Teaching ourselves to fish

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he'll eat forever. Or so the old aphorism goes. But is it true given the current state of the evidence?

In Europe, the crisis is becoming dire as deep cuts to the numbers of fish extracted from the ocean are being proposed. For 2009,the following measures have been proposed:

• No fishing at all west of Scotland for cod, haddock and whiting west of Scotland;

• A 25% cut in herring catches in the North Sea and west of Scotland;

• A continued a ban on anchovy fishing in the Bay of Biscay;

• A new ban on fishing for spurdog and porbeagle, two species of deep-sea shark.

Ironically enough, these cuts come after a poorly thought out 11% increase in the numbers of cod taken agreed to last year...Bluefin tuna in the Atlantic are also threat of becoming depleted.

Sharks are also under extreme duress, with a quarter of sharks and rays threatened with being fished out of existence in the Northeast Atlantic. Critically endangered sharks in include the gulper shark, prized in the cosmetics industry for its liver oil, and the two sharks most valued in Europe for their meat -- the spiny dogfish and porbeagle sharks.

The shark's path to extinction isn't confined solely to Europe. Rising affluence in Asia is stoking demand for shark fin, widely viewed as a delicacy when shredded in soup. Much of this is supported by illegal fishing activity, with 'hotspots' found off Central and South America as well as in the western and central Pacific. Tragically, most of this catch is a complete and utter waste, because in many cases crews on illegal vessels slice the fins off sharks and dump the less valuable carcasses overboard.

Even the fish that aren't merely tossed overboard aren't particularly utilized in an efficient fashion. Nearly one third of 'forage fish' –anchovies, sardines and the like -- are ground-up into meal and fed to pigs, poultry, and even farm-raised fish. Domestic pigs and poultry are such gluttons for seafood that together they consume six times the amount of fish eaten in the United States and double the amount in Japan. These fish provide food for seabirds, marine mammals and larger fish; their removal may be putting the entire oceanic food web at risk.

Aquaculture -- fish-farming -- is apparently no better, particularly in the ocean. While perhaps feasible at a small-scale and as part of a larger process with multiple uses of water, a group is claiming that ocean salmon farming is devastating the world's oceans.

Three or more kilogrammes of wild fish is needed to produce one kilo of farmed salmon. The ocean bottoms under and around the open-ocean net pens are usually devoid of any life, buried under the excrement of up to a million salmon overhead...

Other impacts of the farms, including rampant disease and salmon as invasive species, are described in the linked article.

Overfishing (and its disruption to the biosphere) is but one of the many consequences of humanity's reckless exploitation of the natural environment. The ongoing Great CO2 Enhancement Experiment is also having strong impacts: Increasingly rapid ocean acidification; ecosystem changes driven by the unusual(?) melting of the Arctic ice caps, Indian ocean circulation oddities wrought by both natural variability and climate change. Humanity takes from the natural world, contributing little (if anything) back.

Because the oceans are owned by everyone and no one, a classic 'tragedy of the commons' scenario arises. All take, few give back. Laissez-faire rules the day. Some toothless attempts are made to curb the excess: agreements, quotas, licenses and such are easy to write and impose. We have heaps of them now regarding fisheries. Unfortunately, only those law-abiding souls with a conscience are bound by them; the dominant economic and social paradigms dictate that such people are losers, in both the literal and pejorative sense*. The oceans are too big to effectively police; people can and will (and indeed do) take what they want when they want it. Given the performance to date, this strategy is unlikely to succeed.

The parable cited above is remains true. Metaphorically speaking, Gaia has just been giving us fish; the earth is finite, unlike our seemingly insatiable demands. Humanity has not learned to fish yet, because we have failed to heed the lessons. The most straightforward path, as twisty as it may be, is to make the cost of extracting resources (like fish) prohibitively expensive when done at unsustainable levels. Given that money is about the only thing(s) that gets anyone's attention, the changes must be economic. Proper valuation of environmental considerations must be made in the general economy. This pretty much requires a change in the value system (of the global North in particular, but everyone really) lives by. Consumption must once again come to refer primarily to tuberculosis, not Our Way of Life.

It is late in the piece, and dramatic changes to the planetary ecosystem could be 'locked in'. Or not, we don't know for sure. The risks are large and we should act as best we can. It is time to listen to the lessons being taught and learn to fish.

**
*Summarizing the paradigm, not a personal viewpoint...
Image: Spiny dogfish shark found dead in a net. From The Guardian.

Scenes from a dying Earth?

A nice collection of NASA satellite imagery captured this month over at guardian.co.uk. Typical planet doom? -type material. Worth a look if you're in to that sort of thing!

The image shows the diversion of the Kosi River (India) into an unused channel, a result of heavy monsoon rain further upstream. Floods continue in the region.

Other images in the collection show

• 'concerning' cracks forming in the Petermann Glacier in Greenland, generally symbolic of the rapid, human-induced decline of the Arctic in recent years.

• large wildfires in southern Africa, which have resulted in at least 89 deaths.

• hurricane-affected regions of the Caribbean –Cuba and Haiti have been hit particularly hard several hurricanes. Galveston and the rest of SE Texas have also been heavily affected by Hurricane Ike (Cat 2 at US landfall; 4 in Cuba)).

Snapshots of a dying planet, or just run-of-the-mill climate varibility? These images show nothing definitive, no Cataclysms. Just more datapoints documenting a changing environment, driven by both natural and anthropogenic forces. Only time will tell (and that time may well be soon...).

**

In other news, posting is likely to continue to be lite-N-fluffy here for the foreseeable future – lots of meatspace obligations and a touch of burnout. I haven't given up, though...just a bit of a break. The 'collection of found items' in the sidebar will continue to be updated regardless of the level of posting activity.

World's great lakes under threat

A lake is the landscape's most beautiful and expressive feature. It is earth's eye; looking into which the beholder measures the depth of his own nature. ~Henry David Thoreau

Lakes are indeed expressive, and reflecting upon them -- listening to what they are telling us -- does not speak well of humanity's essence. Many of these great lakes are under threat; poisoned, dried-out shadows of their former selves. These lakes are vitally important for their local area, influencing the local weather and providing economic and physical resources for all the flora and fauna. Loss of these resources can prove disastrous (and indeed has...) for the region. The problem is global. And while the immediate sources of danger to the lakes are myriad, the impetus behind them all is the usual suspect, humankind. Our influence ubiquitous; the consequence of Our Way of Life.

On the border of Bolivia and Peru, Lake Titicaca is undeniably polluted, though no detailed studies of the water's state have been done. One apparent cause is 'enormous natural ponds filled with a toxic cocktail of sewage, organic pollution and industrial and mining waste'. The lack of sewage treatment is also a concern for many communities as well. This not only makes the water undrinkable, but the aquatic plants of the lake absorb much of the pollution. These plants are subsequently used as fertilizer or hay to feed livestock. The net result spreading the pollutants into the wider system, with unknown effect.

Out amongst the melting permafrost of Siberia lies Russia's Lake Baikal. The lake is warming rapidly, over 1 degree since the 1940s. This is related to a loss in the annual number of days with ice cover, 18 days fewer in the last 100 years. The changing conditions are posing a threat to the local flora and fauna:

...Baikal's seal, which raises its pups on the ice, could suffer because the animal has several onshore predators. If ice caves the pups are raised in melt, Asian crows could also eat the pups...

Changes in the food cycle have already been seen. Numbers of multicellular zooplankton, which normally live in warmer waters, have increased 335 percent since 1946, while numbers of chlorophyll have risen 300 percent since 1979...

North America's Great Lakes have been an ongoing concern since the 1960s and 70s when high levels of pollution were noted in Lake Erie. Some of these problems, while more under control, exist into the 21^st century. Last year, Lake Superior saw record low water levels, a trend expected to continue as a result of the Great CO2 Enhancement Experiment. As with Lake Baikal, warmer temperatures and reduced ice cover result in enhanced evaporation and lower water levels.

The spread of invasive species also threatens the Great Lakes. The Diporeia, a small 'shrimp-like energy dense creature', is undergoing a 'population freefall'. This critter was/is a 'major food source for commercially important species like lake whitefish and many prey fish upon which salmon, trout and walleye rely.' The cause(s):

The spread of invasive zebra and quagga mussels - voracious filter feeders with an overlapping diet - largely coincides with Diporeia's decline and is widely believed to be at least partially responsible. But research cannot yet explain the link...

...[A]nother possible contributor to Diporeia's decline: water pollutants like pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), flame retardants or others.

[...]Regardless of the reason, Diporeia's decline has already had some measurable negative effects on various fish species. Alewives...have declined in growth rates, condition...and caloric density since Diporeia populations began declining...

The Great Rift Valley of eastern Africa features its own set of 'Great Lakes'. A recently issued report Africa: Atlas of our Changing Environment details (with excellent satellite imagery) many of the ecological issues facing the region. Lake Victoria was invaded by water hyacinth in the 1990s. Pollution and fluctuating lake levels are also an issue. Many of the problems have their source in the rapid population growth around the lake. Further south, Lake Mawali is suffering from overfishing of the easily-accessible shallow waters. The nutrient-loading of the lake is also being change by fertilizer runoff

A particularly striking case of human-caused ecological disaster is Lake Chad, bordered by Chad, Cameroon, Niger, Central African Republic and Nigeria. The last part of the Sahel diary of UN Special Advisor Jan Egeland provides some insight:

Today we visited what was once Lake Chad in eastern Niger, which as recently as the 1960s covered a total 25,000 sq km, of which 4,000 sq km were inside Niger. Since the droughts that have been recurrent since the 1970s the lake has now has shrunk to nothing inside Niger.

This is a very dramatic environmental crisis, with enormous consequences for hundreds of thousands of people. For me the visit was epitomised by an old customs boat which is now stranded in the middle of the desert, a desert covered in sea shells...

The report noted above states that the Lake has decreased by 95% in the last 35 years or so, a result of climate variability and overuse. One of the many problems associated with the declining lake (from Egeland's diary):

...[T]here are already many conflicts between and among nomads and agricultural people in Niger, and between various ethnic groups, because of the scarcity of resources. Others have estimated that around Lake Chad there are as many as 30 or more named armed groups, and the potential for increased conflict is endless.

The various crises the world's great lakes face are all anthropogenic in origin. Climate change is a factor in many cases, but issues such as pollution, resource use and overpopulation are also paramount. This reinforces the notion that in tackling the environmental issues before us, we cannot focus on climate change to the exclusion of all else. The other issues facing us are important as well. These are difficult, perhaps intractable problems. And it may be too late to stop the damage; we just don't know. That cannot be an excuse for inaction. Doing nothing guarantees failure.

Is there reason for hope? After all, Lake Erie noted earlier recovered somewhat from its 1970s low point. And attempts to rescue the Aral Sea, ravaged by the Soviet Union, are apparently to be bearing some fruit, providing at least a glimmer of hope (but not much more than that, really...). Days are early, and there remains a long way to go. Ideally, we would leave these lakes alone and let them recover on their own. That tactic seems to work for some species in the Great Barrier Reef. However, this is not a feasible option; we (and the rest of the ecosystem...) need the water to survive. The key is effective use and management of the resources these lakes represent, with an eye towards preserving future needs.

***
Images: 1: Lake Baikal surrounded by hotspots and smoke, 18 May 08. EO Natural Hazards

2: Lake Chad in 1972 and 2007 (right). National Geographic News.

The refutation of nonsense

Unfortunately for future generations, the idea that “global warming stopped in 1998” seems to be gaining credence in the popular imagination. The claim is that the 'global warming hoax [has been] exposed by record global cold'. These are dangerous thoughts that need to be vigorously countered with proper data analysis which accounts for the physical behaviour of the climate system.

The claims are nonsense that is at odds with what the data show. The indicators are clear –- anthropogenic climate change is a reality which isn't going away, no matter how much we may wish it to be so.

Consider the image which shows a time series of the NASA GISS annual globally-averaged temperature anomalies. Where is the lack of warming since 1998? I just don't see it. The general trend is generally ever-upward, as it has been since the mid-1970s. It is true that this year is expected to be cooler than the previous few years. It's part of the interannual variability. The recent past has been characterized by a cold Pacific ocean associated with a strong La Nina event. January and February were quite cool over parts of the globe, with unusual snow amounts and occurrences reported in some regions. But northern Eurasia experienced well above normal temperatures during these two months, and the data for March indicate that most land areas are now running well above normal. The La Nina is rapidly breaking down, and neutral conditions are returning to the Pacific.

That said, other 1-2 year periods of 'global cooling' are easily visible in the data. When the next El Nino comes -- perhaps as early as 2009-- we will likely return to record-high global mean temperatures. It's only a matter of time. Excluding the data north of about 60 N will also give an apparent 'leveling off' of temperatures and the 'no warming since 1998' idea gets 'validated'...but what exactly is that supposed to tell you? If global temperature is desired, the whole globe needs to be considered...

The apparent recovery of sea ice in the Arctic is also being used to cast doubt on the reality of climate change. After reaching record low extents in September 2007, the ice area has 'recovered', apparently providing proof of the 'hoax'. Time series plots (at left) of Arctic sea ice anomaly from Cryosphere Today, show this to indeed be the case. The ice has recovered all the way to the areas (also anomalously low) seen in 2005. Wow! The ice came back during the long polar night. Before we start making grand pronouncements about the non-validity of climate change, can we at least wait and see what happens this year (and preferably a few more after that...)? The long polar summer has just begun. Ice extent won't reach a minimum again until September. It's also true that Antarctic sea ice has been anomalously high. But there is no reason to expect a symmetric response between the hemispheres. Paleo-climate studies indicate that quite clearly.

Make no mistake, humans are affecting the climate system. The link between increasing CO2 concentrations (35% and rising!) and enhanced greenhouse warming is undeniable. It is foolhardy to do so, and this is tantamount to what climate change deniers are doing. Exactly what the effects are going to be remains uncertain, but the early indications (as detailed here on planet doom?) are not positive. Acting now to prevent the (likely) worse effects to come is crucial; when The Cataclysm occurs, it may well be too late. The source of our environmental problems is our lifestyle and the society we have created. We have reached the limits to growth; the neoliberal philosophy is bankrupt. It's time to pay the piper. Techno-solutions will ease the way, but ultimately a lifestyle change will be required to create a lasting solution.

***
Images: NASA GISTEMP and Cryosphere Today, links above

Dissonant spheres

The 'spheres' of our planet have long acted harmoniously, brilliantly improvising off the others' riffs to produce a beautiful soundscape – the ecosystem we currently inhabit. The song started slowly and took a long time to reach it's present state, each new instrument gradually incorporated into the greater whole. The newest members sit in with the band are modern humans. Unfortunately, we play our instruments poorly and we have a tin ear. We are creating dissonance.

In many ways, the ocean (hydrosphere) can be considered the rhythm section, a solid foundation on which to base a composition. Water is essential to all life as we know it. This sphere is slow to act, but difficult to stop once it begins. The raucous caterwauling of humans is beginning to be noticed. A recent study shows that only 4% of the oceans remained undamaged by human activity. The oceans are becoming rapidly transformed through increasing temperature and acidity of seawater. There is some concern that we may have already triggered an ocean circulation collapse. Plastic rubbish covers vast stretches of the Pacific Ocean, detritus from our way of life.

The atmosphere is deeply influenced by the ocean (although the influence really goes both ways...). The El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a major factor in determining the weather. We are currently observing the peak of the La Nina phase of the cycle, wherein cooler-than-normal sea surface conditions prevail across much of the Pacific Ocean. This has broken an extended drought across eastern Australia, while simultaneously bringing 'the worst drought in decades' to Chile. The relations have been seen historically. The role of La Nina as opposed to general climate change in producing the unusual winter weather in China and the US is uncertain, and despite the claims of these articles cannot be determined right now; the data just aren't there. It is certainly possible, but more expected during the warm El Nino phase.

The biosphere –- living things – are the main melody in this music of the spheres. Without a melody, the song (often) isn't worth listening to. Human cacophony is increasingly disrupting the main theme. Anoxic dead zones in the ocean are on the increase, a result of global warming. Warming conditions are leading the increased migration of animals. In the UK, seabirds are facing threats as snake pipefish, virtually unknown before 2002, move into the area. Warming seas around Antarctica also threaten the invasion of predators -- first crabs then sharks -- into the fragile ecosystem of the the region, threatening widespread devastation. It's not just climate change; tuna fisheries are facing a massive collapse from overfishing.

Playing a supporting role on human time scales is the lithosphere (the Earth's crust). Global warming may lead to an increase in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Such ideas are very speculative, but do have some precedence – parts of the crust are still rebounding' from the removal of ice from the last ice age. Probably a coincidence, but Norway just recorded its strongest earthquake ever in its Arctic archipelago.

It's obvious from the above that humans are not the virtuosos we imagine ourselves to be. We continue to belt out our drunken karaoke version of “My Way” at our own peril; the band may pack up and go home. Following the sentiment of Miles Davis, It's not the notes you play, but rather the space between the notes that make the music. Listening carefully and playing appropriately are admirable qualities. Silence is a perfectly acceptable musical technique; something is always happening that makes a sound. Seeing our selves and our species as a part of nature; fitting in and living within the more-than-adequate limits provided by the ecosystem. This philosophy will go a long way towards helping humanity produce a lasting grand opus.

***

Image: I. Stravinsky, L' Sacre du Printemps

Future food redux

Since my last post on the subject, concerns about agriculture and food continue to be raised with increasing frequency. The problems remain the same, but the future keeps looking more grim.

Food prices continue to soar, with many commodities reaching all-time highs (and still rising!). There are several causes for this. Weather-related disasters are destroying crops in some areas (recently in China, for example). Whether these extreme events are a result of the changing climate or simply natural variability remains unclear; it is really impossible to tell. In Australia, the severe drought which has been ongoing for several years is finally beginning to break (in NSW and QLD; it remains in others), a result of the delayed La Nina rains. This is purportedly stabilizing food prices, which have risen considerably recently (a fact to which I can personally attest...). In December, milk prices went up 10.1 percent, vegetables rose 8.6 percent and bread gained 8.8 percent

The diversion of arable land to the production of biofuels is also reducing supply. This is done in the name of sustainability, but is really just the latest get-rich-quick scheme of global capitalism. Further, more detailed studies suggest that biofuels may actually end up increasing greenhouse gas emissions through a so-called 'land-use cascade'. Further, the production of biofuels is leading to human-rights abuses, particularly in Indonesia.

While the situation is bad today, future climate change and environmental degradation will likely make things worse. CO2 enhancement is not necessarily good for plants, contrary to widespread belief. Studies suggest that as CO2 levels rise, protein levels in staple grains like rice and wheat could be reduced by up to 15%, obviously lowering their nutritional value. Also, the fossil record suggests that plant-eating insect activity increases greatly in a warmer climate. As the current climate warms, this suggests further losses due to pests, meaning fewer crops and/or the application of more environmentally harmful pesticides. Further, shifting rainfall and temperature pattens suggest that impoverished regions of Africa and Asia could see severe crop shortages in the next few decades...

The dynamics of the modern agricultural system also pose a problem, independent of climate change or widespread topsoil loss. The green revolution itself is completely dependent on cheap oil,at or near peak production now. Without oil, it will be difficult to maintain current food production. How will we cope with a rising population? The system itself is in the hands of amoral (immoral?) global corporations, legally bound to maximize profits at all costs. The methods of production they use are globally homogeneous; to increase profits, the genetic diversity of their 'products' (particularly animals) have been narrowed to a few select breeds which perform well. Such a narrowing increases the chance of a highly pathogenic strain of disease. Perversely, this leads to a greater control by corporations, as free range stocks are generally the ones that are banned, further disadvantaging independent farmers.

Serious reform of current agricultural practices is needed. Agricultural should be better utilized for development of poorer regions. Increased research into sustainable agriculture is also needed to overcome the concerns of climate change and environmental degradation. Development of local crops, overlooked today, may also help alleviate some concerns in the short term. Outside of agriculture, limits to population growth are sorely required. Most importantly, a change of lifestyle is needed, particularly by those of us in western nations. Rampant consumerism and the acquisition of 'stuff' has got to go. Our society is unsustainable and we surely face collapse if we do not make the change now.

***

Image: Jamie Lantzy, Wikipedia

We did what...!?

The magnitude of human induced changes to the planet is astounding. The existence and reality of anthropogenic global climate change, largely wrought by greenhouse gas emissions, is itself difficult to comprehend. And as global capitalism continues to accelerate, CO2 levels have reached new peaks, up to 394 ppm. Contrary to the claims on deniers, the recent global warming has not stopped, nor is it likely to in any sort of imaginable near future. Unfortunately, our environmental problems are not limited to the atmosphere.

All the 'spheres' (i.e. atmo-, hyrdo-, bio-, etc.) of the Earth are deeply interrelated, each affecting the other through poorly understood feedback mechanisms. Changing one aspect of the environment can have dramatic effects on a different, seemingly unrelated aspect. Over the eons, these different aspects of the environment have reached a 'dynamic equilibrium', allowing all we sense and rely upon to exist. Unfortunately, humans are radically altering all of these spheres at once, risking our existence. Often, this is done for the purpose of short-term profit and unchecked economic 'growth'. A few examples follow.

Our attitudes towards the ocean and its fish stocks are particularly shocking. Overfishing has long been a concern, but governments around the world continue to subsidize these activities and turn a blind eye towards regulation. Corruption rules the day. Recent studies using records of fishing activity from the pre-industrial era have begun to shed some light on the enormity of these transgressions against nature. A quote:

In 1855, just 43 schooners out of Beverly, Mass., were catching considerably more cod in the waters south of Nova Scotia in a season than their modern counterparts can catch today. Crews fishing over the side with baited hand lines caught 7,800 metric tons of cod – about three times what fishermen caught in that area in 2006. And they did it within sight of land in coastal waters where today cod are virtually nonexistent.

Consider also that the ocean's 'biological deserts' have expanded by over 15% between 1997 and 2006, likely driven by anthropogenic global warming. What effect will these have on future fish stocks? Will carbon sequestration in the ocean be reduced as a result, hence increasing global warming? What about man-made nitrogen? What will people who rely on the sea eat?

Our attitudes to the forests of the world, particularly in tropical regions, are also primarily motivated by profit. After a few years of relative decline, deforestation in the Amazon is again on the upswing, driven by high commodity prices and other land use pressures. The government is unlikely to take any serious remediative action. Similarly, mangrove swamps have declined by 20% since 1980. Land use changes, particularly conversion for agriculture is the main driver. These forests are mainstays of biodiversity and are a crucial part of maintaining the 'dynamic balance' needed for life as we know it to continue to exist. However, the true rate of tropical deforestation remains uncertain due to data quality issues.

While many of these changes are occurring in less-developed regions of the world, one can hardly fault them for following the model for success which served the western world so well. It continues there today. Similar questions to those for the ocean apply here. What about the carbon sequestration by the forest? What is the greater effect of species loss?

Issues of tropical deforestation were discussed at the recently Bali conference, and a tentative agreement was struck. Regardless, the World Bank continues sponsor destruction of the forest a month after promising to fight deforestation. If there is a buck to be made, they will make it. This attitude is symptomatic of the environmental problems we face. Our global economic system is harsh, with two possible outcomes: exploiter or exploited. The exploited get to live in post-collapse conditions now; the rest of us have to wait a few more years.

The magnitude of the environmental crises we have caused is beginning to be more widely recognized. So is the main driver of global capitalism and incessant economic growth. Bill Gates, one of the world's richest men, recently issued a call for a “kinder capitalism”. How to actually go about creating a low carbon society is being serious discussed by academics. But we in the rich nations cannot make our taking action contingent on action by the poor. We must lead by example and act unilaterally, freely sharing our knowledge to create a better life for all. We largely created the problems, we need to fix them. A new lifestyle is needed around the world, free from the clutches of unrestrained global capitalism. The changes won't be easy, but they are the only hope we have.

To achieve this, we must both summon to political will to change, as well as make a personal commitment to lead a more sustainable lifestyle. Duplicitous climate change talks won't do it. Neither will greenwashed BS like the Eco credit card. It's easy to expect nothing of our political leaders or ourselves. Most wouldn't elect someone who runs on a platform similar to what is required.

We have already pushed ourselves into a new geological epoch with our radical alteration of the planet. We need to act now so that there will be future scientists to interpret these events in the geological record and marvel at how we avoided calamity.

Nice weather we're having...

Just a few reports of some of the more interesting weather observed recently.

• Snow in Baghdad -- Snow has fallen in Baghdad for the first time in memory, and delighted residents are declaring it an omen of peace.

• Winter Tornadoes –- Tornadoes were reported or suspected Monday [7 Jan 08] in southwest Missouri, southeastern Wisconsin, Arkansas , Illinois, and Oklahoma. Two people were killed in Missouri.

• Latin America Natural Disasters -- There were the rains in November that left most of the southern Mexican state of Tabasco under water for weeks, including large parts of the city of Villahermosa. In October, Tropical Storm Noel triggered flash floods in the Dominican Republic that killed dozens. In September, Honduras faced the category five Hurricane Felix, just as Jamaica and Belize had been battered by the similarly strong Hurricane Dean the month before.

This is just a smattering of extreme weather events being observed around the globe on a regular basis. It's not hard to discover just how unusual 2007 was weather-wise. The news is full of severe droughts, record high temperatures and the like.

Such events are no longer unusual, they are the new normal. But if you attribute these events to climate change, you get accused of being alarmist; an “availability entrepreneur”. True, you can't ascribe any single event to climate change...But how widespread and how often do such events have to occur before we accept the reality of our situation? The re-insurers already know the truth and are taking it into account. To wit (emphasis added):

"The figures confirm our expectations," said Munich Re board member Torsten Jeworrek. "The trend in respect of weather extremes shows that climate change is already taking effect and that more such extremes are to be expected in the future."

"We should not be misled by the absence of megacatastrophes in 2007," he added in the report.

When big business truly gets involved, things may actually begin to change. Still, given the amount of greenwashing out there, and the general tepidness of the Bali agreement, we have a long way to go before any real progress is made, cheery outlooks notwithstanding.

But hey, maybe things are about to change for the better because snow in Iraq is awfully close to Hell freezing over...

***
Image from NASA MODIS Rapid Response Realtime Archive

Global Wildfire 2007: A sign of climate change?

In the previous post in this series, I discussed wildfire activity observed around the globe in 2007. It was an extremely active fire year , and nearly 100 lives were lost around the world. This post will continue the series, focusing on two related questions: Is wildfire activity increasing? and Is this related to climate change?

There are many telling trends here. Data from the National Interagency Fire Center show generally fewer numbers of fires but more area burnt, particularly since 2000. Many of the events noted in the previous post were unprecedented, including the tundra fires in Alaska, the Greek fires and the California wildfires. The Western US has seen fires of similar magnitude several times over the past few years. The Victorian Alps earlier this year burnt areas which experienced a similarly large wildfire in 2003. These so-called mega-fires are becoming increasingly common, despite the ever-increasing amount of money and resources devoted to wildfire suppression.

Despite these apparent trends, the honest answer to the questions above must be “We don't know”. Large, devastating wildfires have also been seen in the past. The available data records are short and/or sparse; a lot of work remains to be done on cleaning up and filling in gaps in the data. Whatever data there are is also confounded by human activity. Using simple metrics like area burnt or the number of fires can also be misleading, as fire management practices have changed over the years. Our detection and surveillance of fires is much more efficient than in the past, especially in remote regions of the world. Still, there are many reasons to think that they are increasing and that climate change is to blame.

Analogous to the classic Fire Triangle, three interacting factors all have to be present for a wildfire to occur. First, suitable atmospheric conditions, given by the weather and/or climate must be present. Second, adequate fuel amounts and types must be available for combustion. Finally, ignition must occur. If one of these is missing, then a wildfire cannot occur. All of these factors are subject to change with global warming. Indeed, the changes are already being seen.

Most obvious are direct changes in the weather and climate. Temperatures are increasing and droughts are becoming more frequent. Both of these have a direct impact of fire weather. Indeed, research has shown that in SE Australia an upward trend in fire weather has been observed, especially since 2001 or so. Additionally, factors such as the changing of the seasonal timing (e.g. spring starting earlier) are a direct result of global warming affecting atmospheric conditions and hence wildfire.

Changes in fuel conditions are also expected with enhanced CO2 and climate change. Enhanced CO2 acts to fertilize plants, potentially making more fuel available for burning. Further, changes in the types of fuels are likely to result, with shrubs and other woody plants replacing grasslands in many parts of the world as a result of increasing CO2. This could change the frequency and intensity of fire in a given location (even decreasing it...). Invasive weeds and plants can also move, driven by climate change, and alter the fire regime of a place.

Global warming is also driving changes in fuel through other more subtle means. Pine beetles are infesting trees in Canada, killing trees and making them available for burning. The less-intense winter observed in recent years has failed control the population of the beetles, resulting in more widespread infestations. Similar infestations have been reported in the northwestern United States.

Climate change skeptics often claim that the apparent increase in wildfires is solely due to fuel management practices -- not enough prescriptive fire to prevent fuel from building to dangerous levels. But if atmospheric conditions are not conducive to burning, then no wildfire will occur. The weather and climate also act to grow the fuel, prepare it for combustion and spread the flames once started. The recent fires in southern California suggest otherwise; many of the regions burnt this year burnt just 4 years ago.

Lightning is a natural source of ignition for wildfires, especially when it occurs in thunderstorms with low precipitation. It is not known how global warming will affect such storms, but with more widespread drought conditions, it seems reasonable to think that more such storms could be a possibility. Unfortunately, a large fraction of wildfire ignitions are arson related (about 50% in Australia) or have other human causes. But this should not be taken as an excuse or a special category of fires. Humans have always caused fires. For countless generations before European contact in Australia the Aborigines were lighting fires, helping shape the landscape into its current fire-conducive state. The same is true of other indigenous cultures as well. Humans are part of the natural environment and we ignore this at our own peril.

Wildfire activity is predicted to increases as a result of climate change. Indeed, the available evidence suggests that we are already seeing some of that increase, but we cannot answer the question with an unequivocal 'Yes' at this point in time. Nonetheless, society needs to begin considering the possibility and prepare for the effects. Even should the current observed levels of activity not be climate change-driven (unlikely!), the fire activity of recent years provides a good archetype for the types of disasters we can expect. Management strategies will have to be adjusted and considered beforehand. As will be discussed in the next part of the series, wildfires have many more implications than simply 'stuff burning down'. Planning and forethought will be needed to overcome the most deleterious effects.

***

Image: Canberra Bushfire 2003 from BBC News

Global wildfire 2007

Wildfires are an issue in many places around the world, and the past year has seen a continuation of the apparent trend towards larger, more intense fires. Worldwide, wildfire activity was quite pronounced during the past year. This post will highlight some of the major fires observed during the past year or so from around the globe. For sake of brevity, this won't be a complete discussion; I won't note agricultural burning which is more prevalent than wildfire. For a more thorough listing, see the EO Natural Hazards Fire Archive (with excellent imagery), a main source of information for this post. The discussion will be arranged more-or-less chronologically. There will be some bias towards Australia and North America; the nature of the media and the fire coverage makes this a necessity.

Late 2006 and early 2007 saw many fires. This is the peak of the fire season in southern portions of Australia. The past fire season was among the most intense on record, at least in terms of fire weather, part of a jump which has been seen since approximately 2001. Fires in the eastern Victorian Alps in Australia burned out over 1 million hectares beginning in early December and extending well into January. Other major fires in Australia were noted near Dwellingup, Western Australia (which was razed by bushfire in 1961...) and in Tasmania. Fire activity in southeast Australia continued into April.

As austral winter begin, fire activity in the north began to heat up. The Sweat Farm Road fire in Georgia (USA) grew rapidly in April. Other major fires were reported in Georgia and Florida at the end of May, a result of the extreme (and ongoing!) drought in those areas. May also saw a large wildfire in northern Minnesota.

As boreal summer progressed, fire activity progressed northward into the wildlands of the Far North of North America. In June, Quebec reported more than 4.5 times the 20-year average area burnt had already occurred, suggesting an unusually severe fire season. The spruce forests in Alaska were also ablaze in June. In July, the tundra on the North Slope of Alaska was ignited by a lightning strike. This fire burned until October; at 100 000+ hectares burnt, it was the largest tundra fire on record in the state. Fires in Manitoba forced the evacuation of hundreds of residents.

In the western regions of the continental US, the summer saw numerous large wildfires. Utah reported its largest fire on record at 363 000 acres. Idaho and eastern Oregon also saw numerous fires ignited by dry lightning, several which burned in excess of 100 000 acres. Over 2007, Idaho saw nearly 2 million acres burnt by wildfire. Fires from Idaho also extended into Nevada. Large fires in Idaho and Montana burnt well into September.

California is one of the more fire prone regions of the world and it saw several so-called mega-fires during late-summer. Some of these were the Moonlight fire (63 000+ acres) in northern CA and the Zaca (200 000+ acres) fire in southern CA. The most-widely reported fires of the year occurred throughout southern CA in late-October, forcing the evacuation of over half a million people in the state. The image above is from these fires, captured by the NASA MODIS instrumentation.

Other regions of the globe also saw significant wildfire activity. Much of southern Europe experienced an unprecedented heatwave, which was accompanied by widespread wildfires in Italy and other regions of SE Europe, including Croatia where 11 firefighters were killed battling the blazes. Large fires in the Canary Islands forced thousands of evacuations. Perhaps most tragic, more than 60 people were killed in extensive wildfires in Greece in late-August, many of which were deliberately lit.

South Africa experienced extreme wildfire activity in eastern portions of the nation, resulting in the loss of several lives, while simultaneously undergoing floods on the opposite side. In Algeria, several people were killed in scores of forest fires in the Atlas Mountains. In Paraguay (South America) over 1700 fires were started in September, resulting in 400 000 hectares of forest burnt. Following the fires, widespread hunger was seen as the blazes had destroyed much of the season's crops. 50 000 people were left homeless and 8 people were killed.

In Australia, the 2007 fire season has been particularly active until recently, with numerous large fires observed. Much of western Kimberley (in Western Australia) burnt, with fires persisting for several months. Unusual fire activity was also observed in central Northern Territory and in regions south of the Gulf of Carpentaria. While widespread, the fires had little economic impact, burning in sparsely populated areas. In December, wildfires on Kangaroo Island in South Australia and in the Goldfields region of Western Australia have resulted in the loss of life. For updates on the bushfire situation in Australia, see the Australia Bushfire Monitor.

The impact of wildfires over past year has been large, resulting in numerous lives lost and significant amounts of property damaged. Fire activity is seemingly on the increase. And the losses aren't just economic, but everything from air quality to biodiversity is damaged in these events. Several questions arise: Is this level of fire activity unusual? What is the impact of climate change? These questions will be addressed in part 2. The myriad impacts of fires, which are more far-reaching than the active portion of the fires themselves will be discussed in part 3. These will be posted in the next week or two.

Future food

Human behaviour is negatively impacting on our food supply. The more insidious effects of climate change and other human-induced environmental woes are one cause. Another more immediate cause is that policy decisions on resource use and exploitation are being driven from a misguided agenda of short-term gain. Judging from the increased exposure in traditional media sources, a potential crisis is brewing.

The reason for the exposure? Soaring food prices worldwide. Food prices worldwide have increased by 40% in the last year. In the US, the current amounts of food inflation have been unseen since the 1970s. While some of this increase in the result of increased drought over many areas (a sign of climate change?), for instance in Australia, much of it is due to humans and the policy decisions made for us. The increasing diversion of grains, especially corn, to the production of ethanol and other biofuels is a major culprit in the price rises.

This is just the immediate threat. Warming temperatures, increasing droughts and the like – the expected effects of climate change-- will likely make agriculture more difficult in the near future. It is not just now we should be worried about, but the future as well.

Indeed, the effects of climate change are already being felt. The regions of the earth that experience tropical weather are expanding poleward, likely to bring a change in traditional growing conditions in a given area. Such shifts are being noted in around the world:

• China is seeing its rice producing regions shift northward, as severe drought plagues the south.

• In Japan, rice crop yields in the premiere growing areas have been in decline as summer heats up to unprecedented levels over the past few years.

• In Africa, meat, poultry and vegetables are all feeling the impacts of climate change. For example, plant and livestock diseases have been recently observed areas where they previously have not been seen.

Rising CO2 levels may also effect aquatic food sources like fish, wither directly through ocean acidification or indirectly by alterations in oceanic bacteria, the basis of life on our planet. Despite the harsh realities already being felt, some recent research suggests that we may be underestimating the likely effects of climate change on agriculture, as previous research was likely oversimplified and failed to account for important second-order effects.

So what to do? A necessary step is to expand research in this area. Investing in new, heartier crop varieties like heat-tolerant beans or higher-yielding wheat is essential. Also crucial to understand are farming methods to maintain production levels with less fossil-fuel-based fertilizer. In general, the whole idea of mass-produced industrial agriculture will be nonviable. Having enough to eat without cheap oil is going to be tricky. Ask the Cubans (with sarcastic commentary from Bruce Sterling). Food is going to have to be produced more locally. Nations (like Australia) will have to ensure the capacity to feed themselves. Whether you are a nation, a tribe or an individual, when push comes to shove and resources are scarce, human nature says you will be unable to rely the goodwill of neighbours. (But growing enough of you own food is hard work...). New areas for growing food, indoor and urban growth for example, will also have to be exploited. That said, expanding cultivated land by clearing forests is likely to lead to diminishing returns. Agriculture and climate change is a two-way interaction.

A shift in our policies to something more sensible is needed. Human beings, not economic systems, should be our primary concern. For example, recent bumper harvests in Malawi suggest policies set by organizations like the World Bank to instill some rigid ideological economic purity reduce food amounts and cost human lives. The increasing push for biofuels is also short-sighted. Do you really need to deprive people of food so that you can go to the mall and buy some useless junk? Sustainable policies -- those that will provide a benefit now, but also conserve to provide a boon next year, next decade and next century – are also desperately needed. Instead, our current focus is on the needs of the economic system. The recent decision to raise the North Sea cod quota is just such an example. A slight upturn in surviving baby cod numbers results in an 11% increase in the catch. Great! Let's risk the future for a profit today! The failure of the recent Bali climate to set a meaningful target for climate change mitigation is another example. This mostly occurred because of the constant obstruction of the US, worried solely about themselves and their profits.

Not having enough food is a sure-fire step to instigating societal collapse. The time for profit uber alles is over. The time is now to focus on preserving the environment and our food supply for now and future generations.

***
Image: iStockphoto/Susan Stewart

Glacial language changes

Languages are constantly evolving. As new ideas and experiences are introduced into a given culture, their language adds new words to facilitate communication. Similarly, as ideas become outmoded or fall out of favour, words become obsolete or obscure, no longer used in normal discourse. This is a natural part of a living language.

Unfortunately, the realities of climate change may help in driving the future evolution of the English language. In particular, the word glacier may become obsolete because we may no longer have the concept of “an extended mass of ice formed from snow falling and accumulating over the years and moving very slowly..." As has been noted before on planet doom?, glaciers around the world are in retreat. Further instances on this trend have also been noted of late.

In Chile, the 30 000-year-old San Rafael glacier has retreated 12 km since 1871. This behaviour is consistent with the majority of Chile's glaciers, which 'are not in balance with current climatic conditions'. The warming temperatures mean that new snow is unable to replenish the lost mass as icebergs calve off the glacier.

In the high Alps of Europe, glaciers were once a source of ice for the cafes of Paris and Marseille. Swiss glaciers are now in retreat, being replaced by vegetation where once there was only ice. The changes are widespread, causing problems for ski resorts and resulting in a loss of water supplies, as the source melts away in the warming climate.

The Rockies in western North America are seeing similar problems. The glaciers in Montana's Glacier National Park will likely be melted away before 2030. Computer modeling suggests that about a quarter of this melting is due to natural temperature variations; the remainder is due to human alterations of climate. Only 25 of 150 glaciers remain in the park today. In British Columbia, retreating glaciers have recently revealed tree stumps that are 7000 years old, indicating the last time the region was ice-free.

In Tibet, recently drilled ice cores are lacking the signs of the radioactive tests of the 50s and 60s present in every other ice core around the world. This missing signal suggests that this Tibetan ice field has been shrinking at least since the A-bomb test half a century ago. As noted in a previous post, this spells trouble for the substantial portion of the world's population who depend on these glaciers for water. In western China, high-altitude glaciers in Xinjiang and portions of Tibet have shrunk by 18% over the last five years due to global warming.

The adjective glacial isn't particularly apropos here, either. The changes are happening at anything but “extremely slowly”. That usage of the word may be headed for the language's rubbish bin as well. However, the real tragedy here isn't the potential loss of a few words from the English language. Rather, the true disaster is the rapid loss of glacial ice, along with rapid ice melt also occurring in Greenland and in the sea ice of the Arctic. This will disrupt the ecosystem, leading to a loss of biodiversity, and negatively impact the lives of those who depend on these regions for their livelihood. Once gone, they are unlikely to return. The loss is likely permanent.

While opinions vary, in my view the Bali conference resulted in a watered-down agreement (with glacial meltwater?). It does nothing meaningful to stop crises like these from occurring. I guess it's better than nothing, but more must be done. Cracks in our society are already appearing, and delaying action just makes future mitigation more difficult. Citizens of the world must continue to pressure their governments to act responsibly on climate change. But it can't just be left up to governments; they won't act unless forced. We -- particularly in the so-called developed world -- must act as individuals to reduce our ecological footprint and live a more sustainable lifestyle. Lots of small actions can add up to a meaningful difference.

***

Image of Glacier National Park from NASA Earth Observatory

Breaking down in Bali

All's not well at the UNFCCC conference in Bali. News reports suggest that the negotiations to create a roadmap for the post-Kyoto climate agreements are becoming bogged down. It would seem that the various nations of the world have come with their set-in-stone predetermined positions rather than coming to honestly negotiate. And they aren't moving from those positions.

Following the findings of the IPCC, the draft UN resolution is calling for industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40% by 2020.In the same objections we we have all heard before, the Canadians (with support the US) have said:

"The agreement should include binding emission reduction targets for all major emitters.

"Developed countries should be required to take action more quickly, but major industrialised developing countries should also have binding targets."

And the pro forma response from the developing nations is that their per-capita emissions are a long way below western levels, and that taking on targets would slow their economic growth.

Stop me if you've heard this before...

Of course, the US -- the prime supporter for the exploitative capitalism which has done so much of the damage -– is acting to undermine the talks, pushing to hold their own, separate meetings. They have, along with the EU, also pushed for a lowering of trade barriers for so-called green goods to gain access to markets. All for their advantage, of course.

It is particularly sad to see Australia's (apparent) complicity in all of this. While ratifying Kyoto was a good thing, new PM Rudd had rapidly backed off election promises to set emissions targets,while blaming the previous government for their inaction on the issue. It is especially disheartening because one of his main agenda items was making a difference on climate issues. But it looks like the same old game so far...

I don't want to be completely cynical as the conference isn't over yet, but basically it looks like we humans are going to pursue our great 'carbon dioxide enhancement experiment' to the bitter end. Some climate scientists also see an agreement as unachievable. The early warning signs aren't enough to make us realize the harm we are doing. Instead we hold out faint hopes that technology or the Sun will somehow save us. I suppose that, like a train wreck or some natural calamity, raises unfolding climate change makes for fascinating 'disaster porn', as well as unveiling some fascinating scientific questions. But I'd personally rather not be titillated in that way, and there are lots of other scientific enqueries to make.

Solving the issue all comes down to economics. A fundamental problem of our society is that we live our lives in servitude to an malignant economy that has been specifically constructed to externalize costs to the greater environment. Nothing matters but the financial bottom line. Little penalty is applied in our current system for destruction of our 'natural capital', be it air, land or sea. A healthy economy should serve our needs, not vice versa. Further, we are conditioned through relentless advertising to consume at all costs in a futile attempt to fulfill our otherwise meaningless existence. Community and family have become unimportant, replaced by extreme competition. This is all completely artificial, a man-made construct. It doesn't have to be this way. Taking back the world from the bankers and the economists is a key step to repairing the environmental damage to our world. I don't know what comes after, but it's got to be better than leaving our children a legacy of social chaos, a disaster-plagued landscape and an ocean full of nothing but jellyfish.

Climate change: Who pays?

In the lead-up to the UNFCCC Bali conference, many of the difficult issues facing negotiators have been reported in the press. Many of the issues deal with the question 'Who pays?', which is discussed in the following. The answers thus far are all over the map and depend on where on the map you are. Most nations support calls for action, but few seem willing to lead. I fear that many are still underestimating the enormity and urgency of the situation. For instance, there is little agreement on what constitutes dangerous climate change.

Many developing nations say the “rich” countries should pay. India is pledging to keep its per-capita emissions lower than those of the rich world. China argues that global warming is primarily the fault of Western industrialised nations and they should be made to bear the brunt of cleanup costs. Other Latin American nations, including Brazil, offer much the same rationale.

Many of the developed world nations brings similarly short-sighted reasons primarily based on their self interest and a perceived financial threat. The United States has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol primarily because China is exempted from greenhouse gas reductions. Canada, once a world leader in environmental issues, has lost its way , a result heavily influenced by industry interests. Until recently Australia followed a similar path to the US, but the newly elected government is seeking to remedy this situation. Japan and Europe are meeting their obligations under the treaty through purchase/transfer of carbon credits and have been generally willing participants and leaders on the issue.

There is merit in the arguments of both rich and poor countries. Rich countries did create most of the problem, largely through energy intensive, wasteful consumer-driven lifestyles. This story on the desire for perceived bargains shows that we are generally unwilling to give up this lifestyle. This report, issued in the US, holds out the idea that CO2 can be reduced without a change to the consumer lifestyles. (What about the rest of the environment?). This lifestyle choice perpetuates the problem. At the same time, nations like China and India can do more. While their per capita numbers are low, those two nations are quite high in total emissions, ranking among the developed nations. This is a result of the environmental issue that is rarely discussed: overpopulation.

In the rich nations, there is an obligation to lead, assist developing nations with adaptation and technology transfer, and to change our lifestyles to something more ecologically sustainable. Repairing the environmental damage within those countries is also an obligation. In developing nations, the onus is to prevent future environmental damage (e.g. avoid deforestation), reduce population growth and develop sustainable economies, with the assistance of the rich nations. All nations need to act in concert to deal with the increasing number of natural disasters and to be willing to welcome and accept climate refugees as the need arises.

As it stands now, the various attitudes displayed by the 'two sides' reflect a deep disconnect with reality and a general failure to truly grasp the scale of the problem. Instead, the focus is only blame (and the avoidance thereof). The truth is we all have a moral obligation to do what we can. None of us are free from blame, and it is a pointless waste of time to partition it out. We all have to live with the consequences of climate chaos and we all need to bear the cost, each according to their ability.

Societal collapse: Coming soon?

Once the domain of survivalists, religious zealots and other disaffected souls, the possibility of societal collapse has recently gained more respect in the broader, mainstream community, discussed in widely-regarded books and the blogs of the New York Times (and elsewhere!). Questions abound: How realistic is this notion? Are we close to a collapse? Can we act to prevent it?

To say that our planet and society as a whole is facing a few troubles is a bit of an understatement. The climate is unequivocally changing; a casual glance at planet doom? illustrates the many and varied impacts. There are too many people, and food shortages are becoming more apparent. Cheap oil and natural gas, the foundations of our technological society, are at or near peak production. They will only become more scarce (and hence more expensive) in the future. The unbridled global economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, exacerbating the other threats. To top it all off, the most powerful military in the history of mankind is in the control of lunatic war-mongers who will do anything to further the cause of the global corporations.

Despite this, many in positions of influence seek to maintain the status quo, unable or unwilling to acknowledge the reality of the problems facing us. Some of the excuses/reasoning: Climate change is just down to natural variability; There's plenty more oil/natural resources left, the 'greenies' just won't let us drill/mine/clearcut; Technological innovation will save us; Malthus and all the other doomsayers have always been wrong, so they are this time, too; We have other pressing problems, we'll deal with it later; Hakuna Matata – No worries, mate!.

The predicted impacts of these dilemmas are equally varied. James Lovelock, who conceived of the Gaia Hypothesis, suspects that it is too late to mitigate climate change and that billions will perish before the end of the century, leaving only a remnant of humanity surviving at the the poles. Others also support this 'giga-death' point of view. A recent book, The Long Emergency, by JH Kunstler makes a slightly less grim, but still shocking, prediction of the future of (primarily) the US. He expects a complete breakdown of the American way of life, with a return to more agrarian times and a lower energy-intensive lifestyle. Some parts of the US, especially the south and west, fare especially poorly in his vision. A recent post over at Climate Progress on this book discussed this view and, along with many of the commenters, generally rejected at least the severity of it. Of course, those who deny the seriousness of the problem have no dire predictions, expecting the consequences to be minor inconveniences rather than a serious issue. The general mainstream view seems to be along these lines, with some problems, but nothing threatening.

For what its worth, my views tend to the darker side of things. But I, like everyone else, don't really know. I don't feel things will be as extreme as Lovelock and Kunstler, but it's not going to be a walk in the park, either. I think our world is in for a major reorganization, and a lot of people are going to perish, due to starvation, warfare and disease. Our self-indulgent, western way of life is going to come crashing down, and the developing world is going to be hit even harder. The pace of climate change is too quick, and the energy and financial problems will only exacerbate things. If we can contain our bloodlust in the inevitable conflicts for resources (food, water, oil...), we have a chance at the future. If not, it is a long fall. And if the world resorts to WMDs to resolve these conflicts, then all bets are off. Mind you, I desperately want to be wrong on this, and look back in 20 years time and laugh at my naivete. My fear is that I won't be able to.

Awareness of these issues is growing, but the magnitude and extent of the crisis is still underestimated. The climate has become an issue for the upcoming national election (24 November) in Australia. But the two major parties have somewhat tentative policies for climate change, and issues like peak are not even really a concern. The minor parties are better, but even the Greens are underestimating the problem. Their campaign literature still speaks of climate change impacts as something that will happen, not as something ongoing. For much of the western world, neoliberal economics and unlimited growth are still the dominant paradigm. As a society, I fear we (myself included) are woefully unprepared for what awaits us.

Regardless of one's personal opinion of the issue, a risk management-type approach should be taken to deal with these issues. Risk can be defined as the likelihood of something happening times the consequences of that event happening. The consequences of a Lovelockian 'giga-death' scenario are incalculable – a very, very large number. So unless the chances of it occurring an infinitesimal (and I suspect they are low, but not non-existent), the risk is large, and prudence dictates action be taken to reduce that risk. Maybe the excuses/rationales noted earlier for inaction will prove to be valid and society is in no danger of a collapse. Even if this is the case, our lifestyles are demonstratively unsustainable, and this must be remedied.

There is also the moral aspect. We owe future generations a right to a viable existence. It should be our goal to at least provide as much to them as was provided to us. As the UN said today (my emphasis):

"The effects of climate change are being felt already," said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

"Climate change will hit hardest the poorest and most vulnerable countries. Its overall effect, however, will be felt by everyone and will in some cases threaten people's very survival.

"Failing to recognise the urgency of this message and acting on it would be nothing less than criminally irresponsible."

It is time for the rich nations of the world to lead by example and act seriously to adapt and mitigate climate change. We caused the problem, we need to lead the way to fixing it, rather than pointing fingers at China and India. They aspire to the same life we lead and who are we to deny it if we won't curb our own excesses. Blaming others for the problems we caused is pathetic, a sign of the narcissistic, delusional culture we have created. Who knows, maybe the crises we are facing can have some positive outcome and lead to a fairer, more just world for all.