Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
- This topic has 902 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Check out @RARohde’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/954018594848993280?s=09
I see Kratakoa has erupted again. A big one, like that of 1883, could slow down global warming. As Wikipedia says of the 1883 eruption:
Average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius in the year following the eruption. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.
Capitalism to the rescue
Shell has declared an ambition to double the amount it spends on green energy to $4bn (£3.2bn) a year. If initial investments generated a good enough return, he would be able to successfully argue for an increase from 2020 onwards.
“I would like my current business to be financially credible enough for not only the company, but shareholders, to want to double it and look at more,” Maarten Wetselaar, the head of the gas and new energy unit said in an interview with the Guardian. Solar will be the world’s biggest future source of low carbon power, he said, because of the number of regions it was viable in.
Shell is considered an industry leader on the switch, having invested in solar firms and electric car infrastucture companies.
Norway’s state oil company has rebranded as Equinor to reflect its move towards becoming a “broad energy company”, France’s Total has gone big on batteries, and BP has returned to solar six years after exiting the sector.
Was originally going to post on the Yellow Vest thread but chose this one
Aborted Fuel Tax Initiative in France: Its Ramifications for Green Growth
“… how do political leaders introduce policies that will do long-term good for the environment without losing their chances of re-election?…”
Never posted here before since I’m mainly just a reader, but I thought I’d post some of these here FYI:
Climate Feedbacks:
Geo-engineering/IPCC Thoughts/Runaway Climate Change:
Global Dimming/Aerosol Masking Effect:
By the way, the Climate State youtube channel offers tons of information.
Chris
The real crisis is capitalism, if we eliminate capitalism, we eliminate the real causes that produce climate crisis.
<p>Its all down to costs</p><p>https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-coal-epa/u-s-limits-on-coal-plant-mercury-emissions-too-costly-trumps-epa-idUKKCN1OR1BS</p><p>Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, or MATS, enacted under former President Barack Obama, coal-burning power plants were required to install expensive equipment to cut output of mercury, which can harm pregnant women and put infants and children at risk of developmental problems.</p><p>Using a different cost analysis to evaluate whether the regulation is needed, Trump’s EPA has decided, its reassessment showed the cost of compliance with MATS was between $7.4 billion to $9.6 billion annually, while the monetized benefits were between $4 million to $6 million, concluding, ” it is not ‘appropriate and necessary’ to regulate HAP (Hazardous Air Pollution) emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants… because the costs of such regulation grossly outweigh the quantified HAP benefits.”</p>
Sorry to have to keep pointing this out but this article like many others is confusing about what any increase in global warming of 1.5 degrees C (or of 2 or 4) means because it omits to say in relation to what. If you don’t read these things carefully you might think that this is in relation to today’s average global temperature whereas it is in fact in relation to the pre-industrial times. As the temperature has already risen by about 1 degree since then, we are talking about a further rise of 0.5 (or 1.5 or 3) degrees by the end of the century.
So, when the caption below the photo says:
“A major IPCC special report released in October warns that even just a half-degree more of warming could be disastrous.
this is confusing. The “half-degree more” which the IPCC report refers to is not a half-degree more than the pre-industrial figure (taking it to a rise of 1.5 degrees since then) but a half-degree beyond 1.5 degrees to 2 degrees. In fact the whole IPCC report is making the rather obvious point that if the temperature rise is not limited to 1.5 degrees (since pre-industrial times) and rises to 2 degrees things will be worse.
The article again shows this confusion in the last section when, despite mentioning that there has already been a 1 degree rise since pre-industrial times, it repeats:
“Since the 19th century, the Earth has warmed by 1 degree Celsius. Now, a major IPCC special report released in October warns that even just a half-degree of warming could be disastrous.”
But IPCC report is not saying that a half-degree rise by 2100 would be disastrous. It is saying that the rise should be limited to this otherwise, if in particular it rises by a half-degree beyond that (i.e. to 2 degrees beyond pre-industrial levels) there is likely to be disastrous consequences.
The other thing of course is that the Common Dreams – or should it be Common Nightmares ! – article is dealing with is, as it states, the worst case scenario of “business-as-usual”, i.e. nothing being done to stop CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels continuing at their current rate. But they won’t (something is being done, however insufficient) and in fact can’t (it is only in theory that something can go on increasing exponentially as in practical there will always be physical obstacles to this, e,g. in this case coal or oil will become too expensive to extract).
This is not to say that there is not a serious problem that capitalism can’t cope with properly. There is, if only because the agreed aim amongst capitalist states is to try to limit the rise by 2100 to the 2 degrees the IPCC regards as disastrous and that they are not on course for this. Also, the further capitalist development of the “underdeveloped” countries, and the energy generation this will entail from whatever source is cheapest, will continue.
The article, however, does make a valid point when it says:
“apocalyptic thinking might be easy to mock, and not entirely helpful in inspiring political action if end times are nigh.”
Quite. If the end of the world is nigh, why bother?
The Green New Deal hits its first hurdle – the Democrats de-fang the movement
The Wall St Party aren’t going to upset it corporate donors.
But the Greens propose a fight to control the Democrats – a battle I believe is fated for them to lose.
Personalising climate change as a strategy
“Perhaps we have been speaking the wrong language, seeking a change of mind when really what we need is a change of heart.”
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/05/why-climate-change-message-isnt-working
(as an aside, in reference to another thread, can we adapt such an approach to the broader issue of social revolution?)
Oh dear, what a combination of the two silliest slogans of past decades — “the personal is political” and “think global, act local” — plus a call “nimbies of the world unite,” with religious smugness added in.
Of course tackling climate change requires global action and the application of science, not tree-hugging.
The author shares a similar distain
“…The use of climate arguments to promote other conservation issues has a psychological counterpart in cultivating an image and a self-image of hardheaded realism, in which squishy nature lover reasons give way to rational utilitarian ones. You can traffic in data about sea levels and economic losses and crop failure risks to disguise the truth: Basically, you are a tree hugger. You are a whale lover, a butterfly gazer, a turtle caresser. Maybe you practice Druidic rituals or connect with the soul of Gaia in vision quests. The arguments you give about future impacts, 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees, meters of sea level rise, hectares of forest, energy return on energy investment for photovoltaics, methane clathrate release rates … these legitimize your mushy tree hugger sentiments…”
I think his argument goes deeper than you read into them.
How do we get people to react and respond to climate change.
NIMBYism? “Not-in-my-backyard thinking becomes not-in-anyone’s-backyard.”
But how do we link it? When there is a call to save the planet, what actually is it we are trying to save? The author begins from what each and everyone of us experience, our local “beauty spot”, our local interaction, the hiking and the hill-walking and the swimming in the local river, loch and beach. That the climate change campaign’s stats is a number-game that is failing to reach people.
From the blurb of his book
“This refocusing away from impending catastrophe and our inevitable doom cultivates meaningful emotional and psychological connections and provides real, actionable steps to caring for the earth.”
As one reviewer says, the author wants to present a hopeful and positive attitude and solution. Something that on another thread I am accused of not presenting.
But he is guilty of anthropomorphising our relationship with nature but aren’t we guilty of romanticizing somewhat when we use terms like human family to get our message across?
His language is not ours
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.