doubts are forbidden to talk about and are never adequately answered by the keepers of the World A reality. The profound moral implications of refusing to bring these concerns to light will cut deep to the bone.


The Crux of the Moral Reckoning

At the heart of this entire dynamic lies a social contract that props up the World A narrative and forbids a moral reckoning. Under the terms of this contract, we, the good citizens, are perpetually kept in a state of childhood. We are not responsible moral agents. Our leaders and institutions assume that responsibility for us. They remain forever our parents. Father knows best. There can be no moral reckoning, because we are not morally responsible. It is therefore unthinkable to attempt to hold our parents morally responsible. We implicitly trust that they are good parents, not abusive parents. We train our children to regard them the same way. As child-parents to our own children, our job is to successfully condition our children to remain moral children forever, as we have. They, and we, are to be socialized as respectful, obedient, and cooperative. We are not to become self-responsible as full adults with moral agency. Our responsibility is to be good children: to listen attentively for our instructions and carry them out to the letter. Our entire school system is designed to produce adult children of this character.

We live in a complex world with innumerable demands on our time, energy, and thought. The social contract acknowledges this and assures us the only possible way such a world can function is by accepting our roles as children, obedient to the institutional parents. We have never been prepared for adulthood. Our entire conditioning has forcefully dissuaded us from assuming the role of a self-responsible moral agent. We have never been prepared for sovereignty. It’s completely understandable that stepping into ourselves fully in this way seems impossible and absurd.

And yet, for those of us who have discovered ourselves to be living in World B, assuming our moral responsibility and sovereignty is the only possible response, given the realities of our world. Our institutional parents are not wise; they are not loving; they are not truthful. They are abusive. They are immoral. And from this perspective, we are able to recognize that the parent/child dynamic of the social contract we’ve been offered could never have led to a different result. The contract has been shattered, trust has been betrayed, and no leader can arise to restore morality to the system. A system of leaders and children can never be moral. This is because children cannot hold adults responsible. Only sovereign moral agents can hold another moral agent responsible. Only adults are equipped to experience a moral reckoning, or to deliver the reckoning to others. Absent these adults, only the unscrupulous and corrupt are able to achieve leadership and maintain power.

It is not our destiny to remain perpetual children. This cannot be the purpose or proper outcome for the life of a human being. Our moral reckoning must begin with ourselves, and it must begin by assuming responsibility for ourselves, our beliefs, our actions, and our values. We may not be prepared for adulthood. It may come as a shock to discover that although we have held jobs, paid bills, and raised children, we did not become adults by doing so. There is no need for shame in this. There is no need for condemnation or defensiveness. These are the tools used to cow and condition children into obedience and collapse. It is time to set these tools aside; they have no use in our moral reckoning. All that is needed is to assume self-responsibility as a moral agent from this moment forward.

Two years to flatten the curve has brought many of us to this reckoning. Since the summer of 2020, I’ve been writing articles about our collective hypnosis, seeking ways to raise consciousness on these issues, to release our minds from the grips of our morally bankrupt leaders and institutions. The moral awakening must arise from the people themselves. Humanity has reached a crisis point in its spiritual evolution. We are called to reclaim our sovereignty as individuals and remake our societal collective in alignment with that principle. Failure to do so will perpetuate our arrested development. We will remain helpless, disempowered children, ruled over by leaders who are children themselves. The technocratic leadership class has vacated its own moral agency as well, you see. As such, they are no more adults than we. They defer to the principles of the machine, of power for the sake of control—spiritual oblivion for the sake of illusory order.

Our moral rebirth will require an understanding of spiritual principles and truths. It will require a deeper knowledge of our own psyches. We are called upon to confront our shadows, reclaim our exiled parts, and bring daylight to bear on disturbing truths. My future articles will increasingly be written in service of this calling. Evidence already abounds of the moral failings present in our leadership and institutions—of their lies, deceptions, and power grabs. But such evidence can find no purchase among hearts and minds closed to their own moral agency. The systems of containment that perpetuate our prolonged childhood must be identified and dissolved. In casting aside moral abdication through deference to authority, we must rediscover ourselves and reclaim our self-respect, dignity, and responsibility. We must become the spiritually aware adults we truly are.

A New Earth awaits. Join us.

Thursday, April 7, 2022

IPCC WGIII (posted April 7; updated April 10)

Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

The Working Group III report provides an updated global assessment of climate change mitigation progress and pledges, and examines the sources of global emissions. It explains developments in emission reduction and mitigation efforts, assessing the impact of national climate pledges in relation to long-term emissions goals.


'It is time to stop burning our planet'. The Ecologist. Apr.7, 2022.

.... "We used to chant “1.5, we might survive” - 1.5 was already a compromise for frontline communities suffering the worst climate impacts. The IPCC’s WGII climate scientists told us only last month that breaching this guard-rail, even temporarily, could push us over a series of tipping points that would lead to uncontrollable warming.

"It would be grossly negligent for economists to ignore those warnings and propose inequitable mitigation plans that allow for an overshoot, as is now on the table with this new report."


Shortcomings of IPCC AR6 WGIII - Mitigation of Climate Change. Arctic News. Apr. 5, 2022.



********** added April 10 **********

 The Age of Climate Limits. Albert Bates. Apr. 10, 2022.

"Science has given us a three year deadline to end growth as we know it."

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) consists of contributions from each of the three IPCC Working Groups and a Synthesis Report, which integrates all the reports produced in the 10-year cycle. While “net-zero by 2050” is a slogan that gives everyone permission to slack off, the latest and final working group report released this week puts the challenge into sharper focus: carbon emissions must peak by 2025. We are three and one half years from the End of Growth. We then enter the long awaited Age of Limits. Will we do it? Former UNFCCC President Christiana Figueres sounds like she is scolding an unruly teenager:
I’m lacking words for this…. What is suicidal is our inability to take the decisions and enact the behavioral changes that we perfectly well can in order to align our planet with the Paris Agreement. That’s the problem. There is nothing new that any report can tell us about what we should be doing. The gap that we identified years ago is not closing; in fact, it’s enlarging. That’s the news. It’s tragic.

Scornful daddy António Guterres, UN secretary-general, said the kid was a “file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track towards an unlivable world.”

Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals. But the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels.

........

If Covid taught us anything, it was that the status quo is a frail construct. It can vanish in an instant, or at least over the course of a few weeks. This is what the people in Ukraine witnessed, at least one by a hail of machine gun fire as he bicycled to the grocery. It is what happened to those in Lismore and Byron Bay who saw their homes rain bombed underwater to the rooftops for the second time in a month, or to those who watched their lifetime possessions vanish in wildfires of scale and speed no one had imagined possible. The shock of sudden change is how a two-year (and soon to be longer) pandemic convinced so many to leave their professional careers and switch to a different life path rather than go back to what they had been doing before. We have been shaken from dreary normalcy and been made aware of how precarious the world of our making has become, and how we could be spending our days in more meaningful pursuits.

Many think the solution to climate change is public education. I don’t. I think people know. Most just don’t want to admit it, or do anything, unless they have to.

.....

The report could not have set the agenda any better.

If humanity still needs a climate strategy, I think these thousand scientists, finally reaching their difficult 150-hour marathon consensus in the early hours of Monday morning, provided it. Our effort must address the existential issue of our era: changing our cultural habits and deciding to live as if there will still be a tomorrow.

......

We could stop there, but if you are a glutton for punishment there is more. Here are some things the IPCC got wrong:

  • “Unabated” coal must be “completely” phased out by 2050. The “U” word is inserted at the insistence of coal producers (Joe Manchin, N. Modi, V. Putin) who still believe “clean coal” is a real thing. Instead, all coal should be phased out by 2025.
  • IPCC still forecasts that economic growth, coming on the back of ever growing energy supply, will continue into the indefinite future. There is little recognition of the caloric return of different energy types, EROIE, or rare mineral depletion — technocornucopian bias.
  • The Carbon Budget. Going all the way back to AR-1, IPCC has followed the chimera of a carbon budget that would allow underdeveloping countries (India, Nigeria, etc) to make up for the lost ground stolen by the overdeveloped nations in the 19th century by continuing to emit — and grow emissions annually — long after everyone else is forced to curtail. Originally the budget was 450 ppm, but when it was realized that would take us to 3 to 5 degrees warming, it was cut to 350, and then replaced with the 2 degree goal. This report says “a significant but very small carbon budget remains” to limit warming to 1.5°. It says the path to limit warming to 1.5° is extremely narrow, therefore this small budget should be used only by hard-to-decarbonize sectors, like steel mills, maritime shipping and airlines. This is preposterous! Even if all emissions stopped tomorrow, Earth would continue to warm. The budget concept is based on the flawed premise that if India were given 20 more years of Russian coal and gas every Indian will be living like a Swede or Dane does today, driving a Tesla and wintering in Ibiza. This is dangerous nonsense and should have been discarded long ago. We are already over budget and building huge stockpiles of atmospheric of carbon that must be removed at unknowable expense.
  • Natural climate solutions — biochar, carbon farming, agroforestry, land use changes and the like — are consistently undervalued (all can be cost negative, ie: profitable, if managed in a regenerative fashion) and excluded from the predictive models — while high tech solutions like BECCS, DACCS, and CCU are overvalued (they will cost trillions and rely on unremitting energy inputs) but included in the predictive models. The former consistently surprise by overperforming expectations. The latter consistently disappoint. And yet the IPCC refuses to admit it is betting its whole inheritance on the wrong horse.
  • For instance, while the value of biochar for Carbon Dioxide Removal has been elevated from 1.4 GtCO2/y potential to 6.6 GtCO2/y, that number is almost entirely based upon soil applications, with a slight nod to animal feed and water filtration. As I pointed out in my formal critique a year ago when the IPCC invited me to be a reviewer, the non-agricultural applications for biochar have 10x the drawdown potential, profitability and speed of deployment. I offered BURN and its hundreds of current references, but that was not mentioned. Paul Hawkens’ Drawdown (2017) was referenced but his more accurate biochar recalculation in Regeneration (2020) was overlooked.
  • A word search on “pets,” “dogs,” “cats,” and “ornamental fish” came up blank. The report estimates with high confidence that shifts to sustainable healthy diets have a “technical potential” to reduce emissions by 3.6 GtCO2e, with a range of 0.5 to 8 GtCO2e but says nothing about the carbon footprint of pets and pet food. Big blind spot. Creature comfort seems to be a taboo subject.
  • IPCC forecasts nuclear will expand 70% above 2019 by 2030 and 305% by 2050. Besides being economic fantasy, this demonstrates the callous willingness of engineers to burn future children to produce light, heat, and steam. It is unconscionable.
Here is what they got right:
  • Watching the breathtaking speed of the solar and wind build-out and price drop since the last report, the IPCC admitted it had gotten that wrong: “future energy transitions may occur more quickly than those in the past.”
  • They also admit that nuclear energy and clean coal technology, the darlings of earlier reports, have been “slower than…anticipated.”
  • It is beyond dispute now that reversing climate change will be far less expensive (and futile) than trying to live with it, or trying to tame nuclear fusion.
  • “Decommissioning and reduced utilization of existing fossil fuel installations in the power sector as well as cancellation of new installations are required to align future CO2 emissions from the power sector with projections in these pathways.” Stranded investment must happen. Live with it, Joe Manchin, Marsha Blackburn and Charles Koch.
  • “Bioenergy and BECCS are found to pose a risk to biodiversity, water, soil, air quality, resilience, livelihoods and food security.”
  • Global CO2 emissions must peak “at the latest before 2025” and then fall to 48% below 2019 levels by 2030, then 84% below by 2050.
  • The central impediment is not lack of solutions but human behavior, much of which is hard wired. What could expedite shifts would be “novel narratives” in the media and entertainment industry to “help to break away from the established values, discourses and the status quo.” For example: portray plant-based diets as healthy and natural; portray climate resisters as normal and climate polluters as regressive or evil (e.g.: Icelandic film: Woman at War).
  • For the first time, there is a chapter on “demand-side,” including diets and consumption patterns. Strapline: sustainable food systems that provide healthy diets for all are within reach. Healthy habitats — rural, periurban, or urban — are within reach. There is a better world waiting.



Saturday, February 12, 2022

Bardi: How we Became What we Used to Despise

How we Became What we Used to Despise. Turning the West into a New Soviet Union. Ugo Bardi. Feb.12, 2022.


For everything that happens, there is a reason for it to happen. Even for turning the former Free World into something that looks very much like the old "Evil Empire," the Soviet Union. I understand that this series of reflections will be seen as controversial, but I thought that this matter is fascinating enough to deserve a discussion

It all started two years ago when we were asked to stay home for two weeks "to flatten the curve." Two years later, we are looking, bewildered, at the wreckage around us and asking ourselves: 'what the hell has happened?'

In such a short time, we found that our world had turned into something very similar to one that we used to despite. The old Soviet Union, complete with heavy-handed police, censorship of the media, demonization of dissent, internal passports, and the state intruding on matters that, once, were thought to be part of every citizen's private decision sphere.

Surprising, perhaps. But it is a rule of the universe that everything that happens has a reason to happen. The Soviet Union was what it was because there were reasons for that. It was not an alien world populated by little green men. It was an empire similar to the Western one, just a little smaller, and it concluded its cycle a few decades before us. We can learn a lot from its story.

I would start by proposing to you an excerpt from Dmitri Orlov's book "Reinventing Collapse." Orlov, born in Russia, was among the first who noted the parallel path that the Western and the Soviet empire were following. Here, he tells us of an event he experienced in St. Petersburg in the years just after the collapse of the Union. At that time, the ruble was worth little more than the paper it was printed on. So, people who had dollars, as Orlov did, had a market power that ordinary Russians couldn't even dream of. We see the consequences of being so rich that you don't worry about carrying small change with you.
There was also an old woman in front of the store, selling buns from a tray. I offered her a thousand-ruble note. "Don't throw your money around!" she said. I offered to buy her entire tray. "What are the other people going to eat?" she asked. I went and stood in line for the cashier, presented my thousand-ruble note, got a pile of useless change and a receipt, presented the receipt at the counter, collected a glass of warm brown liquid, drank it, returned the glass, paid the old woman, got my sweet bun, and thanked her very much. It was a lesson in civility.
Looks like a funny story, but it is not just that. It is a deep metaphor of how a market economy works, and also how it may NOT work. The problem is that, unless some specific conditions are met, a market economy based on money is unstable. Money tends to end all in the hands of a few, leaving the rest with nothing. It is the law that says "the rich get richer" has a corollary that says "and everyone else gets poorer."

There is only a way to avoid that a market economy leads to the rich getting everything: it is growth. If the economy grows, then the rich cannot pull money out of the market fast enough to beggar everyone else. The result is the illusion of a fair share of the wealth, so you may understand why our leaders are so fixated with growth at all costs. But don't forget that those who believe that an economy can grow forever can only be madmen or economists.

So, how do you make the economy grow? The magic word is "resources." No resources, no growth (actually, no economy, either). And if you exploit a resource faster than it can reform (it is called overexploitation), then, at some moment, the whole system will crash down. It is what happened to the Soviet Union and may well happen to us, too. But let's go in order.

Let's go back to the story of Dmitry Orlov trying to buy a sweet bun in St. Petersburg. He had so much money that he risked to crash the whole market of sweet buns of that particular place. If the old woman had accepted Orlov's offer to buy the whole tray, the price of the buns would have skyrocketed to levels so high that nobody except him could have bought them. The standard Western economic theory has that, at that moment, another old woman with another tray should have magically appeared to sell buns. Supply must always match demand: it is a postulate. But things don't work like that in the real world.

The market mechanism that matches demand and offer, the way you are taught in the Economics 101 course, can work only in conditions of relative abundance. If people have dollars, then someone will make buns for them. If they only have rubles, then it may well be that nobody will bother making buns for them. But rubles and dollars are the same thing: pieces of paper with numbers printed on them. What makes the difference is a working -- or not working -- economy. The Russian economy after the fall of the Soviet Union wasn't working anymore: its roubles could still buy sweet buns (unless foreigners with dollars were passing by), but little more.

This market problem with the Soviet Economy was there even why before the collapse. The trouble was that the Soviet economy couldn't produce an output large enough to sustain a free market economy. To avoid collapse, the government had to play the role of the wise old woman in Orlov's story. The Soviet government used its five-year plans to make sure that sweet buns for the Soviet citizens were produced, that is, the fundamental needs for life: food, shelter, clothing, fuel, and some vodka.

The five-year plans also had the purpose to limit the production of items that were considered "luxuries." Nominally, the price of caviar in the Soviet Union was low enough that most Soviet citizens could have afforded it, in theory. But caviar was not normally available in shops. When a batch of caviar tins appeared, people would stand in line hoping that there were a few cans left for when their turn came. This feature avoided that the rich could corner the caviar market, driving prices sky-high, just like Dmitry Orlov could have done with the sweet buns. That gave to the ruble a certain aspect of "funny money." Soviet people used to say "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." The ruble was money, but it couldn't be always be used to buy what one wanted (just like when the Western government locked their citizens in their homes).

But why did the Soviet Union organize its economy in this way? In part, it was an ideological choice, but mostly because it was forced by the circumstances. The Soviet Union was rich in natural resources, especially mineral ones. That was an advantage, but also a temptation for its neighbors to invade it, turning it into "the world's gas station," as it was recently said. And that was not just a temptation: over a couple of centuries, the main state of the union, Russia, was invaded several times, the last time in 1941. The invading Germans had clearly stated that they wanted to exterminate some 20-30 million Russians had they managed to defeat the Soviet Union.

The consequence is obvious: in order to survive, the Soviet Empire had to match the rival Western Empire in military terms. But the Soviet economy was much smaller than the Western one: we can roughly estimate as about 40% of the US alone, to say nothing of the other economies that were part of the NATO alliance. To match the huge Western economic and military machine, the Soviet Union needed to funnel a huge fraction of the economic output into its military system. Measuring this fraction is not easy because of the various factors involved, but we can say that the Soviet military expenses nearly matched those of the US alone, although still remaining behind those of the sum of the NATO block. Another rough estimate is that the Soviet Union spent about 20% of its gross domestic product on its military during the cold war. Compare with the US: after WW2, military spending went gradually down from about 10% to the current value of about 2%. In relative terms, the USSR would normally spend four times more than the US for its military.

The need to funnel such a large amount of resources into the military was the origin of the nasty control that the Soviet state imposed on its citizens. It was a police state, had censorship of the media, internal passports, demonization of the dissent, and those who publicly disagreed that communism was the best possible government system were considered to have psychiatric problems. (I know that it looks very much like.... you know what, but let's keep going).

Not only the Soviet system was strained to the limit, but it was also critically dependent on the availability of cheap resources. It was vulnerable to depletion, probably the factor that caused its collapse in the late 1980s. It is not that the Soviet Union ran out of anything, but the costs of natural resources simply became incompatible for a large empire as the Union was. The core of the Empire, Russia, could return to being a functioning state only because it didn't have to pay the enormous costs related to keeping the Soviet Empire together.

Now the pieces of the puzzle go to their places: in the US, the government didn't need to intervene to throttle supply and avoid that the elites would corner the market. The free market would make it sure that everyone got their sweet bun. The combination of abundant resources and relatively low military expenses made it possible for the American citizens (most of them, at least) to enjoy an extravagant lifestyle, unthinkable elsewhere in the world. They lived in suburban houses, had two cars in every garage, could go wherever they wanted, have overseas vacations every year, buy whatever they wanted without standing in line. The US citizens could even afford a certain degree of variety in the information they received. The state control on the media was enacted in subtle ways, giving citizens the illusion that they were not exposed to propaganda.

It was the kind of lifestyle that president Bush said was "not up for negotiation" -- except that when you deal with Nature, everything is up to negotiation.

The current problem is that the resources that made the West so rich and so powerful, mainly crude oil and other fossil fuels, are not infinite. They are being depleted, and production costs increase with depletion. And that's not the only problem: something else is choking the Western economic system: it is the enormous cost of the health care system. In 2018, the US spent $3.6 trillion in health costs, nearly 18% of its GDP. Today, it is probably more than that. It is probably not a coincidence that big troubles started to appear when these costs reached the same level, about 20%, of the military expenses for the Soviet Union.

Someone has to pay for those costs, and the deadly mechanism of wealth concentration is starting to appear. The result is that the poor are being gradually squeezed out of the market. And here is the problem: those who have no money to spend can't buy their sweet buns. They can't buy anything and they become "non-people." (aka "deplorables"). What is to be done with them? A possible solution (that I am sure some elites are contemplating), is just to let them die and cease to be a problem (it is the zombie scenario). But we are not there, yet. The elites themselves don't want the chaos that would result from leading a large fraction of the Western society to starvation. But if they don't have money, how can they buy food?

The solution is well known from ancient times: it is rationing. The Romans had already developed a system called "Annona" that distributed food to the poor. The Soviets used a kind of funny money called "ruble." In the West, rationing seems to be a silly idea but if there is a serious economic crash -- as it is perfectly possible -- it will be the zombie apocalypse all over simply because there is no mechanism in place to limit those who have money from hoarding all they can, when they can. And leaving the others starving.

That explains many of the things we have seen happening: whereas the Soviet Government acted by restricting supply, the Western ones may find it easier to restrict demand. The lockdowns of 2020 seem to have had exactly that purpose, as argued convincingly by Fabio Vighi. Their effect was to reduce consumption, cool down the economy, and avoid a crash of the REPO market that seemed to be imminent.

Once you start thinking in these terms, you see how more pieces of the puzzle fall to their places. The West is moving to reorganize its economy in a more centrally controlled manner, as argued, among others, by Shoshana Zuboff. That means reducing private consumption and using the remaining resources to keep the system alive facing the twin threat of depletion and pollution, the latter also in the form of climate change.

And that's what happened and what's happening. Not that there was a command center somewhere that dictated the various actions that governments took over the last two years. It was just a series of common interests among different lobbies that happened to be compatible with each other. The financial lobby was terrified of a new financial crash, worse than that of 2008, and pushed for the control of the economy. The pharmaceutical lobby saw a chance to obtain huge profits from forcing medical treatments on everyone. And states saw their chance to gain control of their citizens at a level they couldn't have dreamed of before.

Lockdowns were just a temporary test. The final result was the "Vaccination QR code." At present, it has been imposed as a sanitary measure, but it can be used to control all economic transactions, that is what individuals can or cannot buy. It is much better than the lines in front of shops of the old Soviet Union, so it may be used to ration essential goods before the zombies start marching.

Does that mean that the QR code is a good thing? No, but do not forget the basic rule of the universe: for everything that happens there is a reason. Before the current crisis, the Western society had embarked on a free ride of wasteful consumption: it was good as long as it lasted. Now, it is the time of reckoning. In this sense, if the QR code it were used for the good of society, it could be a fundamental instrument to avoid waste, reduce pollution, provide at least a basic supply of goods for everyone.

Then, of course, the QR can do that only if the citizens trust their government and governments trust their citizens. Here, we see the limits of the Western approach to governance. During the past decades, the Western governments couldn't do anything important without imposing it on their citizens by a shock-and-awe campaign of lies. That was the way in which governments imposed QR codes or, better said, they are trying to impose QR codes. The problem is that, over the years, the Western Governments have managed to lie to their citizens so many times that nowadays they have no credibility anymore.

So, what's going to happen? Several scenarios are possible. The Western governments may succeed in their "Sovietization" of society. In this case, we face at least a few decades of Soviet-like life: the government will use QR codes to control everything we do. If you dissent or protest, you'll risk being declared officially insane, and be subjected to mandatory psychiatric treatment (it could be much worse). You'll be also forced to submit to whatever treatment the pharmaceutical industry will decide is good for you. Bad, but at least you'll have something to eat and a roof under which to sleep. Don't forget that the Soviet citizens citizens survived (most of them, at least) and, in some periods, even prospered.

That's not the only possible outcome. We might just sidestep the "Soviet" phase and move directly to the "post-Soviet" one. It would mean the collapse of the Western Empire, fragmenting into smaller states. Lower governance costs are possible in smaller organizations and that could mean that the smaller states could recover, at least in part, just like Russia did (but there is also the example of Ukraine). In this case, the transition will be tough, it is not obvious that you'll have sweet buns for your breakfast.

But history never repeats: it just rhymes. So, the Soviet system is just one of the many possible ways that a state can control the supply of goods to society. There may be other ways, after all there was no Internet at the time of the Soviet Union and for us it could be a useful tool if we could learn to use it well. Because of the complexity and the versatility of the Internet, the Western society might manage to avoid the heavy top-down control that eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Maybe.

There are other possible scenarios, some even scarier than those I sketched before, and I won't go into that. But the future is full of surprises us and, who knows? It may even surprise us in a pleasant manner. And whatever we do, we must learn to be in friendly terms with the future: after all, it always becomes the present.