Consensus on Climate Disruption: What We Must Do
As mentioned, Cameron Atwood sent a series of political memes he created, including the one below on climate disruption.
I wish there were a way to communicate this concept to everyone on Earth; it’s certainly one that I sneak in wherever I go to speak in public: the fact that there is some level of uncertainty about the timing and full effects of climate change is not a valid argument for ignoring it. The reason we buy fire insurance isn’t that we’re sure we’re going to have a house fire; in fact, the odds of such an event are very small. But we buy it to protect ourselves from catastrophic outcomes. Conversely, in the case of climate change, the scientific consensus is that we’re 95% sure that human-caused climate change is in the process of creating severe damage to our environment.
Note also how Dr. Crowther deals with the notion that scientists are motivated to agree with the theory of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) so they can keep their jobs.
If anything, I would say scientific projections of climate change systematically under estimate the likely outcome in order not to be accused of fear mongering.
Arctic ice is disappearing at an alarming rate far faster than most projections – so that in my view, it is unlikely that the Arctic Ocean can remain substantially ice covered through the next El Nino event in 10 to 15 years time.
Last time CO2 levels were this high, it is believed sea levels were 9 meters above current levels – and we are still a long way short of steady CO2 levels.
The Jet Stream now seems to have been substantially disrupted leading to changing climate patterns across much of the Northern hemisphere, and large areas are seeing unprecedented heat, snowstorms, drought, and intense rainfall events.
The current target of limiting warming to 1.5 centigrade now looks impossible, and 2 degrees unlikely. 3 to 4 degrees of warming now looks probable.
Over the next 1 to 2 centuries, numerous megacities like Shanghai, Mumbai, Lagos, London and New York will need to be mostly to completely evacuated. Whole countries like Bangladesh will be covered by the sea.
Certain areas will be exposed to periods of lethal heat. Not the kind of heat that kills hundreds or thousands, rather heat capable of wiping out whole populations if the power goes down! Heat that cannot be survived in the open, or in the absence of active cooling.
What of the Amazon Jungle? Already, the Amazon shows signs of drying out, and of becoming a net source rather than sink of CO2. If this process continues, most of the rainforest could turn into savanah grasslands with scattered trees and bushes.
Other areas could see huge but unpredictable rainfall, hurricanes of unprecedented ferocity – with sustained winds around 200 miles an hour, and gusts hitting 300.
Will all this happen? I dont know, it is too soon to be sure, but all of the above are looking possible, and some of them probable.
Perhaps the analogy to insurance could be used with some force. I imagine moving past the denial to a point of uncertainty and then to a question of how much to invest in mitigation.
It is then a bit like the joke that ends with the line “we have established you are a person of low morals now we are just negotiating price.”
Craig,
Climate change has been occurring since the creation of the planet. The concept of “maintaining a stable climate” is absurd.
Equally absurd is the concept that we have reached the full extent of knowledge about the causes and effects of climatic change experienced by the planet.
The most unscientific conclusion we can draw, is claiming our knowledge is so complete we no longer need to entertain the possibility of new, previously unknown factors being discovered. Claiming we have no need to explore or consider any knowledge that dissents challenges perspectives, while denying any room for error, is not science but religion.
The only sentient being who cares about living conditions on the planet are humans. There is no wise “mother earth”, the planet itself doesn’t care ! The human species is alone in caring about living conditions on the planet.
All human existence is a comprise. As a species we continually balance the needs of individuals against the collective, the needs of one collective against another.
Likewise, we balance economic necessity against possible environmental harm. We balance the desire for quality, against the need for quantity.
For such an aggressive creature, the ability to compromise is an essential survival skill
As a species, we are happiest when reaching compromises. Since the dawn of civilization (and probably before) ‘Prophets of Doom’ have sought to influence human affairs.
Mostly these individuals gather few followers and do no harm. Occasionally, they become immensely powerful, imposing fanatical adherence to ideologies capable of taking over entire nations.
Their removal invariably involves much human suffering and bloodshed.
As Craig rightly points out, even when policies and agendas are advocated with highly moral or beneficial purpose, often very sincere, the devil is in the detail.
Even when environmental advocacy is not simply a cover for unrelated political agenda, the rhetoric often masks the impracticality of any solution, and the origins of the “evidence”.
The scientific basis for alarming and extreme advocacy relies upon very distorted, contrived and selective interpretations of data.
When these speculative assumptions are challenged, that’s when advocates and their acolytes turn ugly . Militant activists start screaming “destroy all the doubters and heretics!”
As has been demonstrated, Joe Public quickly tires of fanatical rhetoric, being lectured, and patronized. He’s sick of being told he must change his lifestyle and beliefs to comply with of some pseudo-scientific/religious dogma, which he suspects is just a cover for older failed ideologies.
The evidence is before his eyes. In the UK, Joe Public rejected the urban elite, and voted for Brexit. As a response to the shock of the result, the media and chattering classes called for support for the violent demonstrations conducted by the extreme left.
The pundits cried “woe ! all is doom and despair”, and mounted court challenge in the hope Parliament would overturn the referendum result.
Alas, the MP’s had taken a more accurate measure of their electors expectations, than professional pollsters and realized the citizens of the UK wanted their voice to count, not that of students and professional agitators. The result is history, a landslide vote to trigger article 50.
So go ahead, protest vigorously, make as much raucous dissent as possible, but don’t be surprised when you find support for your opponents strengthening. That’s the natural result of just opposing everything, while not focusing on a few key issues.
Marco, that is quite a stump. You seem to have a closer connection to the pulse of the fossil fuel industry than I.
I wonder sometimes, “Is it a reasonable industry?” Are these business decision makers rational people? Has Exxon Mobil and other oil multi nationals looked at their own research and panicked? Are they in complete denial of risks to their business and way of life? It is hard to reason with someone who feels as though they are drowning. They will as likely pull anyone who tries to save them to their joint doom.
Or is there some sanity? Are there those who can weigh risks and work to manage them rather than simply react to them? Mostly I wonder if there is a path for discussion and negotiation or does the future only hold confrontation and positioning for power.
Petrochemical companies seem to have a lot of power. Perhaps it is too often true that those with some power will only negotiate when forced to do so. It is the nature of power to want to hold on to it. I think that Mikhail Gorbachev may have been a heroic exception when he stared into the future and reasoned a path towards less violence with “perestroika.”
But if his kind of exception no longer exists than we may be looking at a future of demonstrations, protests and perhaps even violence as sometimes irrational reactions are used to counter irrational positions.
There is some sense in your words above that you equate indecision, perhaps from having insufficient facts, with an inability or refusal to act. It seems that there is a difference between waking up from a sound sleep to hear dogs barking and smelling smoke. Either one may suggest a deadly threat, but why there are multiple ways to react to an invader it is hard to argue with a fire. Some people seem to feel that the threat of global climate change is more like the fire than an invader. It requires more reaction than investigation.
I found this a curious phrase, “As a species, we are happiest when reaching compromises.” Did you mean that the entire species is “happiest” or the individuals involved? I rather doubt that the species takes note of compromises even if we could attribute a quality like “happiness” to the entire group which I think you would not be inclined to do. Perhaps you intended to suggest it is the individuals involved. But I have found that the only ones happy with a compromise are those asking unreasonable demands which they then “compromise.” For others a compromise makes both parties unhappy, albeit equally.
Unlike you I have a far more pessimistic view of “everyman.” If “Joe public” tired of being told what to do constant advertisements would be a miserable failure. It is sad to see the marketing industry agrees with my pessimistic perspective. Rather it seems many to most are schooled almost from birth to accept authority and avoid “being different,” or thinking for themselves.
Finally, I have to ask, has your position to, give Trump a chance,” changed since called the conversation with Malcolm Turnbull “the worst phone call?”
Breath,
Thank you for your reply.
In reply to your question on oil companies. These huge institutions consist of people, people very much like you and me.
CEO’s and Directors of these huge corporations must each day cope with awesome responsibility. Upon their decisions rest the future of millions of livelihoods, sometimes even lives.
Like politicians, these executives are a often a mixture of greatness and human frailties. They’re not cartoon stereotypes, but multi-dimensional personalities. They love, have children, experience pain and self doubt. Some are driven by a desire to create and serve with responsibility, others are motivated by power and ambition, etc.
The products of these corporations are the engine room of the world’s economy.
Without oil, and the oil (petrol-chemical) industry, the modern world would cease to exist ! Billions would starve and the planet would descend into chaos.
Disengaging from such a deeply intrinsic and essential element of society, is almost impossible. Even the more modest task of just lessening the role of fossil fuels in the generation of energy is still a Herculean task and immensely complex.
Which is why I despair when I read the simplistic rantings of advocates, who either can’t understand the complexity or choose to ignore reality, in order to gain support.
I don’t believe there are “goodies” and “baddies” , just people wrestling with impossibly complicated problems.
Perhaps Toyota boss, Akio Toyoda, expressed it best when he said ruefully after taking charge of the corporation his great-grandfather started , ” I imagined becoming President and CEO would be a position of power to direct the company at my will. What I have discovered is reality is far more humbling, far from being in control, I find myself in the position of trying to steer a large and obstinate Elephant by it’s ears ! “.
You are mistaken when you claim I believe to ” give Trump a chance”. That’s not my position. Like any politician, Trump must be held to account. However, it doesn’t matter whether I like him or not, by virtue of the provisions of the US political system, the reality is he’s President!
Pretending he’s not, or can be ignored, is absurd and unproductive. My approach is simply one of pragmatism.
President Trump’s phone conversation with the Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull, should have remained confidential.
Fortunately, no permanent harm was done and Trump’s plain speaking was very refreshing. What did the PM expect ? Did he imagine this was the best time to add to the Presidents problems ?
But it’s all okay, both men have hides like Rhino’s and had the conversation not been leaked, the incident would have passed unnoticed.
I’m not sure about the folks where you live, but Australian and UK electors have a very alarming tendency to show very little respect for authority, insist on being different, and definitely think for themselves ! (that’s not to say they always reach logical, wise or even sensible conclusions).
My first experience of the US military was traveling on a US naval vessel. I was astonished at the informality and familiarity between US officers and enlisted ranks.
As an Australian officer I always tolerated grumbling from the ranks, as long as it was accompanied with immediate and unquestioning obedience.
Serving alongside US troops can be very unnerving, as many officers seem afraid of their men, while others are overly familiar.
Enlisted men can never be my friends or mates. That doesn’t mean I don’t like them, or respect them as individuals, but they are my responsibility and can’t allow my personal feelings interfere with my impartial judgement and duty.
Large corporations are very similar. the higher the position the greater the authority and reward, but also the greater the responsibility and accountability.
You don’t give Joe Public enough credit. Advertising only works if it didn’t appeal. The effectiveness of mere repetition is a myth.
Nor is Joe Public a fool,he knows a soft drink won’t make him suddenly young and cool, but he also likes the feeling of it being associated with the good times. The best advertising plays to our imaginations.
This is no different than our willingness to suspend belief when we read a work of fiction or watch a movie.
Sir Winston Churchill said,” never underestimate the astuteness of the everyman, they vote with their hearts, and too often their harts are right!”.
I do think President Trump should reconsider his unedifying attacks on members of the Judiciary, and desist conducting Presidential dialog by tweets. (The individual who invented Tweeting has a lot to answer for!).
Marco, the retort that corporations are a mixture of individuals is a bit of a platitude. I was hoping for a bit more, the pulse of the industry. The summary of the individuals.
We agree that fossil fuels are deeply intertwined in the world’s economy. But this is not enough to say that nothing can or should be done. The world once lived without them and will have to do so again if either we fail to reconcile global warming and civilization collapses or we listen to scientists who tell us that the carbon must stay in the ground.
I have a neighbor who tells a story of being in the Army of his country in another time and befriending a general. That man spoke of having the respect of his men but knowing that he must be reasonable or could suffer a stray bullet when under fire. Today we call it “friendly fire.”
It is interesting that you go back and forth with the relationship between leadership and the workers.
– Australian people have a “healthy” disrespect for authority..
– As an officer you expected respect
– Us officers tolerated disrespect but you could never be friendly with someone you are responsible for… so the heart must be eliminated from decision making? That is a traditionally intellectual view.
– When it comes to “everyman” they will not follow the advertiser’s lead
– somehow the heart of everyman will protect them from being duped. But perhaps Churchill was not familiar with scientifically engineered market analysis.
Somehow I think there is a story here but that is for you to find, I am busy elsewhere.
Breath,
Platitude or not, the great oil companies are collections of individuals much like the societies from which they originate. The individuals who lead the corporations are much like political leaders, some very authoritarian, others less so.
Rex Tillersen is a typical product of Exxon. A Texan, he hails like most of Exxon’s leaders from a narrowly educated, Protestant religious culture. He’s fiercely honest and meticulous at obeying rules, while hypocritical enough to seek overt, legalistic exemptions.
His life is dominated by his dedication to the US version of the Boy Scout movement. Tillerson is a product of a “god fearing” patriotic upbringing often found in senior US executives.
But he’s also a creature of contrasts. Unlike many of his contemporaries he opposes the death penalty.
I suspect in his new role he may turn out to be an American Bismark ! There’s a lot in his style to suggest similarities.
The world that could survive without fossil fuels, no longer exists. It’s interesting that you would suggest turning back the clock. The current would would simply perish.
I agree that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to develop alternate technologies, but we must be realistic about the size and complexity of the task.
During my service years, I never “expected” respect for myself as a person from subordinates. Respect for the rank, is automatic and must be enforced. Respect for myself is something I had to earn.
On the other hand, I must respect my subordinates as individuals, just as I must be responsible for their lives, training and welfare. The Queen entrusted me with her commission to act at all times in a lawful, trustworthy and honorable manner as befits my rank in her service.
I can’t allow personal feeling influence me when dealing with individual subordinates. No only would such conduct be disastrous for discipline, it would be a grossly unfair imposition on the enlisted man.
The old saying “Salute the uniform, not the man” is a very important definition of military discipline. Every officer may one day find himself in the position of ordering others to risk their lives in his place. In general, officers should refrain from reckless acts of heroism. They are simply too valuable, and have too many responsibilities.
Your story of officers being afraid of assassination by their own men, is very observable among Americans where NCO’s seem less reliable. ( In my day it was called fragging, as fragmentation grenades were the weapon of choice).
In my experience, enlisted men expect officers to enforce discipline impartially and fairly. They don’t expect young officers to be experienced soldiers, but expect senior NCO’s to be good soldiers.
Being an officer isn’t a popularity contest,if you are afraid of being unpopular, you should resign your commission.
I found a good rule was always to find something about every enlisted man to genuinely praise. The memory of that praise helps to deflect resentment of discipline.
I should add that the Australian army is unique in it’s history for never having included the death penalty in military law.
I wish I had your faith in “scientifically engineered market analysis”. Human capriciousness will always confound behaviour predictions.
The general in the story was in the Italian Army just after WWII.
I am sorry if I gave the impression that a 7 million soul economy could fit in a 1 billion energy bottle. While the world of 300 years ago, before fossil fuels, could not be directly reborn we might take some lessons from that time. That was also a time without electricity. Direct energy usage is usually more efficient. For example para-sails on commercial shipping could save as much as 50% of the most polluting shipping fuel. Just one little cost effective change. Instead we have a habit of using fuel for any situation and our market model requires oil companies to constantly expand their markets. The technology of oil is complex but even more resistant to change is our way of doing business. We assume it is the only way.
Market analysis predicts trends not individual actions. It is similar to the difference between predicting climate and predicting the weather. The only “human capriciousness” that is of any account is the bias of those collecting the demographics and those using the information. It is often ineffectively misapplied back to individuals such as when I get those crazy pop up adverts that have nothing to do with my interests. But to predict what words will sell to a general population or what topics to use for a general election it is “useful” and extensively used. It predicts the human climate. Perhaps we should use if to discover the pulse of oil executives.
Should be 7 billion soul economy…
Breath,
Ah yes, I should imagine being a WW2 officer in the Italian Army could be very hazardous ! 🙂
The idea of a para-sail for modern shipping is intriguing. The concept was trialed by the MS Beluga SkySails in 2008, but proved disappointingly impractical.
Even in ideal conditions, fuel savings were less than 5%.
But there are lot’s of more practical technology to mitigate some of the more harmful effects of fossil fuel usage. I’ve been investing, developing and promoting environmentally-friendlier technology for nearly 20 years. Some projects have been very successful, others less so, but I keep trying.
Marco, it was a number of years ago that I studied a wind assist for commercial shipping so your suggestion that the fuel savings were not economical was a bit surprising. I searched for a similar metric and found nothing.
Even at 5% for a ship using 86 million dollars of fuel a year this amounts to more than $4 million for a system that costs less than $1 million to install and is fully automatic. That 5% savings in fuel would seem to be more than a 400% return on investment in one year.
I did however find this article from February 2015 that reviews a masted system and found it to be economical. http://machinedesign.com/fea-and-simulation/updating-sailing-cargo-ship
Considering that it uses the wind available at sea level and has considerably more hardware requirements than the para-sail system and it is still economical suggests that the para sail system would be more so using less equipment and wind at a higher elevation. The next article suggests an average savings of approximately 3 tons of fuel per day.
In this article the delay in deployment of the system is blamed on the downturn in shipping and not inefficiency of the system. http://www.ship-technology.com/features/feature-skysails-bringing-wind-back-ship-propulsion/