Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 17, 2016
Global Warming and the Future of Humanity
How serious of an issue is climate change? Does global warming really threaten human civilization? Can it be reversed, or is it already late?
In this exclusive interview for Truthout, two scholars, Noam Chomsky, one of the world’s leading public intellectuals, and Graciela Chichilnisky, a renowned economist and climate change authority who wrote and designed the carbon market of the Kyoto Protocol, concur on a few key points. First of all, global warming and climate change constitute the greatest challenge facing humanity, and may pose an even greater threat to our species than that of nuclear weapons. Secondly, the operations of the capitalist world economy are at the core of the climate change threat because of over-reliance on fossil fuels and a perverse sense of economic values. Thirdly, the world needs to adopt alternative energy systems as quickly as possible. And finally, it is crucial to explore technologies to assist us in reversing climate change — as time is running out.
C. J. Polychroniou: A consensus seems to be emerging among scientists and even political and social analysts that global warming and climate change represent the greatest threat to the planet. Do you concur with this view, and why?
Noam Chomsky: I agree with the conclusion of the experts who set the Doomsday Clock for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. They have moved the Clock two minutes closer to midnight — three minutes to midnight — because of the increasing threats of nuclear war and global warming. That seems to me a credible judgment. Review of the record shows that it’s a near miracle that we have survived the nuclear age. There have been repeated cases when nuclear war came ominously close, often a result of malfunctioning of early-warning systems and other accidents, sometimes [as a result of] highly adventurist acts of political leaders. It has been known for some time that a major nuclear war might lead to nuclear winter that would destroy the attacker as well as the target. And threats are now mounting, particularly at the Russian border, confirming the prediction of George Kennan and other prominent figures that NATO expansion, particularly the way it was undertaken, would prove to be a “tragic mistake,” a “policy error of historic proportions.”
As for climate change, it’s by now widely accepted by the scientific community that we have entered a new geological era, the Anthropocene, in which the Earth’s climate is being radically modified by human action, creating a very different planet, one that may not be able to sustain organized human life in anything like a form we would want to tolerate. There is good reason to believe that we have already entered the Sixth Extinction, a period of destruction of species on a massive scale, comparable to the Fifth Extinction 65 million years ago, when three-quarters of the species on earth were destroyed, apparently by a huge asteroid. Atmospheric CO2 is rising at a rate unprecedented in the geological record since 55 million years ago. There is concern — to quote a statement by 150 distinguished scientists — that “global warming, amplified by feedbacks from polar ice melt, methane release from permafrost, and extensive fires, may become irreversible,” with catastrophic consequences for life on Earth, humans included — and not in the distant future. Sea level rise and destruction of water resources as glaciers melt alone may have horrendous human consequences.
Graciela Chichilnisky: The consensus is that climate change ranks along with nuclear warfare as the top two risks facing human civilization. If nuclear warfare is believed to be somewhat controlled, then climate change is now the greatest threat.
As difficult as it is to eliminate the risk of nuclear warfare, it requires fewer changes to the global economy than does averting or reversing climate change. Climate change is due to the use of energy for industrial growth, which has been and is overwhelmingly based on fossil fuels. Changing an economic system that is bent on uncontrolled and poorly measured economic growth and depends on fossil energy for its main objectives, is much more difficult than changing how nuclear energy is used for military purposes. Some think it may be impossible.
Virtually all scientific studies point to increased temperatures since 1975, and a recent story in The New York Times confirms that decades-long warnings by scientists on global warming are no longer theoretical as land ice melts and sea levels rise. Yet, there are still people out there who not only question the widely accepted scientific view that current climate change is mostly caused by human activities, but also cast a doubt on the reliability of surface temperatures. Do you think this is all politically driven, or also caused by ignorance and perhaps even fear of change?
Chomsky: It is an astonishing fact about the current era that in the most powerful country in world history, with a high level of education and privilege, one of the two political parties virtually denies the well-established facts about anthropogenic climate change. In the primary debates for the 2016 election, every single Republican candidate was a climate change denier, with one exception, John Kasich — the “rational moderate” — who said it may be happening but we shouldn’t do anything about it. For a long time, the media have downplayed the issue. The euphoric reports on US fossil fuel production, energy independence, and so on, rarely even mention the fact that these triumphs accelerate the race to disaster. There are other factors too, but under these circumstances, it hardly seems surprising that a considerable part of the population either joins the deniers or regards the problem as not very significant.
Chichilnisky: Climate change is new and complex. We don’t have all the answers. We are still learning how exactly the Earth reacts to increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases. We know it leads to warming seas which are melting the North and the South Poles, rising and starting to swallow entire coastal areas in the US and elsewhere, as the New York Times article documents. We know that the warming rising seas will swallow entire island nations that are about 25 percent of the UN vote and perhaps at the end, even our civilization. This realization is traumatic and the first reaction to trauma is denial. Since there is some remaining scientific uncertainty, a natural response is to deny that change is occurring. This is natural but it is very dangerous. Signs of a poorly understood but treatable house fire requires action, not inaction. While denial leads to certainty, it is only the certainty of death. This is true for individuals and also for civilizations.
Political parties often take advantage of denial and fear in a moment of change. This is a well understood phenomenon that often leads to scapegoat-ism: blaming outsiders, such as immigrants, or racial and religious minorities. The phenomenon is behind Brexit and the violence in the political cycles in the US and EU. After denial comes anger and finally, acceptance. I think some are still between denial and anger, and I hope will reach acceptance, because there is still time to act, but the door is closing fast.
In global surveys, Americans are more skeptical than other people around the world over climate change. Why is that? And what does it tell us about American political culture?
Chomsky: The US is to an unusual extent a business-run society, where short-term concerns of profit and market share displace rational planning. The US is also unusual in the enormous scale of religious fundamentalism. The impact on understanding of the world is extraordinary. In national polls almost half of those surveyed have reported that they believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago (or less) and that man shares no common ancestor with the ape. There are similar beliefs about the Second Coming. Senator James Inhofe, who headed the Senate Committee on the environment, speaks for many when he assures us that “God’s still up there and there’s a reason for this to happen,” so it is sacrilegious for mere humans to interfere.
Chichilnisky: The “can do” logic, by its own nature, does not accept limits. And an empire does not have a graceful way to evolve out of this role. History demonstrates this time and again. Trying to conserve a privileged global position makes change traumatic for the US.
The first reaction to trauma is denial, as I explained, then comes anger and finally, acceptance. I think the US is still between denial and anger, and I hope we will reach acceptance because almost perversely, right now, only the US has the technology that is needed for global economic change.
Recent data related to global emissions of heat-treating gases suggest that we may have left behind us the period of constantly increased emissions. Is there room here for optimism about the future of the environment?
Chomsky: There is always room for Gramsci’s “optimism of the will.” There are still many options, but they are diminishing. Options range from simple initiatives that are easily undertaken like weatherizing homes (which could also create many jobs), to entirely new forms of energy, perhaps fusion, perhaps new means of exploiting solar energy outside the Earth’s atmosphere (which has been seriously suggested), to methods of decarbonization that might, conceivably, even reverse some of the enormous damage already inflicted on the planet. And much else.
Chichilnisky: This is good news, it is a step in the right direction. But the road is miles long and the first step, while necessary, does not determine success. It is far from enough. The problem that few people appreciate and was only recently observed in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] data is that CO2 stays hundreds of years in the atmosphere once emitted. It does not decay as particles or sulfur dioxide does. We have used the majority of our carbon budget and we are already at dangerous levels of CO2 concentrations, about 400 parts per million. The levels were 250 before industrialization. So the problem is what we have done already and, therefore, what must be undone.
According to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, page 191, in most scenarios we now have to remove the CO2 we emitted. These emissions were recent, mostly since World War II — 1945 — which was a turning point of the world economy. This was the era of US dominance and of globalization based on over-extraction of natural resources from poor nations and overconsumption of those same resources by the rich industrial nations. The era of galloping increase of wealth by the very few and the even faster galloping and record inequality and poverty in the world economy as a whole. This is the divide between the [global] North that houses 18 percent of the global population and the [global] South that houses over 80 percent.
Given that change in human behavior happens slowly and that it will take many decades before the world economy makes a shift to new, clean(er) forms of energy, should we look toward a technological solution to climate change?
Chomsky: Anything feasible and potentially effective should be explored. There is little doubt that a significant part of any serious solution will require advances of technology, but that can only be part of the solution. Other major changes are necessary. Industrial production of meat makes a huge contribution to global warming. The entire socioeconomic system is based on production for profit and a growth imperative that cannot be sustained.
There are also fundamental issues of value: What is a decent life? Should the master-servant relation be tolerated? Should one’s goals really be maximization of commodities — Veblen’s “conspicuous consumption”? Surely there are higher and more fulfilling aspirations.
Chichilnisky: We seem to have no alternative. I would like to say that the problem could be solved by green energy sources. However, they can no longer solve the problem: many studies have demonstrated that the long-run solutions, such as planting more trees, which are critical to human survival, and adopting cleaner forms of energy, which are the long-run energy solution, cannot be utilized in the timescale that matters. That is the problem. Technology is a many-headed monster and perhaps it would be better to regress to a safer past and avoid technological change; it is tempting to think like that. But UN studies have shown that even if we planted a tree on every square yard available in the planet by the end of the century we would only capture at most 10 percent of the CO2 we need to reduce. This does not mean that we should not plant trees; we should, for biodiversity’s sake, and for our long-term future together with the other species.
Trees and clean energy [are] the long-run solution but we have no time to wait for the long run. We need a short-run solution now, and one that encourages and facilitates the transition to the long-run solution. This is the technology that IPCC proposes, to remove CO2 directly from air. I cofounded a company called Global Thermostat that uses the heat and the power from clean and fossil energy sources, such as solar plants and wind farms, to remove CO2 from air. It provides a short-run solution that facilitates and accelerates the advent of the needed long run.
Many in the progressive and radical community, including the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), are quite skeptical and even opposed to so-called “geo-engineering” solutions. Is this the flip side of the coin to climate change deniers?
Chomsky: That does not seem to me a fair assessment. UCS and others like them may be right or wrong, but they offer serious reasons. That is also true of the very small group of serious scientists who question the overwhelming consensus, but the mass climate denier movements — like the leadership of the Republican Party and those they represent — are a different phenomenon altogether. As for geoengineering, there have been serious general critiques that I think cannot be ignored, like Clive Hamilton’s, along with many positive assessments. It is not a matter for subjective judgment based on guesswork and intuition. Rather, these are matters that have to be considered seriously, relying on the best scientific understanding available, without abandoning sensible precautionary principles.
Chichilnisky: The remedy could be worse than the disease. Certain geoengineering processes have been proposed that could be very dangerous and must be avoided. Geoengineering means changing the Earth’s fundamental large-scale processes. We know little of the consequences of the geoengineering process, such as spraying particles into the atmosphere that shade the planet from the sun’s rays and could decrease its temperature. But this process is how dinosaurs disappeared from the Earth about 60 million years ago, by particles spewed by a volcano or a giant meteorite impact, and our species could follow suit. The sun is the source of all energy on planet Earth and we cannot experiment with our only energy source. Changing the world’s oceans to increase their uptake of CO2, as other geoengineering solutions propose, is equally dangerous, as the increased resulting acidity of the oceans kills tiny crustaceans, such as krill, that are the basis of the pyramid of life on the planet as we know it.
What immediate but realistic and enforceable actions could or should be taken to tackle the climate change threat?
Chomsky: Rapid ending of use of fossil fuels, sharp increase in renewable energy, research into new options for sustainable energy, significant steps toward conservation, and not least, a far-reaching critique of the capitalist model of human and resource exploitation; even apart from its ignoring of externalities, the latter is a virtual death knell for the species.
Chichilnisky: Here is a plan consisting of realistic and enforceable actions that can be taken now to tackle the climate change threat: We have to remove the CO2 that the industrial economy has already emitted, which otherwise will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and alter the Earth’s climate irreversibly. It is possible to do this. The technology now exists to remove carbon directly from the atmosphere and is proven, very safe and inexpensive. This new technology works by taking the CO2 directly from pure air — or a combination of industrial sources and pure air — using as a power source not electricity, but mostly the inexpensive heat that is residual of most industrial processes. The CO2 removed from air is stabilized on earth by selling it for useful commercial purposes with a benefit. CO2 from air can replace petroleum: it can produce plastics and acetate, it can produce carbon fibers that replace metals and clean hydrocarbons, such as synthetic gasoline. We can use CO2 to desalinate water, enhance the production of vegetables and fruit in greenhouses, carbonate our beverages and produce biofertilizers that enhance the productivity of the soil without poisoning it. Carbon negative technology is absolutely needed now as reported by the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, p. 191, and also in four articles of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Is there a way to predict how the world will look like 50 years from now if humans fail to tackle and reverse global warming and climate change?
Chomsky: If current tendencies persist, the outcome will be disastrous before too long. Large parts of the world will become barely habitable affecting hundreds of millions of people, along with other disasters that we can barely contemplate.
Chichilnisky: It is easier to create the future than to predict it. Right now we must implement the requirements of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the UN Kyoto Protocol, as well as the Paris Agreement recommendations: immediately we must remove the CO2 we have already emitted from the planet’s atmosphere and extend the Kyoto emission limits. This is the only possible alternative in most scenarios to catastrophic climate change. This can and must be done.
The funding provided by the Kyoto Protocol Carbon Market could build carbon negative power plants in poor nations. Carbon negative power plants can provide energy while they overcome poverty and change economic values in the right direction.
The UN carbon market, which is international law since 2005, will produce a much needed change in global economic values. The change in economic values created by the new markets for global public goods will reorient our global economy and under the right conditions can usher the satisfaction of basic needs of the present and of the future. This is what is needed right now. We need to support our future instead of undermining human survival. Let’s do it.
120 Comments on "Global Warming and the Future of Humanity"
makati1 on Sat, 17th Sep 2016 10:23 pm
claman, how many of those ‘disputes’ began and are maintained by the US thru ‘independent’ organizations? Most, if not all. US meddling in all of those countries.
I am happy to see that the new Ps prez is NOT pro-US. This is the first President that was NOT indoctrinated in US halls of academia and it shows. Other Asian countries are beginning to wake up and the days of US hegemony here are numbered. About time! It has no business in areas 8,000 miles from its shores.
makati1 on Sat, 17th Sep 2016 10:25 pm
ghung, maybe the US could share some of their 25% of the resources they suck out of the rest of the world? After all, fair is fair. But then, the US has never played fair since 1492, has it?
makati1 on Sat, 17th Sep 2016 10:28 pm
BTW: 25% of the resources shared equally would increase the world’s ability to support at least one billion more people at world average levels. Do the math Americans. YOU are the resource hogs.
Scott Maxwell on Sat, 17th Sep 2016 10:32 pm
I also believe in climate change and believe that humans play a role. But I also believe that nature has the largest role in the changes in our world.
We often talk about changes since 1975. But what about back in time. We have sceitfically found evidence of these same conditions or worst existing back in time.
Now should humans make an effort to reduce their infoence in these changes. Yes.
But to what level. We can’t kill the people to save the environment. It is not only one countries issue.
The U.S. is not currently the worst polluter in this world. But the U.N. and most of its members expect the U.S. to take this burden on single handed and prevent any more damage.
This is a global problem and must be solved by a global effort. For half a century or more, the U.S. has been helping reduce the effects of our existence on the world.
China recently hosted a group of world leaders. Prior to this meeting, the government had to shut down an entire town to allow for enough air quality that would protect the health of those attending but also to shed a better picture about their involvement and the extent on the world.
So this is the real issue. The U.S. should continue efforts to help the world but not at the expense of doing away with America or its citizens.
makati1 on Sat, 17th Sep 2016 10:33 pm
claman: Economic Times is a bullshit propaganda rag. You need to stop sucking up that Koolaid. It kills the ability to think. Do you believe that I do not follow what is happening in my Asian ‘neighborhood’? I certainly do. Much closer than you do yours, probably. I read sources from the countries involved directly. Not some US think tank garbage. I weigh the total of my research and observations and make an educated decision. Do you?
makati1 on Sat, 17th Sep 2016 10:36 pm
Scott, if you close all of the windows and doors in your house and turn the heat up as far as it will go, disconnecting the thermostat, how hot will it get? I propose that you will soon be driven out of your home by those natural laws we ca;ll nature. Humans have done the same thing to the earth by releasing millions of years of stored energy/heat ins a few centuries and continue to do so. Now, tell me that it is mostly natures fault.
Scott Maxwell on Sat, 17th Sep 2016 10:37 pm
I see one person commenting on the U.S. giving 25 percent of our wealth to the rest of the world to prevent this issue. But this is just more of that wealth distribution talking by the U.N. and its members.
Why aren’t they looking at China and real life penalties if they fail to meet their goals and why are their goals being pushed back.
They should also be helping.
As far as the U.S. providing funds to the world. What would happen if the U.S. took all of the federal aid that we give to countries all over the world and allowed it use only to the problems of preventing climate Change.
China is spending so much on their military for a threat that doesn’t exist and never will.
makati1 on Sat, 17th Sep 2016 10:56 pm
Scott, I would bet that you are an ‘exceptional’ American. College educated? Comfortable lifestyle? ‘Fuck the rest of the world’ attitude? The brainwashing shows.
Military budgets 2015:
US —- = $597,000,000,000.00
China – = $250,000,000,000.00
Russia = $ 66,000,000,000.00
Now, tell me who is wasting their resources on the military? The US spends about 1/3 of the TOTAL spent on the militaries of the world. ONE THIRD! And it prints the money/debt to do it.
BTW: FEDERAL aid to other countries in 2013 was less than $100B or less than half the interest on the Federal Debt, much of which goes to … China.
Apneaman on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 1:05 am
Nice picture – looks like a cancer to me.
US Study Confirms Rapid Increase of Methane Emissions by Oil and Gas
Spike corresponds with timing of shale gas boom.
“Methane is a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It can be 34 times more potent than CO2 as a disruptive climate changer over a 100-year frame, and 86 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year time horizon.”
http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/09/16/Oil-Gas-Methane-Emissions/
Cloggie on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 3:21 am
claman says: “And some day all Chinese naval dreams will lie in rusting heaps deep below the water”
What are you talking about? You have any links to Chinese naval buildup?
China has an overland “New Silk Road Strategy” connecting China and Europe via Russia by rail and as such avoiding confrontation with the US navy.
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Map-New_Silk_Road.jpg
Having said that, China is on course to push the US navy out of the South China Sea and could use that occasion very well as a pretext to expand to Australia for new “Lebensraum” for its 1300 million citizens. Australia is only slightly smaller than China. And such a move would solve a lot of Europe’s and Russian security problems: no “yellow danger” appearing at the Ural mountains any time soon.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-australias-dangerous-ally-11858
Dredd on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 4:44 am
“The report includes several formal findings:
* Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security.
* Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.
* Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.
* Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.”
(Global Climate & Homeland Insecurity, July 14, 2009).
makati1 on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 5:15 am
Cloggie, you do know that a lot of Australia is now desert and that their desert is spreading? Why would they want Australia, almost 3,000 miles from China at its closest point?
Russia is working out a deal with China for a lot of it’s Eastern land. China is buying land in many countries across the world, including in the US, and exporting it’s people to work and protect those purchases.
“Weeks before a Chinese conglomerate agreed to buy Smithfield Foods in the largest such takeover of a U.S. business, Missouri lawmakers quietly approved legislation removing a ban on foreign ownership of agricultural land.” ( LMAO! Davy’s neighborhood!)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/18/missouri-smithfield-china/2434847/
Why try to take what you can legally buy? THAT is the difference between China and the US. China has over a trillion USDs and USBs to spend while they are still worth something, and that is what they are doing.
“… Each day our nation pays communist China $73.9 million in interest..”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/18/missouri-smithfield-china/2434847/
That adds up to ~$27B per year not counting the trillion plus in their UST and USB holdings that they are liquidating. $27B buys a lot of farmland. About 4,000 sq.miles in the US at today’s prices. That would raise a lot of food.
You may wish that they were stealing but have don’t have to.
If China was starving, why did they ban almost 1.5 million tons of corn they were importing from the US? Because it is GMO and they didn’t need it.
“China has barred nearly 1.45 million tons of corn shipments since last year, the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), an American industry association, said Friday.”
https://www.rt.com/usa/china-gmo-corn-ban-120/
I don’t think that Russia is too concerned about a Chinese invasion and Europe is being invaded from the ME, not China.b It is the US that is worried about being displaced in Asia and most of the Eurasian continent. It may have to live on it’s own indigenous resources for once. LOL
makati1 on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 5:17 am
Oops, wrong website for the interest paid to China.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/apr/26/randy-forbes/randy-forbes-says-us-pays-china-739-million-day-de/
Davy on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 6:11 am
When we consider CO2 China is number one. There are other ways to look at it. It is pretty clear China is destroying the world along with the US and EU. We know the US is per capita the worst but that opens another can of worms by asking if countries have large populations then fairness says they should be expected to pay for that in lower prosperity per capita. If you want a huge population you pay for it. The same is for the individual today. Some here want to bitch about people with kids but then want to compare China to the US on a per capita basis. Another useless comparison is historical comparisons. People here want to compare aggregate emissions based upon historical amounts back 100 years. I say that is again a lazy approach. We didn’t know what we were doing to the ecosystem and climate with solid science until recently. We should base the historical comparisons since 1990 for example.
China 10,540,000
United States 5,334,000
European Union 3,415,000
China is definitely destroying itself.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31478-china-s-communist-capitalist-ecological-apocalypse
Cloggie on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 6:25 am
“Cloggie, you do know that a lot of Australia is now desert and that their desert is spreading? Why would they want Australia, almost 3,000 miles from China at its closest point?”
Hmmm, perhaps because the same applies to China as well?
http://www.china-family-adventure.com/image-files/physical-map-of-china.jpg
Europeans spread over North-America, 4,000 miles from “home”. Russians colonized entire Siberia, Alaska and penetrated deep into California (currently Mexican majority country) until1842, 10,000 miles from Moscow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Ross,_California
(“Крѣпость Россъ”)
So why no Chinese expansion in the 21st century, propelled by overpopulation in the Chinese mainland? As long as the US keeps pushing the exceptionalist, benevolent hegemonic, indispensable nation and global leadership attitude, it will ensure that Russia and China will remain allies and Chinese expansion into Siberia will be out of the question.
Australia: merely 24 million people, 7.7 million km2 and hardly an army
China: a staggering 1381 million, 9.6 million km2, half of it useless desert, huge army
Davy on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 6:40 am
All this positive talk about China and negative talk about the US reminds me of 2014 here on this board when it was how the Bric’s were going to destroy the US and the west. Remember the handshakes and photo ops with the Bric bank? LMFAO. What about the China Development Bank that is another wet dream. LOL. China was going to dump US treasuries and destroy the US but look now at whose currency is the greatest risk to the global economy because of devaluation risk, yea the Yuan. Now it is how China is going to send the US navy to the bottom of the ocean. Let’s wait and see where events go shouldn’t we. China does not have a blue water navy yet. It is working hard at it but you don’t mass produce and copy a blue water navy. They don’t have air transport capabilities to support maritime invasions. They are working hard at it but that does not mean they are there. China is coming apart at the seams and some here still have the same failed vision of China and Asia as the new world power. It is just more humor from a desperate agenda that has never materialized. The world will be a vastly different place soon and Asia will be where the worst of the collapse is. Population levels are the most important gauge of the degree of collapse. Asia is in a whole other league in this category. Consumption is next and Asia is still high on the list because of the combination of population and heavy industry industrialization. Asia is a loser and some fail to see this. We are all going to bit the dust but please don’t blow Asian empire smoke up my ass.
Cloggie on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 7:28 am
“2014 here on this board when it was how the Bric’s were going to destroy the US and the west.”
I am getting allergic by all this free use of words like “destroy” and “collapse”. [*]
It is absolutely true that according to western standards, Chinese cities are horrific as far as air quality is concerned. Last week I saw on German television a documentary about a Chinese woman, who has a leading position in the tourist industry (Chinese tourists visiting Germany), who had moved to Germany and lived in quarters in Hahn abandoned by the US military. She said she loved to stare at the forests surrounding Hahn…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yok0jhuU43M
…and how she loved the clean air.
But it needs to be said that the environment in Europe was pretty bad in the seventies as well, although never as bad as it is in China now. The rivers were open sewers (like the Rhine, thanks to French potassium mining in the Alsace region), the forests were dying due to acid rain. The French even had a word for it:
le Waldsterben
lol, because they opined it was a typical German problem.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldsterben
However, since then measures were introduced to combat these wrongs, notably catalysts in cars and getting tough with the French potassium mines and industry in the Ruhr area.
Today you can swim in almost all rivers and canals in Holland (downstream German and French industry).
The Chinese are very well aware of all this and keen to find a balance between economic expansion (after all, the West and its affluence needs to be copied) and environmental quality.
And at some point they will copy the West as well in this respect.
But currently environmental degradation rules in China (not collapse).
[*] – BRICS, that is BIS, never mattered. The Russian-Chinese alliance however is very well in place and is currently expanding in influence and power. So far they lost Ukraine but gained Pakistan. Turkey looks like it could be defecting from the West towards SCO. Furthermore it looks as if Russia and now China and India following, will manage to prevent the western pursued regime change in Syria, which was initiated when Assad refused to allow overpass of the intended pipeline Qatar-Turkey and the Iranians planned a pipeline Iran-Iraq-Syria-Mediterranean.
http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/assads-death-warrant/
oracle on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 8:14 am
Life on earth will come to an end at some point no matter what we do. It is just a matter of time and method. Perhaps what’s going on is just a natural process that no technology will allow us to overcome.
JGav on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 11:41 am
Not like I was waiting for Chomsky to understand the dangers of climate change. Anybody interested will have already sifted through the reports from the teams of scientists in the Arctic, in Greenland and in Antarctica … One Russian specialist actually broke out in tears during an interview – “The news isn’t good,” said she, leader of an Alaska-based team in the Arctic. And there are a number of savvy bloggers on the subject as well. Methane is bubbling up all over the place!
So, what to do? “Adopt alternative energy systems as quickly as possible”, as suggested in the article,is easier said than done. As welcome as they may be, intermittent sources of “energy” (euh, oops! that should read “electricity,” solar and wind for example), still have these nagging issues with battery storage and compatibility with existing grids. The all-pervasive myth of constant and eternal ‘progress’ is ripe for a big hit.
a p garcia on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 11:49 am
I am sure humanity will survive the near future and the Earth will certainly survive and there will be weather. I am sure some years will be colder than other years global warming or not and a new church will be founded worshiping algore and the global warming gods.
ap garcia on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 11:50 am
I am sure humanity will survive the near future and the Earth will certainly survive and there will be weather. I am sure some years will be colder than other years global warming or not and a new church will be founded worshiping algore and the global warming gods.
fred grimm on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 3:25 pm
To reduce CO2 will slowly save the planet. We need results now. I suggest drinking beer from cans. Cut the cans open and fasten them shinny side up to reflect the sun, if you want results now.
JGav on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 4:33 pm
Hi Fred,
I nearly always drink beer from cans.
Sure, collect a bunch of those and do a mini-solar array. It might even be usable to bring in some electrics if you have an expert in your area (and you live in the Southwest of the USA). Living in the city, and not a small one,on the ground floor, I don’t guess I’ll be exploring that personally right away but I’ll try to keep the idea in mind. As for “results now,” to reduce CO2,I’m not sure that beer cans are the magic bullet. Then again, in the US,who knows? Might even be the sort of thing that could get some traction fairly quickly.Somebody might come up with an idea on how to scale that, at least locally. But then you need more and bigger beer cans (pints for everybody?)
JGav on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 5:41 pm
Fred, addendum: I do usually pour the beer into a glass (beermug or large glass) before drinking it. My brew? A German beer, Königsberg, at about $1 a pint. When colder weather moves in, I’ll go more for the red wine.
On a more serious note, the conjunction of our myriad present issues and potential future ones (‘more’ war, climate change, population growth, resource depletion, sea-level rise, etc) clearly signal an absolute necessity for the so-called ‘international community’ to act as a community. Unfortunately, that still looks to be somewhere off in the distance. Despite that, a lot is going on where I live (Paris), not to mention of the French country-side, in terms of seeking a way out of the strangle-hold that today’s version of capitalism has served up for a vast majority of citizens.
ghung on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 5:51 pm
Yes, JGav, I also always pour my beer into a glass; lets it breath. I used to only get my beer in bottles until our county waste system stopped recycling glass. I’ve settled for cans since then. I generally like various micro-brews until they get bought out by mega-corps like InBev or MillerCoors.
Salute!
makati1 on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 6:41 pm
I prefer San Miguel lite, at $0.55 bottle. Here in the Ps they still have a deposit on glass beer bottles and are recycled. I never buy aluminum cans, which are also picked out of the trash and the aluminum recycled. Not much is wasted here. If it makes it to the dump, it really is trash.
As for the climate, our goose is already cooking. There is no way to reverse it now except by a total end to energy use by us 7+ billion humans. Even then, it will take hundreds, maybe thousands of years to cool back to ‘normal’ temps.
So, the best we can do is downsize our own energy consumption and use the resources/money saved to prep for the future. Ease the pain, so to speak. Too bad beer does not have the shelf life of a good whiskey.
dooma on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 7:09 pm
Davy, I think that it is flawed logic to assume that Asia is going to crash the hardest due to its large population.
I believe that Western Countries such as ours, who have a higher standard of living, will feel the impact the most. Referring to the adage that, the “higher you are, the further you have to fall.”
Have you ever been to a “developing” Asian country? Let us take Vietnam for instance. The average wage there per month is $148 (USD). Most people are used to a life based on the bare minimum.
Meanwhile, we are fighting obesity and diabetes epidemics in our countries. We are unfit and pay people to do everything from mowing our lawns to walking our dogs.
Through in the fact that there are SO many firearms and a fractured society in America and I know where I would rather be if things turn Pear-shaped.
dooma on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 7:13 pm
Sorry I mean throw…
Davy on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 7:57 pm
Dooma, I stand by my comment. Population overshoot is the biggest collapse variable followed by consumption dependence. Asia has both with a huge population and with dramatically increasing consumption. Much of this increasing consumption is the dirty industrialized type. There is nothing bold about that statement just common sense.
makati1 on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 7:58 pm
Dooma, some want to believe that Asia is going to suffer more then they are. It is another form of denial, I think. Or bias. Or just brainwashing they have endured from birth. I was one of them until I moved here.
Sure, those few who have adopted 1st world lifestyles and have had ‘advantages’ in the 3rd world will suffer. Some perhaps as much as anyone in the ‘developed’ world. The majority will hardly notice the change. We are buying our farm caretaker’s family a small TV for Christmas. Until two years ago, they didn’t even have electricity in their home. Some of their neighbors still do not have electricity. That is difficult for Westerners to understand. Electric has always been a part of their lives.
I look at what was once a great country (US) and see the ghetto it has become. Atlantic to Pacific, it is ALL racing to the bottom. No greater example than the current contest for president. I am happy that I made the move to the Ps over 8 years ago. I have seen no good reason to return to the US ever.
makati1 on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 8:11 pm
“And thus, a new era of disguised enslavement began under the pseudo-auspices of an America pure in its ideals of liberty, human dignity and free enterprise; ideals that we never did quite adopt at home but were quick intent in promoting, forcefully if need be, on the neighborhood of nations, whether they were willing to accept recommendations, or our God-given right to impose them.
So here we are seven decades later harvesting the fruits of many costly failed missions where America tried to proselytize a planet that did not wish to be proselytized; now an empire in quick decline, trillions of dollars in debt, being led by a string of demagogues and political connivers, all of the same heretical denomination, forcing us to kneel at the elite’s pew! And, what might prove even worse, new demagogues and connivers ready to take the reins in 2017 from a far-from-sober society where much of the population consists of deportables, deplorables, delusionals and demagogues.
So here we find ourselves, in combined stupor and idiocy, going through the motions of selecting a government that in essence will be no different from the governments we’ve had since the end of World War II. ”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-18/deplorables-delusionals-demagogues-united-flawed-foreign-policy
Nuff said.
Apneaman on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 8:39 pm
Why damn it why?
This is climate related. The MENA region continues to breed unabated, is losing their water resources at an alarming rate (to the 6 people paying attention) and the desertification continues to grow. Add in the politics, oil and religion. Methinks we ain’t seen nothing yet. Buckle up them chin straps Europe. You on the front line.
Why won’t the world tackle the refugee crisis?
Two summits this week will try to address the 65 million displaced and 20 million in danger. But they are under fire before talks have even begun
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/17/world-will-not-face-up-to-refugee-crisis-un-obama
Can anyone foresee a day when they might send out gunships into the Med instead of rescue ships?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7miRCLeFSJo
dooma on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 8:44 pm
The only reason Asia has a toxic environment is that all of the Western multi-nationals have sent their manufacturing over there. If world trade were to stop suddenly, Asia would go back to subsistence farming. China has seen famine before and would probably see it again.
Both of our countries are approximately a 70% service economy. It would be much more of a shock IMHO.
makati1 on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 9:20 pm
America is crumbling:
“The United States is sitting on top of a massive amount of aging infrastructure that continues to disintegrate at an alarming rate. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the U.S. suffers from 240,000 water main breaks a year. That’s roughly 700 water main breaks each day.”
https://srsroccoreport.com/the-disintegration-of-u-s-infrastructure-quarter-million-of-water-main-breaks-a-year/
Throw in bridged closed, electric outages, debt, obesity, drug addiction, etc, and you have a failing country.
makati1 on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 9:27 pm
Dooma, you see the real picture. If the US was making all of that plastic junk, the air and water there would also be toxic, just as it was in the past. I remember steams running red from the dyes of textile mills in my home town in the 60s and 70s. Sewage floating on the river that runs by the state capital. Smog so thick you could not see the 10th floor of a building from the ground. Than we shipped all of it to Asia, along with the jobs and energy demand.
Apneaman on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 9:40 pm
Mak, bringing up the infrastructure really puts a dent in the cornucopian narrative. That’s why they are completely silent on the issue. Another one of those – ignore it and maybe it will go away on it’s own deals.
The latest A.S.C.E. infrastructure report was 2013. D+ and 3.6 Trillion to get it up to speed. Should be another one next year unless they cancel it for unknown reasons. I hope not, because I get a lot of doomer milage out of those kind of reports.
No New Taxes! How’s that working out for y’all?
Hell if the bridge falls down just put it on the grand kids credit card. It’s not like they are going to survive/ be around to have to pay for it. Fuck it. Lets go out in style – Shoot the works
A Country Breaking Down
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/25/infrastructure-country-breaking-down/
dooma on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 9:44 pm
Yep Mak, It is so easy to point the finger at Asia and say “look how polluted it is.”
But look at all the things sold in Sprawl-Mart etc. It is so convenient to forget that just about all of these products (with planned obsolescence) are produced in sweatshops in Asia. We are happy to look the other way. Just as long as we in the West, get the latest phone and OUR rivers are clean.
Same goes for mining and energy acquisition.
Sissyfuss on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 10:20 pm
Hapless Garcia, I believe your second post was even more ignorant than your first. Science wasn’t a priority in your education, was it?
ghung on Sun, 18th Sep 2016 10:23 pm
I think Hapless’ reading comprehension is pretty low, Siss. Bots have short attention spans.
makati1 on Mon, 19th Sep 2016 12:10 am
Ap, thanks for the ref. A very interesting and educational article. I bookmarked it for future reference. Imagine zipping along the interstate at 60 mph and have the bridge fall out from under you. And some here think the 3rd world is unsafe. LOL
makati1 on Mon, 19th Sep 2016 12:23 am
“Illegal drugs supply in the Philippines reduced by 90% – PNP”
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/illegal-drugs-supply-philippines-reduced-020715827.html
I bet the US wishes it could make the same claim about its annual $70B plus illegal drug trade.
Apneaman on Mon, 19th Sep 2016 12:40 am
You’re welcome Mak.
90% huh? Well you can cross the P’s off my bucket list.
DerHundistlos on Mon, 19th Sep 2016 4:20 am
While the GW denialists continue to copy and paste thoroughly discredited information taken from pseudo-scientific web sites, in the real world NOAA announced in August that despite four months remaining for 2016, global heating was of such intensity for the first eight months that 2016 will be the hottest year in reocorded history thus relegating 2015 to second place and 2014 third. The hottest decade occurred post 2000. Not a single cooling annual record has been broken in more than 50 years.
Dredd on Mon, 19th Sep 2016 8:14 am
“01:30 Greenland melt is 60 years (six decades) ahead of what cryo-scientists previously thought it would be, and Antarctica is beginning to surprise in the same way” (Will This Float Your Boat – 13).
Who Knew?
Oil-Qaeda knew (The Harm Oil-Qaeda Has Done).
Apneaman on Mon, 19th Sep 2016 10:55 am
I’m Troll-Bot 44, and I approved this message.
An American tragedy: why are millions of trees dying across the country?
A quiet crisis playing out in US forests as huge numbers of trees succumb to drought, disease, insects and wildfire – much of it driven by climate change
““We’re talking millions of trees killed, whole mountain sides dying,” Rizzo said”
“Despite its name, the pathogen slowly saps the life from oaks over the course of two to five years, turning them sickly brown. The disease spreads mostly through water, like rain splashing off an infected leaf on to a healthy neighbor. Rizzo said wind-driven rain could carry it miles at a time, and that it already ranged from the Oregon border down through the forests of Big Sur.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/19/tree-death-california-hawaii-sudden-oak
Apneaman on Mon, 19th Sep 2016 12:22 pm
Coming to a lo-cal near you….sooner or later.
Toxic Algae Plaguing 40 California Waterways
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/09/18/toxic-algae-plaguing-40-california-waterways/
Toxic Algae Blooms Are on the Rise
The causes include increasing agricultural runoff and rising temperatures due to climate change
“These events are known as harmful algal blooms, because the pose a threat to public health. Cyanotoxins are unstable and change rapidly, making detection difficult. Some harm the nervous system. Others, known as hepatotoxins, can severely damage the liver and kidney. HABs can occur in marine or freshwater environments, closing fisheries, beaches and even entire lakes.
Evidence is mounting that HABs are increasing in both frequency and intensity. Drought conditions brought on by climate change can depress lake levels, concentrating nutrient-rich agricultural runoff in areas of low turbidity. Torrential rainfall can also trigger a sudden influx of agricultural nutrients, as occurred in Florida’s Lake Okeechobee this year, where a HAB flowed seaward, forcing beaches to close. Blooms containing the most common type of harmful cyanotoxin—microcystin—struck the Mormon Reservoir in Idaho, several lakes in Montgomery County in Maryland and Bonney Lake in Washington. In the latter case, a dozen swimmers became ill after swimming in the HAB.
Freshwater blooms can poison drinking water supplies as well. Ideal HAB conditions in Western Lake Erie cause blooms annually, but microcystin concentrations were particularly severe in the summer of 2014. A treatment plant that supplies drinking water to more than 500,000 residents in and around Toledo reported a microcystin level of 3.191 parts per billion (ppb) in fully treated tap water. This concentration, which is three times the World Health Organization limit of 1 ppb, forced the city to issue an unexpected “do not use the water” warning.”
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/toxic-algae-blooms-are-on-the-rise/
Apneaman on Mon, 19th Sep 2016 12:28 pm
New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
A 16-year study found that we’re at a point where more CO2 won’t keep increasing plant production, but higher temperatures will decrease it
“The oversimplified myth of ‘CO2 is plant food’
Those who benefit from the status quo of burning copious amounts of fossil fuels love to argue that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit plant life. It’s a favorite claim of climate contrarians like Matt Ridley and Rupert Murdoch.”
“The situation is not unlike a human diet – at relatively low calorie levels, more food is beneficial. But as calorie intake continues to rise, at a certain point it’s no longer benefiting the human body. More food is good, but only up to a certain point, as the global obesity epidemic makes clear.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants
dooma on Mon, 19th Sep 2016 10:36 pm
Portugal decriminalised ALL drugs 14 years ago and now has one of the lowest overdose rates in the EU.
The “war on drugs” is a total failure, yet is a profitable industry that employs many people and continues to spread misery.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.html
Kenz300 on Tue, 20th Sep 2016 11:12 am
Climate Change is real. It will be the defining issue of our lives.
Go electric. No emissions.
Renewable Energy Generation Breaks Records Every Month in 2016 – EcoWatch
http://www.ecowatch.com/toothpaste-toxic-1988064147.html
Electric vehicles are the future….
Batteries, range and charging points get better every year….90% or more charging is done at home…
Soon all new electric vehicles will come with bigger batteries and a minimum 200 mile range.
Apneaman on Tue, 20th Sep 2016 11:49 am
NOAA:
August 2016 avg global temperature was record warm at 1.66°F above avg
August 2016 global sea surface temp was 2nd warmest at 1.39°F above avg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CszlQsvXYAA-60d.jpg