On raising environmental awareness

The defining issue of the early-21^st century is the environment. Widespread awareness of humanity's climate and environmental issues is growing. The global adoption of Earth Hour this past Saturday is symbolic of the dawning realization that our lifestyle is increasingly damaging the planet. People are gradually developing some mindfulness towards the issues and demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice, even in a small way, to solve the problems.

For all the good of Earth Hour, though, much remains to be done. The event was only a symbol. “Turning off lights for 60 minutes isn't going to stop the Antarctic ice sheets melting, stop thousands of Pacific Islanders losing their homes from rising sea levels or stop the Earth's temperature rising one jot.” Many didn't participate. In general, the paramount importance of climate change and other environmental issues remains understated and unappreciated in broader society. This is not accidental.

Using ethically-questionable tactics akin to those derived by the tobacco lobby, huge amounts of resources are dedicated to obfuscating the issues at hand ultimately creating confusion, delay and apathy towards the issues. Creating a desire to wait until some later time to act is a risky tactic. The motivations for such behaviour are unclear to me; I would guess extreme self-interest, a rigid ideology and/or a profit uber alles worldview. But missing from this paradigm is the awareness that we are all in this together. Money may buy a temporary refuge, but we all need the ecosystem to survive.

Unfortunately, these tactics are having an effect. The desire for delay is working. But time is running short for society to act. The window to affect positive environmental change is closing. Failure to decisively act within the next 5-10 years likely guarantees radical (irreversible) alterations to the natural environment. Indeed, such changes are already beginning to be observed – The canaries are dying, one by one. But it is apparently not enough to create the critical mass required to tackle the issues

So what will bring about the shift in worldview required to tackle this 21^st century challenge? It will likely require some an event of phenomenal magnitude -- a Cataclysm – to galvanize the world into unified action. A event so large that any lingering doubts of the environmental perils we face will be obliterated.

Sadly, I suspect that we will see such an event in the coming years. The exact form remains unknown and, in fact the Cataclysm will probably be something we didn't see coming at all. The tragedy is that this is the alarm needed to shake the complacency of society. There will still be doubters after the event, just as there are still people today who believe in creationism and that the earth is flat. But we won't listen anymore; the lies and distortions will no longer have any sway. We can only hope that it is not too late for meaningful action.

A full understanding of the environment-at-large is still a way off. The feedbacks and interactions between the different spheres are subtle and difficult to discern. But we know enough to get a general idea of what will likely happen. And research from both the arts and sciences demonstrate that the outcome is likely to be bad. The consequences of our actions are potentially enormous. If we don't want to pay the price, then the best course for humanity is prompt action to stabilize anthropogenic climate change, stop polluting, reduce the population and adopt a 'bright green' lifestyle. Proaction, not the more-typical reaction, is a more sensible course to follow. But it won't come unless we demand it of ourselves and our leaders.

***

Image: NASA Visible Earth

Composite satellite image of 5 Atlantic TCs in 2005. Image via EurekAlert!

Hope or despair?

There are reasons for hope. Society-at-large is increasingly tuning out the climate change deniers and doubters. Global warming is now widely recognized as a very real and very serious threat to civilization as we know it. Many are proposing a wide-ranging set of solutions. Some are promising, but many questions remain. Careless or rash actions could easily lead to despair.

One feasible solution involves capturing CO2 and storing it in sausage shaped bags which are subsequently dumped in the ocean. While this is apparently technically feasible with contemporary technology, the whole idea is really unpalatable to me. Haven't we done enough damage to the ocean? We've already wiped out a lot of the fish and created an enormous pool of plastic rubbish in the Pacific, all while slowly acidifying the ocean. Human impacts on the ocean are visible from space. This “solution” just adds insult to injury, even if it is “safe”.

Some new materials (chemicals) have been produced which are able to selectively capture CO2. Quoting from the link:

The carbon dioxide is captured using a new class of materials designed by Yaghi and his group called zeolitic imidazolate frameworks, or ZIFs. These are porous and chemically robust structures, with large surface areas, that can be heated to high temperatures without decomposition and boiled in water or organic solvents for a week and still remain stable.

Rabett Run points out that the energy cost may be too high for this to be feasible on an industrial scale. My concern is different than that. History suggests we have a poor track record when it comes to using new chemicals. Metaphorically speaking, It always blows up in our face. CFCs were considered stable. DDT was supposed to save the world. Look how well those turned out. This trend continues as the world discovers that the environmental contamination from our “harmless” chemicals is looking like more of a problem than originally believed. Chemicals in our waters are affecting humans and aquatic life in unanticipated ways. Dilution is NOT the solution. Terrestrial life is also affected by endocrine disrupting chemicals, although the net effect isn't clear at this time. Before we unleash some new chemical on the world, can we thoroughly test it and understand its interactions with the natural world?

Geo-engineering solutions remain a possibility, but fortunately these seem to be falling out of favor. The company that hoped to make money through ocean geo-engineering, Planktos, has stopped its field tests thanks to a “highly effective disinformation campaign waged by anti-offset crusaders.” I'm proud to have contributed. Further studies are continuing to suggest that geo-engineering through aerosol enhancement is likely to be very problematic. I think we shouldn't waste research time or money on these efforts. They could only possibly be used as a last resort, and if the situation gets that dire we are unlikely to be able to mount such an effort. Better to use to the money to better understand the increasingly dissonant 'music of the spheres' as a whole.

In the 'Are you serious?'-category comes 'To save the world we may have to waste it'. This is pretty cynical, and it is not clear to me what the author's intent truly is. It's funny in a black humor sort of way, or if you are feeling incredibly nihilistic, both of which I have been known to appreciate. But such a 'solution' cannot be genuinely considered. Maybe this is a manifestation of despair.

The above solutions (mostly) rely on some sort of techno-optimism. With just the right fix, everything will be alright. Such solutions allow humans to continue to live outside the bounds of the eco-system. Unfortunately, people are part of the natural world, and we must live within it. Solutions that offer real hope will take this into account. There can't be one quick fix, but rather many small steps which add up to a greater whole. The sole focus can't just be on the climate, either. Instead, the whole gamut of environmental problems we face must be addressed simultaneously. Any one of them alone could do us in.

Some steps (among many) could include: Organic fertilizers in agriculture can take up more CO2 in the soil, cutting waste and inefficiency, stopping deforestation, development of alternate energy sources, economic and social reforms. Population control is essential. In short, a societal change towards a more sustainable, less resource-intensive society. Maybe it is true that there is not enough time for a “reinvention of the world's cultures”, but that is the direction we must head to solve this problem in the long term. Perhaps we have to adopt some of the band-aid solutions noted above, but that entails enormous risk and they should only be used as stopgap measures. Recent studies suggest that human cultures are subject to natural selection, just like genes. To survive the challenge,the world and the Global North needs to rein itself in and live within the limits imposed by Nature. The cultures that do this the best will be the writers of history in the future. Nature wins in the end every time. If it finds us lacking, we lose.

There is reason to hope, though, as solutions are on the horizon. A path for long-term, permanent solutions exists with contemporary technology. But the problems we face are large, and most still do not understand the magnitude of the task at hand. Societal collapse requires adjustment, too. This can easily lead to despair. Prompt, but thoughtful action is needed to avoid this state.

***

Image: www.utahlifecoach.com (via Google Image Search, not an endorsement!)

Life after collapse

Do recent events in worldwide financial markets herald a societal collapse? Is this the trigger that brings the whole sham down? What will life be like after a collapse?

Certainly, the economic foundations of the world have been shaken. The panic response of the US Federal Reserve has certainly cauterized the wound for now. Unfortunately, economics and the environment are intertwined and poor economic conditions make environmental degradation more likely. Poverty often results in the rationalization of environmentally destructive behaviour, speeding up the deterioration of the planetary ecosystem. It won't just happen because of a financial meltdown; a more thorough razzing of society is needed. So these events are but one part of the long fall. Contrary to popular belief, collapse doesn't (necessarily) mean that all the humans on the planet are going to die off on some short time scale, although that is certainly one possible outcome.

Sadly, a picture of what life after collapse looks like already exists today. Africa is such a model. Technically, it is not really 'post-collapse' as there has never really been a widespread 'peak' in Africa. Rather, those in the so-called 'developed world' have long ridden the back of poorer nations, exploiting them for our prosperity while leaving only crumbs and empty promises. Our desire for 'stuff' has a huge environmental cost, while by and large we have transferred it to the global 'South', creating 'externalities' to our economic system. This creates tensions and shortages will spill over into broader African society.

Warfare and political strife are endemic in Africa -- largely battles over resources and power. Most of these wars are barely noted in the West, although they are often fueled by the greed of multinational corporations, who manipulate the local populace for their own profit and gain. The Congo War -- off and on since 1996 – is an excellent example. The recent post-election violence in Kenya is another.

War, along with the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation, creates refugees. Human nature is that people will do whatever it takes to survive. Regardless of cost or consequences. This is illustrated by case studies in Tanzania, host to the largest concentrations of refugees in Africa. There, the wholesale slaughter of native wild animals is creating an environmental crisis, bound to lead to a loss of biodiversity and damaging future prospects for recovery, economic or otherwise.

Despite the ravages of war, AIDS, malaria, climate change and other woes, overpopulation remains a growing problem, only expected to get worse in coming years. But, like everywhere, if you are rich (or have a lot of guns) you can avoid many of these problems. For example in Ghana, rapid economic development has brought beautiful homes with toilets and running water to the rich, while the poor are now required to use the beaches for 'the facilities', with untreated human waste simply washed into the sea.

To top it off, periodic natural disasters (exacerbated by climate change) arise, destroying crops, threatening livelihoods and continuing the vicious cycle. Plagues of locusts, floods, wildfires and desertification are but some of the issues threatening food security here.

This is a a foretaste of what a societal collapse may look like. Indeed, if you look the signs are already there in many Western countries, including the US. Multinational corporations already control the elections in most countries. The US military is already fighting a resource war on behalf of Haliburton and other corporations. The rich/poor divide in western nations grows every day. If and when people start getting thrown out of their homes, unable to pay the mortgage, there will be a lot of anger. Climate refugees are also a reality in the US, and food security is increasingly becoming an issue. Despite the denial of some, post-peak oil will be an issue, as the demands of the world outweigh the supply, even in an economically depressed environment.

Sadly, some seem to relish collapse. It's not going to be a big adventure. It will create a lot of hardship, a lot of turmoil and a lot of grief. It is a horrible legacy to leave our children. Yes, there are a lot of things wrong with our society as it is currently constructed, as the previous discussion illustrates. But a collapse --catastrophic or otherwise -- would not be a good thing. Maybe something good would come out in the end as a result, but it's a big maybe and trying to achieve the same result without the collapse has more appeal. After all, in the last mass extinction on Earth it took 30 million years for recovery. The die may be cast and it may be too late. But it may not. We simply don't know and it would be incredibly short-sided to simply give up at this point.

***

Image: Guernica by Pablo Picasso

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.

The more things change...

As the months pass, it becomes more and more obvious that the climate is changing. Yet many of the developed nations of the world, particularly the United States and Australia continue their recalcitrant foot-dragging ways, refusing to enact even the simplest measures to combat anthropogenic climate change.

In a just-published study in Geophysical Research Letters, there is now a suggestion that we have weakened the so-called Walker circulation, the Pacific-wide east/west circulation, an crucial part of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. Record sea-level pressures in Darwin, Australia, weaken trade winds and high sea surface temperatures in the Pacific are all linked, resulting in a period of unprecedented El Nino dominance of the climate. These changes are profound, and destined to wreak further havoc on the climate system, particularly in Australia.

AS events unfold, more of the populace of the world seek positive climate action. Two of three people polled in a 21-nation survey indicate that 'major steps' are needed soon to effectively combat global warming. Eighty percent believe humans are the source of the observed climate change.

At the same time, the leaders of the world's two leading emitters of greenhouse gases, the United States and Australia (per capita), remain with their heads stuck in the sand, refusing to take meaningful action. Bush refuses to attend UN climate negotiations organized in New York to kick off post-Kyoto negotiations for fear of 'damaging the economy'. Alexander Downer, Australia's Foreign Affairs minister, says we need to move on from the Kyoto protocol (which it is not a part of), apparently preferring the 'aspirational' targets of the toothless APEC proposal negotiated a few weeks ago in Sydney. The nations seem to be waiting for some technological miracle (which may or may not come), rather than making the hard choices required to effectively manage the situation.

To be fair, not all of the citizenry of these two countries are ignorant of the dangers of climate change. Australia's top policeman notes that the impacts of climate change are the biggest security threat of the future. US-based studies are suggesting that centralized coal and nuclear power plants should be phased out in favor of alternate energy sources. Australians also desire alternate energy sources, but would prefer some subsidies from the government to lower the cost. The token gestures made to date are not satisfactory.

There is hope and the time to act in these countries is coming soon. An election is immanent in Australia, expected to occur by the end of the year. National US elections will be held in little over a year. The citizenry of these nations must see through the sophistry of the current leadership and elect insightful leaders who are willing to place the environmental and climate issues of the forefront of the public policy agenda where they belong. The stakes are high and the time for dithering is past. We must act now to insure stability for future generations.

Odds and ends

A few miscellaneous news items related to previous posts on planet doom?

Just days after the post Disease and climate change, which noted the possibility of the disease Leishmaniasis extending its range comes a report detailing just that. Nine people in north Texas, in the vicinity of Dallas have been confirmed to have acquired the parasitic disease. The people who have fallen afoul of this infliction have not visited areas where the disease is endemic. "This is very strong evidence that the areas we need to consider endemic are moving north", reported the doctor confirming the diagnosis.

The melting ice of the Arctic is affecting political and social change in Greenland. While the retreat of the ice is eliminating the traditional way of life based on hunting, the warming is also allowing residents to produce potatoes and broccoli. It is also record catches of fish and creating opportunities for exploitation of mineral resources, possibly including oil. The potential wealth from mineral exploration is fueling dreams of a self-sufficient and independent Greenland, as well as creating social tensions and upheaval.

Finally, Australia's climate change woes continue. Despite a La Nina being officially declared recently(by the US, anyway. Australia still hasn't officially announced it yet...), unprecedented drought continues is the agricultural regions of the nation. Historically, La Nina years bring abundant rainfall to Australia, but the late timing and unusual temperature structure of this particular event is preventing this from occurring. As a result, the wheat harvest is likely to fail again this year, sending already high prices soaring. The wine industry, one of the leading exports, is also threatened if the drought continues. In Sydney, current water restrictions have been made permanent, in anticipation of continuing and future drought.

Worldwide, the signs continue to point towards ongoing climate change. If, as seems likely, these trends continue, we face a crisis of unprecedented magnitude. While we cannot be 100% certain these effects are due to climate change, do we really want to take the chance? It is our children's future. Let's take steps to correct our unsustainable lifestyle and give them a chance at a better life.