You and Me and 403.3
As we learned yesterday, the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere made a big leap from 2015 and 2016, hitting 403.3 ppm (up 3.3 from the previous year), for the first time in the last 800,000 years, according to ice core samples, at which time sea-levels were 66 feet higher than they are now. From the article linked above: The increase essentially guarantees that in the absence of rapid and dramatic cuts to emissions, catastrophic temperature increases “well above” those the Paris agreement sought to avoid will become a reality by end of the century, according to Petteri Taalas, the head of the World Meteorological Organization.
My fifth grade teacher used to say, “A word to the wise is sufficient,” from which one would infer that our population simply couldn’t be too wise, since the “word” on the impending catastrophes coming from our scientists is so crystal clear. Having said that, I don’t think it’s a matter of wisdom, but rather one of selfishness. We seem to be willing to sacrifice very close to zero in order to address the existential threat of climate change.
It’s very possible that this “me-first” aspect of human character will prove to be the tragic flaw that takes our species out. Think about the last 9000 years since the beginnings of permanent agriculture marked the onset of human civilization, and try to find more than a handful examples of real cooperation between groups of people through those times. Then notice that humankind has become more barbaric than every in the recent past. The 20th Century was by far the bloodiest 100 years in human history, and the 21st Century is on track to make the 20th look like a Sunday School class.
Having said all this, look at the skirmish happening now in U.S. politics, and note that it’s caused by the majority of Americans’ ferocious resistance against with the forces of hatred, ignorance, and, most of all greed. Most people are good, and they’re not going down without a fight.
A couple of points Craig.
First, you said that this year’s 403.3 ppm is 3.3% greater than last year. It’s 3.3ppm greater than last year, which I imagine was what you intended.
🙂
Second. We won’t be wiped out, as a species, by global warming. It will certainly kill off a LOT of the future population, by means of war over food and water, but there will still be a reasonably large population of humans by the time our climate stabilizes. Those populations will be concentrated further North and South, rather than in the tropics like they are now. But they’ll be there.
But the above are, of course, quibbles.
My main response to what you wrote here is that the primary thing stopping people from really sacrificing is a refusal to sacrifice without accomplishment.
If you ask me to donate blood, I’m there (I’ve donated more than 150 times at the Red Cross). If you ask me to donate blood and specifically tell me that you plan on dumping that blood on an anthill… I’m suddenly less interested. The idea that people feel there own sacrifices would be unhelpful is the reason why we require policy to really change things.
If I took cold showers in the morning rather than my nice warm showers, I could reduce my carbon footprint by maybe a ton/year. That’s 1/(35 billion) of the problem, for which I could be totally miserable every morning. Most people have similar hangups about a lot of different usage.
It has to be a shared sacrifice, or else no-one is going to want to ante-up, because no-one wants to sacrifice for nothing… or 1/(35 billion) of a solution. It won’t sell.
That was the magic of the Paris accord. EVERYONE was willing to ante up and share in the sacrifice… which meant that everyone was willing to sacrifice something. I think they will still be a measured success despite the fact that we have 62.8 nihilist terrorist assholes in the country that sought to undermine that most inspirational moment in human history… But that moment has taken a beating.
We’ll have to wait for a post-Trump era to pick of the pieces and really make strong gains as a society again.
Thanks. Yes, I meant 3.3 ppm, which I fixed.
And yes, it needs to be a shared sacrifice; great point about Paris.
I really shouldn’t have said that people are unwilling to make sacrifices across the board; there are many millions of incredible people working tirelessly for environmental and social justice who could be out making real money, or relaxing on a beach somewhere.
@Glenn
Thanks for your comments Glenn, and if passion for any global public interest topic amounts to anything (and it most certainly does) you are a leader in this category.
Like you I believe in clean energy. I make my living as an engineer involved in clean energy technologies (PV, hydro and battery storage) in many countries, and am currently working in Detroit on a battery ESS project.
But I feel you have lost your way Glenn (like many others) on the fundamentals around GHG mitigation science and technology, and the future global energy generation technology imperatives desperately required by an energy staved (and rapidly worsening) world and its peoples in general. And I emphasise ‘world and its peoples’ and that entire phrase embodies.
For the inexperienced (and that’s just about everybody) having even a vague rather than intimate understanding of ‘the world and its peoples’ is simply incomprehensible.
And it is this very point that is largely responsible for the polarisation of the world’s (well-intentioned commentators and technocrats no doubt) into a near hysterical at times, parochialism and narrow focus that we now see everywhere in the GHG and future global generation debate and commentary, and 2GreenEnergy unfortunately is not an exception to this point.
Doomsday type hype might normally imply, united we stand but divided we fall, but for others (and there are many globally) capitulation or negativity is not an option or even a focus in discussion; the subject of GHG is not an overwhelming one at all, but rather an opportunity to roll up the sleeves – get working – and usher mankind into a new age technological era as a consequence. One underpinned by an enduring cost effective, clean and safe massive energy generation technology paradigm enabling desperately needed innovative new age technologies to be implemented and provide opportunities for all peoples moving forward.
Instead of a pessimistic outlook, many global decision makers and visionaries are excited in general about where we the world is currently placed and much more importantly, heading to as a global entity.
So I invite you to refresh your knowledge about the global generation imperative and learn more about how others throughout the world are evaluating it and doing about it, instead of keeping yourself down in the mouth by what is happening (or not happening) specifically in your particular global ‘neck of the woods’ alone.
Here are a couple of contemporary comments that might interest you Glenn:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-conference-says-more-nuclear-power-needed-to-meet-global-goals-on-climate-change
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/how-china-has-become-the-worlds-fastest-expanding-nuclear-power-producer
Lawrence Coomber