And these scenarios take into account only what Hansen knows within his area of expertise. What are the global effects of the ongoing 6th mass extinction and loss of all those building blocks of life? Can man live without nature inside a glass bubble of his own making? We are surely conducting an experiment without precedent.
( Image source: Arctic News)
Forget for a moment that we can still emit about 530 gigatons of CO2 and still keep human warming in the ‘safe range’ of less than 2 degrees (Celsius) temperature increases this century. Forget for a moment how important to the sustenance of human civilization and the prevention of ever-worsening conditions this strict limit on carbon emissions is. Now think for a moment what will happen if Republicans in Congress and fellow conservatives aligned with fossil fuel companies across the country and around the world get their way.
In the past month, Republicans in the House of Representatives have pushed to increase US coal burning, approve the Tar Sands Keyston XL Pipeline, remove energy efficiency standards, and to slash US government (ARPA -E) R&D funding for new renewable energy technology by 80 percent. Fully 55% of all Republicans in the…
View original post 2,008 more words
Collapse of Industrial Civilization 
Good stuff Mike.
‘Forget for a moment that we can still emit about 530 gigatons of CO2 and still keep human warming in the ‘safe range’ of less than 2 degrees (Celsius) temperature increases this century.’
I believe the time to drop that ridiculous ‘safe 2oC’ was several years ago. It was only ever a number drawn out of a hat. We now know that 0.8oC is not safe, and that current levels of CO2 cause the triggering of positive feedbacks.
Indeed, we can conjecture that it was almost too late when Keeling started measuring the CO2 in the atmosphere (316ppm), though if we had taken appropriate measures in the 1970s we may have held the CO2 to a level that did not cause catastrophe.
It is now 12 years since I published ‘Burn Baby Burn’ and highlighted the prospect of a largely uninhabitable planet by 2100. Nothing has changed ]politically ] over the past 12 years. The time frame for uninhabitable is postulated as around 2050 (though some would argue that it could be a early as 2035). I now know what it is like to be ‘invisible’. Let’s face it, if Jim Hansen cannot gain any traction, what hope have we got?
It would be good to look at this whole issue again around October [2013], when we will know the extent of the northern summer catastrophes.
.
LikeLike
I tried to find your book on Amazon, but found this:
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/bbb_syn.htm
LikeLike
Do you still sell your book Kevin?
LikeLike
Kevin, Mike, ulvfugl, others:
I walk around in a stupor any more. i’m completely dumbfounded and expect that one day i’ll be at work or in the garden and it’ll all stop. Of course not immediately apparent to everyone, first one thing will fail (like food production, or the petro-economy, or global banking, or a bunch of volcanoes will erupt at approximately the same time – like within a week or month of each other), or the Arctic ice decline will instigate a large methane release, and then the interconnectedness of it all will transfer all that is effected into a chaotic state and the cascade will begin, ending with the grid going down – after which everything turns to shit hyper-exponentially.
People have no idea this is even on the horizon, not to mention imminent. Precipitous collapse has already begun but just hasn’t caught up to the macro level yet. The oceans and aquatic life are in the process of dying (every day there are more global fish-kill events) and it won’t be long before any functioning marine ecosystem will be a rarity. Farming is collapsing because, like oil production and fracking, it’s getting too expensive to do and the climate has turned chaotic (as planting, sustaining and maturing plants to harvest becomes harder and eventually becomes impossible on any large scale basis). Arctic ice melt, sea level rise, blocked weather patterns, unrest in many areas for many reasons, infrastructure neglect, volcanic and tectonic action, there are too many more to even list – all of these are converging.
i’m having trouble in my own garden, where that’s never been a problem before – this year my beans have loads of lush green leaves but there’s not a pod to be found on the entire large plant. My peppers are struggling and (as usual) I only get one harvest from my tomatoes before the “rust” or blight withers the leaves and the plant dies. My trees are exhibiting stress (as per Wit’s End education of what to look for) and even my back lawn, normally prodigious, took months to fill in completely. This despite a bit too much rainfall. Now it’s hot and humid – 90’s with a chance of (severe) thunderstorms every day. This is what makes it real to me – seeing it with my own eyes, feeling it in my being.
When one’s worldview is revealed as a sham, a chimera, wishful thinking – what state of mind results?
LikeLike
Hey, we can always “grow plants indoors” and live subterraneously. LOL. NOT!!!
“The agricultural problems associated with extreme climate change are substantive; however, on a positive note, human ingenuity may offer a solution – Vertical Farms in cities.”
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/07/the-sleeping-climate-giant/
LikeLike
Imho, robertscribbler/james hansen are ridiculously over optimistic in their assessments.
It would make little difference if those Republicans were replaced with politicians who were in favour of green tech and against Big Oil.
You’re asking the USA, as an imperial power, to commit suicide. The DoD/Pentagon is the largest consumer of petrochemicals on Earth. Without the military-industrial complex there is no US empire.
The three largest powers, in terms of wealth are UK ( the monarchy which owns Canada and Australia and much more ) USA and Saudi Arabia. They are locked together into this legacy of power and oil by history. How to get them out of it without another world war ? Nobody knows…
The biggest supplier of oil to the US armed forces is BP. Where does all that money go ? To the City of London. That’s not London, the City, as a metropolis, that’s something quite different. Where does all the money come from to pay all the pensions for the retired civil servants and army officers and politicians and doctors, etc, in UK ? From pension funds that invest in BP and all the spin off companies and corporations associated with the Machine.
HSBC and Barclays are far more powerful than a few Republicans in the US administration. If they put up money for Shell or BP to drill, then that’s what happens.
http://www.npr.org/2013/07/05/198389370/are-things-too-cozy-in-londons-city-within-a-city
So, this simplistic appeal to ‘stop burning coal and oil’, in effect, is asking for the dismantling of the most powerful and longest established political and financial power structure on Earth.
It’s a ludicrous and infantile demand. Who is it being made to ? Nobody has the power to grant it. The Queen of England cannot order it to happen, nor can any other individual. Everybody who benefits has an interest in maintaining the status quo, even when, if you asked them, if they are intelligent, they might readily admit it is insane and will cause everybody to become extinct.
It’s a lot like the stand off during the Cold War, regarding nuclear weapons. All rational individuals agreed that their use would mean USA, USSR and Europe would be wiped out. So they couldn’t be used. But their use was threatened every single fucking day and nobody knew how to get out of that bind. Until the USSR imploded, which, curiously, not even the CIA had predicted.
So now we are locked into this new version of insanity, with Guy McPherson’s 16 positive feedback loops gnawing away at the only thing that keeps us alive, and most humans determined to keep doing what we know will cause our extinction.
Russia and China and India and Brazil and the rest will still use every bit of coal and oil they can get hold of, and it’s been clearly shown that alt tech does NOT reduce ecological impacts, economic expansion continues just the same, and looking at this crisis as if Co2 emissions and deg C increase is the ONLY pertinent factor is insane.
Obviously, I’m all in favour of cutting emissions, I want to save the biosphere, NOT the industrial civilisation that’s destroying it, but to quote Tad Patzek, who is just as well qualified as Hansen, even if you could cut emissions and get them back down to whatever arbitrary figure you choose, that does NOT restore the global climate to the state it was in before.
If you read the mainstream meteorologists and many climate scientists and listen to the Richard Alley video presentation, the thinking is still all chopped up into different compartments, and still mostly linear, they are simply incapable of putting the pieces of the jigsaw together, because they have never been taught to think of the global system as a unity.
I think robertscribbler is quite mistaken when he says thankfully we don’t need to worry before 2030, or words to that effect…
We got a 10 deg C global increase over a single decade before, because of methane. That would mean we are GONE. No time to do anything.
We can get that again. 2020 to 2030. Or 2025 – 2035. Maybe.
Those smug complacent priests of science on RealClimate will scoff, but look at this
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50735/abstract
Listen to the actual numbers that Dr Shakhova mentions here
LikeLike
Brilliant comment!
My single red flag on Hansen is that he believes we can work within the framework of capitalism to control this beast. LOL. Nuff said!
And Margaret Thatcher was aware of the reality of human-induced climate change yet she sent out her minions to scour the global for oil resources and petro state dictators to get in bed with.
Unless a person is aware of the global power structure, they don’t understand the machinations of realpolitiks.
LikeLike
Thank you. I tried to keep it brief and redacted the cursing 😉
And Hansen thinks that a few hundred people standing outside the Whitehouse on a weekend makes a difference to what happens… Such naive innocence.
I have not read his book, but Daniel on NBL pointed out that he missed out a lot of stuff that is directly relevant, but outside his expertise, which wouldn’t surprise me.
Like some of the idiot meteorologists who ( used to ? ) leave the oceans out of their models, because ‘weather’ is about clouds and air and land surface temperatures, so why should they have to think about ocean currents taking warmth down to the sea bed and bringing back up again somewhere else ?
And then people like me notice that weather is also about forests, because pollen and fungal spores and moisture from forests make clouds, and if the forests are cleared, you don’t get the clouds or the rain any more, and I want to know why that isn’t in the models ?
And then you ask why the forests are getting cleared ? And realise that it’s because of economic policies and banking systems and financial systems and power structures, and the next thing you realise is that you can’t really separate weather from money…
Why isn’t the talking head on the tv telling you about the flood in that place, telling you the REAL reason why all the houses are getting swept away and people getting drowned ?
Because the people who pay his wages are the same fuckers who made the money from cutting down the forest and putting in beef cattle to make burgers to sell and advertise on the tv channel that tells you about the weather…
But there we are. If you try to feed the poor, you’re a saint. If you ask why they are poor, you’re a fucking commie subversive.
Or in my case, an anarchist subversive saint 😉
LikeLike
ulvfugl said:
“If you try to feed the poor, you’re a saint. If you ask why they are poor, you’re a fucking commie subversive.”
…one-liner of the year! Yeah it’s true. And the same people who beat the drums of war are the ones profiting from it. That’s why anyone who does not integrate the effects of our socio-economic model of capitalism into their thinking has a gaping hole in their worldview.
LikeLike
Well, it seems you have completely misrepresented my position on a number of issues. And since I would keep attacking the, admittedly dangerous, status quo while pushing solutions, rather than get into the obvious mire you’ve prepared for me here, I’ll make my response as brief as is possible.
1. It’s ‘infantile’ to push for a transition away from oil, gas and coal…
What’s infantile is endlessly asserting that we can’t engage in such a rational transition and making up reasons why it’s ‘too hard’ or why we shouldn’t. Under your view, we simply won’t. We have a choice and your grandstanding in this case is making it harder to make the right one by agitating against the alternatives, downplaying their viability, and denying the fact that we all have a choice in the matter.
You also blindly ignore the vast political power of the fossil fuel companies which are attempting to enforce dependence on dangerous sources. Simply switching the level of subsidy support from fossil fuels to renewables would go very far in helping our situation. So we must actively engage against clear and visible special interests to even achieve such a moderate, though entirely rational, step. In your case, you seem to pretend the fossil fuel interests don’t exist, and you seem to misunderstand, at this point, that it is their political action and not basic economics that keeps us dependent on their goop.
You lean too much, I think, on the ‘everyone is to blame and has no choice, they cannot act’ argument. One wonders if you’re more invested in this paralysis you sell than you or others realize?
Urging responsible action isn’t infantile, it’s what’s required of sane individuals. The irresponsible wallow away focusing on ‘what cannot be done’ or refuse to acknowledge there is a problem and a related requirement to act. Depression and denial — two dangerous sides of the same coin.
2. Runaway Greenhouse…
Clearly you’re missing the difference between what are now dangerous amplifying feedbacks and a potential runaway to a new state that is entirely lethal to human existence. According to the best science and I, unlike you, seem to believe the realists among the scientists (Hansen and many others) have this right, the risk for a runaway by 2030 is low. A number of other scientists are of the, still somewhat valid and supported by a number of scientific papers, view that methane response is a trailing impact and not a leading one. There is no valid science (peer reviewed paper), as yet, that shows a greenhouse runaway by 2030. (Hansen and Shakhova come closest to this. And the scientists involved in the Methane Emergency group have issued warnings but, as yet, no papers or peer-reviewed time-lines). So to assert such is, at this point, highly speculative.
That said, there may be some basis for that meta-analysis, which is why I’m not entirely ruling it out.
Now, pushing CO2 to 450 ppm by that time under BAU would be extraordinarily damaging and may well have terrible external impacts to crops and other key life supports by that time. But even the most pessimistic viable scenarios only begin to peak human population by the mid 2030s as a result of such damage, disease, climate change, resource depletion and loss of critical infrastructure. For a certainly, we will suffer damage from climate change before that time. But it is very unlikely to be terminal in so short a period.
Unlikely is not a pure assurance, though. In the worst case, we could see ice free Arctic conditions unlock a real beast of a thing that does proceed with a force and violence that may make even you happy, if only briefly. But the risk, at this point is low (even if still high enough to be scary).
To have a runaway greenhouse of the kind you assume to be inevitable, we’d need about 1 gigaton of atmospheric methane feedback coming from the Arctic each year (average). The amount coming from the Arctic now is less than 2% that (CARVE will clarify this number more, but we can infer somewhat from total atmospheric methane levels which are rising by about 4 parts per billion each year), the rest comes from human emissions which, though certainly not helping matters, aren’t currently pushing for the end of all human life in a clathrate gun nightmare by 2030.
Now methane emissions are rising in the Arctic and this is faster than models predicted because the ice sheet response has also been faster. These are very troubling findings and show both increasing risk and amplifying trouble. All which are heavy, heavy signs and should be taken very seriously.
A number of us are watching these things like hawks. So, you had better believe that the first sign of serious trouble in this regard will be shouted from the hills by me and others. But the pulses in these cases would have to be huge — pushing local methane levels to 10 parts per million or more. And we haven’t seen that yet.
3. All Civilization is Evil Capitalism
Now this bit is completely ludicrous to me. Our civilizations are mixed and contain different voices, members and powers. Most importantly, civilization is a life-sustaining ship. One that, if it falls apart, does terrible harm to us all. So we shouldn’t be cheering its disintegration and sinking even as we go into the drink. We should be doing our best to right it.
Given, there is a very despicable dominance-driven, violent, decadent and greedy element to our civilization. But it is certainly not a given and it is most certainly replaceable. We, for our part, can act like the ancient prophets, providing a warning, urging right action, and most importantly — holding leaders responsible for bad action or for failure to act. We may well be like decadent Israel before conquest by the Babylonians, or the Romans before their long, hundreds-year fall, or the Easter Islanders, or the Vikings in Greenland, or the Mayans or a thousand other civilizations who failed for a number of reasons quite relevant to today. But we may also be like the Islanders of Tikopia, or Japan during their struggle with woodlands depletion, or the tribes of the Indonesian high plateau during a massive population crunch, or a thousand other civilizations who succeeded and did the right thing in the face of adversity. We can use the best tools at hand and work together to overcome our problems.
This is not magical thinking. This is rational. What is magical thinking is that, somehow, if we completely abandon all tools then everything will be just fine. Just as there are benevolent systems and moral practices that can aid us, there are also far less harmful tools we can use to get us there. But the complete abandonment of civilization and its more virtuous structures, which you seem to urge, is abject suicide.
….
This will be my only response, as I don’t have the time to get into a rhetorical fur-ball with one who has clearly abandoned all hope in the potential that comes from positive cooperative response to crisis.
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph… is for good men to do nothing…”
So, by all means, continue urging us to do nothing and, in doing so, help bring about the bad end you seem to be hypnotized by.
LikeLike
Robert,
I admire your activism and moral stance, but no one would better love to be proven wrong than Ulvfugl. He’s not an agent for the fossil fuel industry. LOL.
You say that Ulvfugl is “blindly ignore[ing] the vast political power of the fossil fuel companies which are attempting to enforce dependence on dangerous sources.”
Quite the contrary, he is well aware of their corrupting and deep-rooted influence. Also, you ignore perhaps the most powerful enity in the world – the global fiat banking system. Here is an email Ulvfugl recently sent me concerning the current reblog of your post:
Robert says, “‘All Civilization is Evil Capitalism’: Now this bit is completely ludicrous to me. Our civilizations are mixed and contain different voices, members and powers.”
Where did you get that we said all civilizations are evil capitalism?
That’s news to me. The one we’re talking about is the current capitalist industrial civilization eating up the planet. And here’s just one recent example of one of those different voices in the global community and what happens to them when they get in the way:
Honduran army kills Indigenous leader of COPINH who resisted dam in Rio Blanco
Has there been a year this century in which global environmental conditions have improved? Environmental remediation has certainly taken place in many places, but only at very local levels, and the overall picture has clearly and steadily gotten worst in every area from the health of the oceans, desertification, soil erosion, fresh water aquifer depletion, chemical pollutants, etc. There is no refuting this fact.
Robert says, “…the complete abandonment of civilization and its more virtuous structures, which you seem to urge, is abject suicide.”
Actually, any civilization which promotes unending growth and economic development is suicidal.
LikeLike
If you expect me to be able to address all these issues in one post, on one blog, you are being completely unrealistic. But, in short, what I have done is targeted shorter term mitigation to a long-term problem.
The problem is not just a fractional banking system that demands limitless growth. The problem is a fractional banking system that demands limitless growth from fossil fuels — a non-renewable resource that is causing critical damage to key systems– both the economic systems that keep things running and the benevolent Earth climate that sustains life. If we remove fossil fuels from the equation, we can buy time. And, as I said before, I believe that fossil fuels represent a center of gravity to the whole problem and that, renewables, by their nature do not support the kind of capitalism which we all find so destructive. This is not a magic bullet, but it is a bullet and we had best, at least, use it.
Ulvfugl is justifiably concerned and if he has a way to slay the underlying fractional banking dragon, then have at. From where I’m standing, it doesn’t currently appear to be within the realm of ‘the art of the possible.’ But what can be done is to take down the ugliest and most damaging part of that system and begin a transformation from the inside out. Tools include reinstating regulations like Glass Steagall, de-leveraging, and providing other innovations to the monetary system that make it less dependent on growth. So we should wholeheartedly support such efforts and do our best to generate more.
Fractional banking cannot exist as it currently does without fossil fuels. The energy systems and the money systems are linked. So transitioning to renewables will require different monetary vehicles — mostly less concentrated and with responsibility in the hands of more, not fewer people. It is my suspicion that the reason for so much resistance to fossil fuel replacement is based in this very awareness. A full transition to a distributed grid with distributed renewable power would result in a major transference of wealth from the top down. And if that doesn’t undermine the very premise of current fractional banking, then I don’t know what will.
Ulvfugl is justifiably very concerned about Arctic methane. But he conjures the monster before it emerges. And if he really wants to terrify himself he can add the 50 gigatons Sharakova mentions to another 13 gigatons off the east coast. These sources are both grumbling, but they haven’t destabilized and released yet. Nor do we know if they will destabilize and release in the short term or over decades and centuries. The most likely case still appears long term. But this is not much comfort when we still have fossil fuel dominance forcing compounding emissions for years and decades to come.
IF we were wise, we would develop a Methane Emergency Protocol that would set in place responses for just such a nightmare, should it emerge. But this should not be seen as a replacement for an immediate reduction in the use of fossil fuels and fast as possible replacement.
Lastly, I will say that it is far easier to stand in the peanut gallery and wail about all the terror that is starting to emerge while blaming the messenger. I have decided, in my own way, to act. So I take some responsibility, as have those, like Hansen, who have worked to so hard to turn the ship. If Ulvfugl is concerned, then I urge him to act in the best way he views possible and not to undermine those who are acting now. It may well be true that Hansen, 350.org and others do not do enough. It may well be true that I, a limited human being, do not do enough. Fine. Do something on your own or join us. But wailing away in the corner for fear of monsters that threaten but have not yet emerged doesn’t do any good at all.
If the Gail you are referring to is Gail the Actuary from the Oil Drum, send my best regards.
LikeLike
@Robert
Sometimes the phrase “something is better than nothing” actually means something, but on the issue of climate change, something short of changing everything really is nothing.
“In Growth Isn’t Possible, Simms and his co-author Victoria Johnson reviewed all the existing proposed models for dealing with climate change and energy use including renewable, carbon capture and storage, nuclear, and even geo-engineering, and concluded that these are “potentially dangerous distractions from more human-scale solutions” and that there are “no magic bullets” to save us. The report concludes that even if we were to rapidly transition to an entirely clean energy-based economy, this would not suffice to save us because: “Globally, we are consuming nature’s services – using resources and creating carbon emissions – 44 percent faster than nature can regenerate and reabsorb what we consume and the waste we produce.” – link
“…green capitalism theorists grossly overestimate the potential of “clean” “green” production and “dematerializing,” the economy whereas, in reality, much if not most of the economy from resource extraction like mining and drilling to metals smelting and chemicals production, as well as most manufacturing, cannot be greened in any meaningful sense at all. This means that the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the 80% that scientists say we need to do to save the humans, is to enforce a drastic contraction of production in the industrialized countries, especially in the most polluting and wasteful sectors. Most industries will have to be sharply retrenched. Some, the very worst polluting and wasteful, will have to be closed down entirely. Since, under capitalism, industries can’t be expected to voluntarily commit economic suicide, even to save the humans, the only way to carry out these necessary contractions and closures is to nationalize industry and socialize the losses, redeploy labor to sectors society does actually need to develop, like renewable energy, public transit, decent housing for all, and so on, and shorten the working day to spread the remaining work around.” – link
The economics vs. the science on the scope of the problem
“When climate scientists like James Hansen tell us to stop global warming we have to “shut down the coal industry” and “leave most of the fossil fuels in the ground,” it’s only natural that, like those autoworkers, none of us really want to think about the full implications of this imperative. The tendency is to think about this issue in isolation from the rest of economy, as if fossil fuels are just in the “energy sector” which we could fix by switching to renewables, trading in the gas hog for a Prius, and then go on driving and consuming as before while, hopefully, the economy keeps on growing. But this is a delusion because in our economy, fossil fuels are in virtually everything we depend upon. Today, most of the fossil fuels we extract are burned directly to produce energy in power plants, to provide heating, and to propel our cars, planes, trains and ships. The rest become chemical feedstocks embodied in everything we consume from food to clothes to manufactures of every sort. And we use gargantuan quantities of the stuff. Right now, adding up the coal, oil and natural gas, the world is consuming some 200 million barrel equivalents of oil every day just to produce energy. That’s equal to more than 23 times the daily output of Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest producer…
…So “leaving fossil fuels in the ground” is going to require radical changes in consumption and lifestyles of Americans. Indeed, the Australian social scientist Ted Trainer argues that “The greenhouse problem cannot be solved without large scale reductions in the volumes of economic production and consumption taking place, and therefore cannot be solved at any cost within a society committed to affluent ‘living standards’, maximum levels of economic output, and economic growth.” – link
No green capitalism in one country
“Kyoto failed because, given a competitive globalized world market, for some countries to sign on these obligations while others – conspicuously the U.S., China, and India – did not, was to commit economic suicide…”
– link
LikeLike
And here we chase each other around the bush once again…
I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with all these assertions, that I view as completely hollow, that transitioning to a renewable power base is worthless. Portugal, Iceland, and many other countries are near 100% renewable and produce far less in the way of greenhouse gasses.
While the criticisms of consumption based society have merit, there is no way to develop a hopeful situation for current civilization without a renewable energy base.
I would argue that a complete solution would involve vegan based food distribution systems, relocalized farming, polyculture, vertical farming, population restraint, decentralized monetary systems, active methods of preserving forests, wetlands etc, new manufacturing methods, and, the bit that I’m fighting for — a renewable energy based power system.
Human beings, as long as they are around, will use energy. And we might as well provide the best, most sustainable systems we can find.
As for all these other ‘experts.’ We work to prove their hopelessness wrong.
Mike — I am done and done. Clearly there is an effort here to prevent me from advocating for renewable energy and to degrade the importance of renewable energy as a necessary part of any climate fix while holding accountable those who are most responsible for our continued dependence on dirty, dangerous and depleting fuels. You can change fractional banking and go to negative growth without the renewables addition. If you do, it’s doubtful you can keep systems stable, especially if there’s rising income inequality as is most likely to occur in such an instance. And without renewable energy, because even at negative growth energy will be used, you still end up with a climate nightmare.
So good luck. From where I’m sitting it looks like these experts pursue collapse more than avert it by leaving out the critical fix.
LikeLike
Robert said:
“…vegan based food distribution systems, relocalized farming, polyculture, vertical farming, population restraint, decentralized monetary systems, active methods of preserving forests, wetlands etc, new manufacturing methods, and, the bit that I’m fighting for — a renewable energy based power system.
Human beings, as long as they are around, will use energy. And we might as well provide the best, most sustainable systems we can find…”
I agree. Keep up the good work. Don’t let me get you down. Someone has to be the ‘yin’ to my ‘yang’.
LikeLike
Have you heard anything about the methane release in the arctic on the mass media news? Just Zimmerman. On and on.
The methane could be the most important news ever. It very quickly could turn all our lives to shit. But no mention.
Here’s a bit from Robert Scribbler:
The Arctic Methane Monster Stirs: NASA’s CARVE Finds Plumes as Large as 150 Kilometers Across Amidst Year of Troubling Spikes
(Barrow Methane Record 2009 to Present. Image source: NOAA)
In late June and early July, Barrow Alaska showed two methane readings in excess of 1975 parts per billion. Sadly, this most recent methane spike is likely not to be an outlier.
The Barrow spike came in conjunction with a number of other anomalously high methane readings in the Arctic region during 2013. Most notably, the Kara, Barents and Norwegian Seas all showed atmospheric methane levels spiking to as high as 1935 parts per billion during the first half of 2013.
(Kara, Barents, Norwegian Methane. Image source: Dr. Yurganov)
Averages in this and other regions around the Arctic are at new record highs even as atmospheric methane levels continue inexorably upward. For reference, Mauna Loa shows average global atmospheric methane levels are now at around 1830 parts per billion. These levels were around 700 parts per billion at the start of the industrial revolution before they rocketed upward, roughly alongside increasing CO2 concentrations, as fossil fuel based industry saw its dramatic expansion over the past couple of centuries.
Now, human global warming is beginning to unlock a monstrous store of methane in the Arctic. A source that, in the worst case, could be many times the volume of the initial human emission. To this point, areas around the Arctic are now showing local methane levels above 1950 parts per billion with an ever-increasing frequency. The issue is of great concern to scientists, a number of which from NASA are now involved in an investigative study to unearth how large and damaging this methane beast is likely to become. (You can keep account of these methane spike regions in real time using the Methane Tracker Google app linked here. )
More: http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/the-arctic-methane-monster-stirs-nasas-carve-finds-plumes-as-large-as-150-kilometers-across-amidst-year-of-troubling-spikes/
LikeLike
Awash in ‘Zimmerman drown out’ while the world burns to the ground. Nice corporate mouthpiece broadcasting stations we have in lieu of real journalism.
LikeLike
Copied and pasted a comment twice, that doesn’t appear. ?
LikeLike
Where is the comment you submitted? Please try again or email it to me.
LikeLike
ulvfugl had the following article link in one of his comments, but for some strange reason it would not post.
Certainly an important article illustrating why no substantive changes can be made without wholesale systemic changes to our economic system which, by its very construct, cannot deviate from its destructive path:
Foreclosing the Future: The World Bank and the Politics of Environmental Destruction
“…The vast majority of the world’s economic growth, as well as ecological destruction, is now occurring in developing countries, and it is largely in these countries where the environmental and economic future of the world will be decided. No institution has played a more influential role in this arena than the World Bank Group.
The World Bank Group proudly proclaims “our dream is a world without poverty.” It claims to be a leader in promoting environmental standards for development, as well as in finance for environmental purposes, such as mitigating climate change. In reality it is a microcosm of the failures of its 188 member countries to address the challenges of economic development…”
LikeLike
ulvfugl again my compliments on quotable posts.
LikeLike
Here is how our media works. The journalists actually investigating the stories want to do a good job, but they know where the lines are that must not be crossed.
Poor David Fogarty. Didn’t quite respect these lines:
“David Fogarty, former Reuters climate change correspondent in Asia, came forward on Monday to describe the hostility he faced inside the organization toward any climate-related story. According to Fogarty, “from very early in 2012, I was repeatedly told that climate and environment stories were no longer a top priority for Reuters and I was asked to look at other areas. Being stubborn, and passionate about my climate change beat, I largely ignored the directive.”
Fogarty offers an inside look at the growing “climate of fear” within Reuters and its reticence to cover one of the most pressing issues of our time — a shift that ultimately led to his departure.”
More:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/16/2307291/reuters-exposed-publication-openly-hostile-to-climate-coverage-top-editor-doubts-climate-science/?mobile=wt
And this is why our media is a joke.
Whether it is WMD or global warming or 9/11, the media serves the corporate, financial elites. People like the Koch’s, the Rockefellers (Exxon, Monsanto), etc., ensure that the capitalism status quo remains, or grows. They have enormous pressure over the media and our political leaders.
And this is why it is futile to think we will make big changes toward a slower, less consuming society. Won’t happen. Nope. Not a friggin’ chance.
LikeLike
In some future blog post of mine I was going to use this quote made today at NBL, but here it is:
Kathy Cassandra says:
“We cannot sever ourselves entirely from empire,
Nope but we will be severed from empire when we go extinct.”
LikeLike
And here is another story about a journalist that didn’t respect the lines drawn by the big boys. Michael Hastings. There is no way this guy died because he went crazy while driving.
My list of suspicious circumstances so far, any input is appreciated.
Wikileaks revealed that their lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, was contacted by Hastings just hours before his death claiming that he was being investigated by the FBI.
Hastings sent an email to colleagues hours before his death stating: re:NSA… I’m onto a big story and need to go off the radar for a bit.
One eyewitness described the crash as such: “The Car Was Bouncing, Flames and Sparks Near the Gas Tank. When He Hit the Palm Tree That’s When the Flames Were Higher. There Were Explosions and Everything… No One Could Approach the Car Because it Kept Exploding.”
The accident only involved Hastings car, no other vehicles. Police, Firefighters and EMS have been told not to comment on the investigation
Another witness described the scene: “It sounded like a bomb went off.” “My house shook, the windows were rattling.”
LAPD will not release a police report, after repeated FOIA requests
Former marine friend told media that Hasting’s was threatened: “We will hunt you down and kill you” for McChrystal reporting
Hastings was driving a new Mercedes C-250, a car not prone to bursting into flames, especially sustaining heat that the crash did, as per military official
Hastings had worked on numerous articles critical of the establishment, including: The Rise of the Killer Drones: How America Goes to War in Secret, Julian Assange: The Rolling Stone Interview, Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators, America’s Last Prisoner of War.
One of Hastings articles had resulted in the forced resignation of General McChrystal.
The Mercedes’ drive train was about 50-60 yards away from the crash site.
Hastings had said in a 2012 Reddit AMA that he received numerous death threats.
When he died, Hastings was working on a story regarding current CIA director Brennan.
No brake/skid marks
Some of his work was probing the CIA
Hastings was Cremated, even though his family never requested it.
Wife has hired a private investigator
Michael Hasting had not had a drink in 5 years (edit: possibly false, will research further soon)
It might also be important to note that DARPA has the ability to hack cars.
LikeLike
Would it surprise you if Snowden soon died in a plane crash? Dirty tricks are in their playbook.
LikeLike
How will the news media treat this information? Let’s watch.
“How hot was it in June? So hot that NASA reports the only warmer June in the global temperature record was 1998, a year juiced by both global warming and a super El Niño.
By contrast, 2013 has been hovering between a weak La Niña and ENSO-neutral conditions, which would normally mean below-average global average temperatures — if it weren’t for that pesky accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/17/2318521/nasa-globally-june-was-second-warmest-on-record/?mobile=wt
LikeLike