Tags
6th Mass Extinction, Addiction to Fossil Fuels, Bliss Point of Sugar, Capitalism, Carrying Capacity, Climate Change, Climate Change Denial, Collapse of Industrial Civilization, Corporate $tate, Corporatocracy, Dalai Lama, Death by Dollars, Dr. Suzanne de la Monte, Eco-Apocalypse, Ecological Overshoot, Environmental Collapse, Extinction of Man, Geoengineering, Hydropower, Inverted Totalitarianism, IPCC, Kurt Vonnegut, Mass Die Off, Nate Hagens, Overpopulation, Paul Chefurka, Processed Food, Senator James Inhofe, Senator Mitch McConnell, Suicide by CO2, The Unsustainability of Mega-Cities, Tragedy of Privatizing the Commons, WWF's Living Planet Report
Unresponsive and Corrupt Governments
Another election cycle passes and the American people responded with the lowest voter turnout since WWII. The staged events of today’s political rallies will soon be composed solely of people paid off with corporate bribes to wave flags and chant slogans. As ever more corporate money floods into the faux democratic process, participation by the average citizenry has plummeted. Americans are now more disillusioned with the charade of “American democracy” than at any time in history:
Confidence in Congress as an institution is at 7%, the lowest measurement in history and lower than any other institution tested, including organized labor, banks and big business. Views of the honesty and ethics of members of Congress are at 8% on average, one percentage point above lobbyists, but one point below car salesmen… – link
We are also undoubtedly becoming more callous and insensitive to our fellow-man when a 90-year-old gentleman is arrested for feeding the homeless from a church kitchen. In fact, we’ve lost all our humanity and exchanged it for the almighty dollar. Neoliberal capitalism has permeated very aspect of social and civic life, creating a new epitaph for the demise of such a mean-spirited culture —‘death by dollars’.
You Are What You Eat
I just became aware of Dr. Suzanne de la Monte’s studies on the food industry’s use of sugar in all its products in order to fabricate a consumer “bliss point” for maximizing sales. Capitalist industrial civilization has bred a morbidly obese creature conditioned to overeat processed food spiked with sugar, fat, and salt. A high-fructose diet has undoubtedly turned the cognitive skills of many into mush. John Oliver recently used a clip from her work in his takedown of the sugar industry:
“De la Monte has done her research by feeding healthy rats the equivalent of a North American diet, complete with all the sugars and fat. All her rats ended up demented.” – from the documentary The Secrets of Sugar
The Dopamine Rush of Fossil Fuels
With the recent elections the lunatics have taken control of the asylum. Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, recipient of 2012 Rubber Dodo Award, is in line to chair the Senate’s top environmental job, and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says his first priority will be to “do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.” At least a dozen newly-elected climate science deniers will be there to help Mitch compete with China and India in a race to global mass extinction.
The IPCC stated back in 2007 that emissions would have to peak in 2015 to avoid a rise of 2°C, but since that is not going to happen, they are putting their hopes in technology that could pull CO2 out of the atmosphere while conceding that such techniques are “uncertain” and “limited”. Mankind’s grave is already deep enough, yet we keep digging. Just as China’s coal consumption has registered a drop for the first time this century, India has announced it will pick up the slack by planning to double its coal production to meet the country’s soaring energy demand. Poland has rejected the IPCC target of zero emissions by 2100. In the U.S., new data has revealed that climate change has become the most politically divisive issue in the U.S.
According to energy expert Nate Hagens, modern-day carbon man’s metabolic energy consumption makes each of us a 30-ton primate. It appears the Pavlovian conditioning of modern man to energy dense fossil fuels and capitalist wealth have irrevocably hacked and rewired his brain’s reward system. The autopsy results for the age of the Anthropocene will read: “fossil fuel overdose” and “suicide by CO2”.
Hydropower is Not Green
Even overlooking the GHG emissions from a dam’s construction and maintenance, hydropower is seen by some as a “renewable energy source”, yet it is apparently a much larger source of methane emissions than once thought, perhaps releasing nearly as much as the methane emissions that accompany the burning of fossil fuels:
…In 2012 study, researchers in Singapore found that greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower reservoirs globally are likely greater than previously estimated, warning that “rapid hydropower development and increasing carbon emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs to the atmosphere should not be downplayed.”
Those researchers suggest all large reservoirs globally could emit up to 104 teragrams of methane annually. By comparison, NASA estimates that global methane emissions associated with burning fossil fuels totals between 80 and 120 teragrams annually…
Nonetheless, industrial civilization is currently damming up every large river on the planet:
The Unraveling Web of Life
The WWF(World Wildlife Fund) released its biennial ‘Living Planet Report’ which some on Twitter are calling the ‘Dead Planet Report’. The silence of mass extinction draws ever nearer…
The report writers, based on data kept by the Zoological Society of London, studied 10,380 populations of 3,038 species of amphibians, birds, fish, mammals and reptiles from 1970 to 2010. Over these four decades, the average decline of these vertebrate species was 52 per cent – all in less than two human generations.
Amongst freshwater species the population decline was a staggering 76 per cent, owing to habitat loss, land fragmentation, pollution and invasive species.
In the same period terrestrial species declined by 39 per cent through unsustainable land use and increased poaching, often spurred on by wildlife crime syndicates.
Marine species declined also by 39 per cent, to include large migratory seabirds, many shark species and also sea turtles.
A major contributory factor to marine loss of life was through by catching (accidentally catching, in certain fish net sizes, species which were of no market value and then casting these dead fish overboard), illegal fishing and overfishing of the same fishing grounds.
Currently we need a 50 per cent bigger Earth to allow the regeneration of the natural resources we consume…
…By 2050, we will have an extra 2.4 billion people in our world, with urban populations increasing from 3.6 billion in 2011 to 6.3 billion. In 1970, there were only two megacities (over 10 million people) – New York and Tokyo; in 2014 there are 28 such cities – 16 in Asia, three each in Europe and Africa, four in Latin America and two in North America, all totalling 12 per cent of the world’s urban population.
The United Nations (UN) predicts that in 2025, there will be 37 megacities with eight new ones in Asia. Also in the pipeline are meta-cities – conurbations of over 20 million people – through the amalgamation of megacities…
…The report interestingly mentions that the diversity of human languages in our world is strongly correlated to areas of high plant diversity. Some linguists have predicted that 90 per cent of the world’s languages will expire by the end of this century…
Here is an interesting graph created by Paul Chefurka which shows that the combined biomass of humans with their farm animals exceeds the natural carrying capacity of the earth sevenfold:
In the graphic, the “wild animal” biomass doesn’t include insects, bacteria, or marine organisms.
I used three data sources to develop the chart: a paper by world-respected ecological scientist Vaclav Smil, called “Harvesting the Biosphere”, linked below; world population estimates from the Wikipedia article of the same name; and the UN’s Medium Fertility variant for the human population in 2050 (9.6 billion).
The definition I used for Global Carrying Capacity is, “The biomass the planet can support without the assistance of human technology or fossil fuels.” The impact of human activity has gradually eroded the Earth’s carrying capacity over time, which is why I show the red dotted line sloping down to the right. The degree of erosion is very hard to estimate. My guess is that we may have lost around 25% by this point, some of which would of course be naturally regenerated over time in the absence of human activity. Any biomass above that dotted line has to be supported by human technology and energy supplies (which at this point are mostly from fossil fuels).
The conclusion is that we have been living in the midst of an accelerating Global Mass Extinction Event for over 100 years already. Unfortunately we’ve been too fixated on human issues like economics and politics to even notice, let alone realize what it means. Those who did realize the significance, both to wildlife and the human species, have been powerless to act in the face of economics and politics.
Paul gives the following further explanation for the graph:
The definition one uses for “carrying capacity” is so loose as to make it quite arbitrary. Here’s the definition I used: “The global carrying capacity is the total biomass of the organisms under consideration that the planet can support without the assistance of technology or fossil fuels.”
Accordingly, I estimated the carrying capacity in this case as being about the same as the world’s wild animal biomass in 10,000 BCE, with the assumption that the unassisted carrying capacity of the world would have been fully utilized at that point. I estimated the wild animal biomass in 10,000 BCE as being somewhat less than the combined wild and domestic animal biomass in 1900, per Smil. I made it lower in order to account for the technological intensification of farming already well under way by that time.
The slope of the carrying capacity line is arbitrary, because it’s impossible to determine how much we have actually eroded the world’s unassisted carrying capacity. We just know that we have. I chose the slope to correspond to my belief that we’ve eroded it by about 25% at this point. The actual slope is therefore somewhat editorial.
The Dalai Lama says, “Affection, a sense of community and a sense of concern for others are not some kind of luxury. They’re about the survival of humanity,” but the socio-economic system that rules the world is characterized by hyper-individualism and self-interest devoid of moral constraints. A system that enshrines greed and mocks equity and the public good will never be able to find a solution to the tragedy of privatizing the commons.
All lights are about to go out. No more electricity. All forms of transportation are about to stop, and the planet Earth will soon have a crust of skulls and bones and dead machinery. And nobody can do a thing about it. It’s too late in the game. Don’t spoil the party, but here’s the truth: We have squandered our planet’s resources, including air and water, as though there were no tomorrow, so now there isn’t going to be one.
~ Kurt Vonnegut
xraymike,
Perhaps your best post yet!
Brian
LikeLike
Definitely first class post Mike. If people don’t get it by now, they don’t want to hear it and none of this is in their world-view. Because there were (and still are) so many in that camp, we’ve gone over the cliff (as of the Industrial Revolution, for sure). Now we’re just witnessing the downhill run to calamity.
LikeLike
Nice essay Xray Mike, especially as it’s peppered with Vonnegut and I especially like “Earth will soon have a crust of skulls and bones and dead machinery.” The illustration is illustrative. I also like this one, “I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can’t see from the center.” – Vonnegut.
I’ve been thinking about human “morality” and its inconsistencies. Beyond the bounds of their social groups humans are by necessity brutal and immoral. Having “feelings” for your energy source does not maximize your competitive advantage. Kill it and eat it as fast as you can and copulate like crazy while using your advantages to kill other human tribes. Sounds like a religious prescription, subdue the earth and have lots of babies while engaging in a crusade. How is it that we believe in our own moral character and yet compete relentlessly to enslave or destroy competitors? It must be some type of deception, like trying to convince acquaintances that you’re nice and not interested in material wealth while toadying and plotting to take everything they have, kill or enslave them. Consider the banks, they’ll lend you as much money as possible to appropriate a sizable chunk of your income and do it with a smile on their faces. Next time a superficially moral troglodyte asks me if I’ve been “saved” I’m going tell them to fuck off. Saved from what? Their own biosphere destroying stupidity? The financial predators? The only thing I want to be saved from is sharing company with the mindless warts that infest the skin of this earth. Someone bring me the big bottle of Salicylic acid, pronto, this Sunday there’s going to be a new kind of holy water at church. Not really, wouldn’t do any good. I’ll just watch the desperate cancer struggle for energy as the EPA is dismantled and more metabolic waste floods into the biosphere’s tissues. Hope you don’t live near any industrial stink, damn.
LikeLike
During Hering’s global travels, he said, he observed that “developing nations are moving from the 15th century to the 21st century overnight,” and seeking access to energy and other resources that the developed world enjoys now…
…“Sea level is rising, population is exploding, climates are changing, environments are being affected, and the potential for a secure and prosperous 21st century is at risk if we don’t start making some plans for opportunities that are not secured in the next quarter’s return on investment and the next election,” Hering said in an interview in advance of his presentation. “We need to make investments for our grandchildren.”
As developing nations including low-lying islands feel the effects of climate change, their problems could spill across borders, he said.
“If sea level rises the projected minimum of three and a half to four feet, a type two storm in the Philippines will potentially create 12 million refugees overnight,” he said. “Where do they go?”…
…To avert the worst case scenario, he said, Americans need to “be more renewable in how we use resources in everything from manufacturing to consumption.”
American’s need to become more renewable?
Yes, like soylent green.
LikeLike
Pingback from BLCKDGRD:

LikeLike
Traveling the USA, backroads, working.
http://americanplainsongs.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/the-wizards-of-oz/
Not noted in this posting, is the marked diminishment of all kinds of animal life I sensed, whether in the squashed corpses of run-over mammals or bugs on the windshield. Survivors so far appear to be ravens and blackbirds, a few hawks, a few owls, magpies, starlings and sparrows, and in parts of the mountain west, eagles. Deer, antelope. And then…. not much. Most of those listed are essentially scavengers, which I suppose is what you’d expect to be last in line in extinction. I suppose when they start going for us – overly plentiful – we’ll know it is getting close to end-game.
In Kansas they are awaiting the oil gods to rescue the economy, I suppose in the form of fracking. Halleluja….
LikeLike
I’ve been mourning the subjects of this article:
LikeLike
And Paul Craig Roberts(I like him when he goes Eco) has written a little masterpiece:
An African Story
LikeLike
Some Weekend Funnies…
LikeLike
Yahweh made bananas with their own packaging
LikeLike
LOL! Damn, how anthropocentric can they get!?!
LikeLike
Interesting that Vonnegut does not fall into the trap of blaming any particular economic system or especially greedy individuals for the 6th mass extinction (neither does the premise of the tragedy of the commons of course) but rather in the article you cited he writes:
“What was the beginning of this end? Some might say Adam and Eve and the apple of knowledge. I say it was Prometheus, a Titan, a son of gods, who in Greek myth stole fire from his parents and gave it to human beings. The gods were so mad they chained him naked to a rock with his back exposed, and had eagles eat his liver.
And it is now plain that the gods were right to do that. Our close cousins the gorillas and orangutans and chimps and gibbons have gotten along just fine all this time while eating raw vegetable matter, whereas we not only prepare hot meals, but have now all but destroyed this once salubrious planet as a life-support system in fewer than 200 years, mainly by making thermodynamic whoopee with fossil fuels.”
So in order to not have done the damage we are doing, we would have to be something other than us – animals without the ability to use fire, in other words. Or, we could be Neanderthals, except we killed them off.
LikeLike
Chomsky has a different interpretation and viewpoint which I agree with on the concept of ‘Tragedy of the Commons’. A more apt description would be ‘Tragedy of Privatizing the Commons’:
Today, in the capitalist ethic, there’s a concept called the “tragedy of the commons” which you study in economics, which teaches you that if you don’t have private ownership of the commons, it’s going to be destroyed. Well, based on capitalist morality, that’s true. If I don’t own it, what should I do to try to preserve it? But in ordinary human life, that’s just totally false. Privatization is the tragedy of the commons. We can see that in fact: When you privatize the commons, it gets destroyed for private profit. If the commons are kept under common control, they are cultivated and nurtured [for future generations]. – link
Rob Wallace pointed this out as well in the Q & A video of his Ebola lecture:
http://ias.umn.edu/2014/10/13/wallace/
LikeLike
That’s wrong from two perspectives, past and present. If it were the privatization of the commons that leads to their destruction, humans would not have driven dozens upon dozens of megafaunal species to extinction 10,000 years ago (and many others since)…and, neither the atmosphere nor the deep oceans to this day are privatized, yet we are filling the air with pollution and CO2, and acidifying, polluting and overfishing the oceans to the point where they are nearly dead. Common assets – land, water and so forth – can only be managed effectively in small groups, for themselves. It’s rather pointless to talk about how that might work when groups are competing with each other, never mind in a world with billions of people, with shrinking resources and climate chaos.
LikeLike
No indigenous tribe has ever wrecked the entire planet, has it?
LikeLike
Now you are being silly! If you mean a tribe of 150 people how could they affect the entire planet? If you are talking about the tribe of humanity, which is indigenous to Earth, yeah…we’re wrecking it.
And also, much smaller groups DID wreck their localized environments, went into overshoot and collapse, and either died off, emigrated, or fought with their neighbors. This is the history of humanity.
And by the way, the argument of consumption v. population is meaningless. BOTH are critically important. Reducing one without reducing the other still leads to utter devastation of nature.
LikeLike
There’s the key word – emigrated.
There is nowhere to “emigrate” in the next 100 years to survive what’s coming.
No tribe in history has ever created that situation. Period.
LikeLike
As it stands, overconsumption by OECD countries is what is destroying the planet, not overpopulation in Third World countries. In Africa, for instance, indigenous people who have lived on their lands for thousands of years are being forcibly evicted by OECD countries in land grabs. This is simple fact.
LikeLike
The DEVELOPED countries are overpopulated, not just the undeveloped countries. They only way they feed themselves is with fossil fuels. If all the undeveloped countries disappeared and the people in them, we would STILL be in planetary overshoot. If all the people in the developed countries stopped consuming so much, and stopped burning fuel, we would STILL be in overshoot because without the inputs of fossil fuels, the biosphere could not support so many people.
LikeLike
Therein lies the problem — reliance on fossil fuels.
Watch Professor Pianka’s “domino effects” video on the overpopulation feedback loop created by the Haber-Bosch process:
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Domino_Effects_Narrated.mov
LikeLike
Exactly! And everybody wants them! The people in undeveloped countries, guess what? They want lights, they want cars, they want modern medicine, then want products that can only exist in a fossil-fueled world from manufactured clothing to electronic toys. Their is no inherent difference between “indigenous” people and “colonialist, capitalist” people other than accident of birthplace.
LikeLike
Not true. Many indigenous tribes who fight what you call progress are simply exterminated. Period. Their lands are then paved over and “developed”.
LikeLike
Just 90 corporations – the so-called carbon majors – are responsible for 63% of CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change
Privatization of the Oceans:
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2598963/ocean_grabbing_a_new_wave_of_21st_century_enclosures.html
LikeLike
Yes but if ordinary people weren’t buying their products and services they wouldn’t exist.
LikeLike
The title of your article is “Ocean grabbing: a new wave of 21st century enclosures” A NEW, they say NEW, wave of enclosures. The oceans are well and truly fucked already, due to nitrogen pollution, acidification, overfishing, warming, and plastic being ingested by sealife. The privatization is after the fact and irrelevant.
LikeLike
Its been going on for a long time.
See here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/world/africa/14fishing.html?pagewanted=all
LikeLike
You put forth Chomsky’s idea that the privatization of the commons is what leads to them being exploited. The oceans have not been privatized, nor has the atmosphere, and humanity has ruined them anyway. In fact the world’s largest act of preservation of wilderness was the US National Park System put in place by a rather famous capitalist. I know it makes a lot of folks happy to place blame on an economic system, but the truth is, we are all one species, and collectively, we have polluting the planet at a greater and greater extent as our numbers have grown. People have always left their trash behind, that is why it is so much fun to be an archeologist.
LikeLike
What you call “humanity” is the industrialized world which worships capitalism. Indigenous tribes don’t include themselves in that group.
LikeLike
Although the oceans and atmosphere have not been “privatized” they have been socialized as corporate commons. It’s all fascism.
LikeLike
Ehhh…actually what is really boils down to, is a LOT of people EATING fish. Some of them are being wasted (like sharks who are killed for their fins only) and some are bycatch casualties (industrial harvesting that throws out cheaper sealife to take the more desirable catch to market)…there are innumerable obscenities.
BUT the bottom line is, the problem isn’t the economic system, it is TOO MANY HUNGRY PEOPLE.
LikeLike
The system is a problem. It’s unsustainable, exploitive, amoral, dependent on growth, and destined for collapse.
LikeLike
I am in much agreement with your gross analysis of the human predicament. We are going to a bad place and most of our children on this course will be killed. I am still working on ways to unwind it. See http://www.skil.org
My comment is in your use of articles to support this analysis. For example, I read the references and the references those articles referenced on methane emission of hydro electric reservoirs. I think you got distracted arguing about the minutia of the predicament not the larger elements namely too many people.
Even at the minutia level I think you referred to statements that were misinterpretations of the reference’s references.
Keep going but be as careful where you step. It hard to get the tar off your shoes.
Jack Alpert http://www.skil.org
LikeLike
The real problem…
Overpopulated by Homo Colossus
LikeLike
xraymike,
My comments are not Sunday afternoon recreation.
I am not shooting from the hip.
There are reasons we could help one another.
I need two things to continue this conversation.
1) I need a real name and real email address.
2) And I need you to be able to speak without
your xraymike persona. It comes with the baggage of
thinking about what some shallow thinking person
in your following will say.
Not to dodge your comment that I am insensitive to Homo Colossus,
here is a workshop that I ran at the University of Vermont, titled
From Overshoot to Sustainability. You will be most interested
in the comment by William Catton who was a part of it.
http://www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/BPEJune12_2013wrkshpinviteMaillist.html
Jack
LikeLike
Fair enough. First send to this email:
Collapsitarians@gmail.com
LikeLike
Jack, I watched your video Change the Course — invitation to internet group and while you make some points about overpopulation and how to spread the word by convincing others your comments that the population needs to be reduced to half a million people so that 50 million can survive to live at European standards of living.
We should start the genocide with the white people. After all they are consuming as much per person as 99 of the people that know how to live sustainably. White people are over consumers, wasteful, homicidal, self absorbed, greedy, and they have no clue how to be self sustaining. They/we are a liability to the entire rest of the world with the culture that we have developed. Yet you promote that infrastructure as the epitome of how we should be living. We could save millions of lives if we just get rid of the white people first. It’s likely we should start with you, you have such an enthusiasm for living with genocide and an eco-expensive model of existence for humanity.
LikeLike
ROFLMAO! PEOPLE are homicidal, venal, and unsustainable, always have been. I suggest you read Flatland I, II and III – here’s III with links to the earlier posts: http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2014/11/adventures-in-flatland-part-iii-1.html
LikeLike
Overgeneralizations are always false, and that’s one doozy of an overgeneralization you just made.
LikeLike
To me it is simply an empirical observation. The current culture – even if you go back over 3,000 years – didn’t invent money; didn’t invent murder, torture, infanticide, or pedophilia; and post-dates many prior collapses, famines, wildlife extinctions, deforestation, wars and other facets of unsustainable practices.
LikeLike
Hmmm, yet Columbus said of the natives he encountered “They … brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded everything they owned… . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features…. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane… . They would make fine servants…. With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” and The Indians, Columbus reported, “are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone….” He concluded his report by asking for a little help from their Majesties, and in return he would bring them from his next voyage “as much gold as they need … and as many slaves as they ask.” He was full of religious talk: “Thus the eternal God, our Lord, gives victory to those who follow His way over apparent impossibilities.” Or this from the writings of Lewis and Clark “On October 13, in South Dakota, private John Newman was found guilty of uttering “mutinous expressions,” and at noon on October 14, on a sand bar just inside North Dakota, the expedition beat the tar out of him while the heavens drizzled over the scene. The Arikara leader Arketarnarshar cried out in pity and disapproval. It would be better to kill Newman altogether, he said, than to humiliate him in front of his peers. How could the fellow ever regain his sense of himself after such public degradation? The Arikara, Arketarnarshar reported, never whipped their own even in childhood. We do not know what Lewis and Clark thought about being called savage by a savage, but Clark explained the ways and means of white folk to his own satisfaction and the expedition proceeded on, with a bloodied white man and a bewildered native man on board.”
LikeLike
The abiding western dominology can with religious sanction identify anything dark, profound, or fluid with a revolting chaos, an evil to be mastered, a nothing to be ignored. ‘God had made us master organizers of the world to establish a system where chaos reigns. He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among savages and senile peoples.’…
– Catherine Keller, Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming
LikeLike
“However this ‘Living Planet Report’ is not one of doom and gloom for it opens our minds to inherited and current predicaments in our ecosystem, of which we are all a part, and offers pointers and solutions as to how each one of us, in our own way, can help to preserve and nourish our planet for future generations of mankind. For more go to http://www.worldwildlife.org.”
That was the closing paragraph of the piece about the WWF report you linked to. Author Alan Rogers must have taken a hit on a bong the size of Alaska in order to be able to write such drivel. What a maroon.
It’s all good. Nothing to see here. Move on. Move on.
LOL!!!!
I downloaded the report. Wonder if my muck boots are high enough so that I can wade through it without getting any s–t on me.
Want to read a real hoot. Get a copy of “It’s a Matter of Survival” by Anita Gordon and David Suziki. Released in 1990 the contents are mindblowingly on target for where we are today (2014). It’s a mix of non fiction and fiction. Interspersed between the non fiction sections is a journalist writing from the year 2040 (funny how we keep moving that date further out as the years have passed).
Oreste’s uses a similar technique for her current book, but puts the outlying date at 2100; as she and her co-author say in the interview section of the book that they must not allow themselves to believe things are so bad that they will witness horrors too great for them to be able to function (I’m paraphrasing here). To keep their sanity, it’s safer for the authors that way.
So they had to pick a date that ensured they would not be alive to witness the unfolding, that people elsewhere are actually experiencing right now. What courage, what a back bone this objective academic scientist has demonstrated.
I wonder if David Suziki actually wrote or even read his own book. One would think that he’d have had a vasectomy (no reversible), only he seemed to have jumped the shark.
From the Suzki book:
“Research groups such as the Worldwatch Institute, in Washington D.C. tells us we have fewer than 10 years to turn things around or “civilization as we know it will cease to exist.” The simple truth is that we are the last generation on Earth that can save the planet.”
And this was before all the data and physical evidence had come out that seems to be of no value to change our direction. That 10 years came and went long ago. But, hey we’ll just change the outlying time span as we change the base line for everything occurring around us. It’s not as bad as it seems.
Hey, if people don’t see the trees before them dying what can you expect.
LikeLike
No institution that I know of tells the unvarnished truth. Hope is requisite for job security and a receptive audience.
“…in 2010 deriving 57% of funding from individuals and bequests, 17% from government sources (such as the World Bank, DFID, USAID) and 11% from corporations.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature
LikeLike
Cameroon: WWF complicit in tribal people’s abuse
http://wrongkindofgreen.org/2014/11/09/cameroon-wwf-complicit-in-tribal-peoples-abuse/
LikeLike
What you gonna unwind Jack? Human nature? China? India? U.S.A.? Industrial civilization? James Inhofe?
LikeLike
Good point Apneaman, the momentum is immense. Changing human behavior will be like telling a petri dish full of bacteria to stop eating and reproducing, after all, human behavior is just cellular behavior writ large with a little insanity and confusion mixed in. We’re not going to make a sacrifice for strangers because half of the time or more cooperation in limiting our behavior turns out to be a temporary deception. It seems to be in our natures to find ways to cheat. I can’t imagine the means to achieve a rapid reduction in population as Jack would like, without bringing about a collapse in finance and population. Governments are doing everything possible to avoid a financial deflationary collapse which would result in a rapidly contracting world economy and shift into commodities by those holding paper money. Not only would there be no expansion of agricultural production, but rather a significant decrease in yields which would translate into significant starvation. When the system stops functioning, most wealth will disappear. All of the bonds that were floated to prepare the “last resource meal” will never be repaid except with a nominal amount of annual interest and eventually that will end too. We are now on the “last meal” relative to our infrastructure. In other words, once the fossil fuels and soils have been depleted beyond a certain EROEI, the entire infrastructure and the hundreds of trillions of dollars in wealth it represents, will become worthless. We can’t exactly order out for another round of fossil fuels and soil to restore the worth to our civilization’s infrastructure. Eventually there may be little more technology between humans and their food than a hoe and rake and all of the complexity that previous surplus allowed will be gone. The engineers, teachers, doctors, power plants, war machines, factories will all be gone along with 95% of the human population. Then the survivors can deal with the CO2/methane/radiation induced environmental hangover.
LikeLike
Mission Blue a film recently released by Fisher Stevens featuring Sylvia Earle and Jeremy Jackson. All about the catastrophe about what’s happening in the oceans.
Their “solution” create little safe areas along the coasts to get people to fly to help local economies. Safe sea life through Eco-Tourism. Earle, well she lost it long ago, too insulated from reality, and Jackson, he should know better. I’d like to believe he rolled his eyes and said something that optimist director Stevens allowed to fall to the cutting room floor (do people still know what film is, what a cutting room is and what a cutting room fall it in this digital age?)
And how much carbon would be used in getting from here to there. That Earl, what a couple of PhD’s can do for you. Must have a case of the bends that affected her brain.
Rulers of the world.
LikeLike
Realizing that people refuse to see trees dying right in front of them was enough to convince me that humanity is incapable – literally, incapable – of dealing with reality, and thus we are doomed by our optimism. Hedges seems to be edging closer, when he says in the beginning of this video that it’s quite possibly we are truly screwed and “This mania for hope is really a kind of sickness because it prevents us from seeing how dire and catastrophic the situation is if we don’t radically reconfigure our relationship to each other and to the ecosystem.” But then, at the end he reveals just how clueless he remains, when he says that we have to do everything we can because his FOUR children depend on it. LOL!
LikeLike
You would like this. Very interesting. Click on pic to go to presentation:
LikeLike
The Europeans have practiced pollarding in the hedgerows for centuries, it works very well with some species of trees. Well, it used to.
LikeLike
That’s why true doomers are freaks, Gail. Most people are truly incapable of a honest conversation with themselves, let alone others. Most people would not to be able to function if they admitted that we are over and soon. I have no answer for why I am able to admit that there will be a major horror show and maybe the finale before I die of old age, yet still get up and go about my business. Maybe it’s a genetic mutation or brain wiring deal. A few years ago, I read the book, “Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human” and since then I have come to believe that fire was the beginning and end of us. Capitalism speed things up. Funny thing is, is we probably did not “invent” cooking, but stumbled upon some fried critter or plants after a natural fire, ate them and it was off to the races. The smell and taste sent our brains into hyper stimulation; instant addiction. The extra calories and nutrition from cooking were just a happy by-product that gave us a great survival advantage and increased brain size. Not to mention freed up a bunch of time to ponder and wonder. Have you ever tried eating 2000 calories of raw food? Humans – were all about the emotions.
LikeLike
Yay, mutants! Ha, I like that idea that people just came across some cooked food from a wildfire, that makes a lot of sense.
LikeLike
I think it’s unfair of you to try and discredit everything Chris Hedges says simply because he has children.
LikeLike
Agreed about the discrediting of Hedges for having children.
You have children Gail—yes? I think I’ve seen one of them on your blog at the Florida horse shows?
LikeLike
Reducing my critique of Hedges’ anthropometric gigantic blind spot about human nature and our incessant urge to grow as amounting to “discrediting him for having children” is peurile. It is a measure of the gap between his rhetoric and his delusional hope that he has young children. Had I known 35 years ago that catastrophic climate change is irreversible, condemning the next generation to ugly premature mortality, no, I certainly wouldn’t have had that daughter, and I wouldn’t now be racked with guilt and regret.
LikeLike
Ahh, but even today people can claim “they don’t know.” All fans of Sally Fallon, Weston Price, food clubs around the country, the dula and home birth movement all seem to have their collective heads up their butts. They’re gonna have those kids damn it no matter what and they are gonna have a better future than their parents.
With that in mind the whole educating the third world focus ala Jane Goodall is bunch of baloney. If educating worked than what’s the reason for the mindset in United States and what’s the reason that woman aren’t out in the street in droves protecting their right to choose. There seem to be more woman out protesting abortion clinics. Remember the murder of the doctor in Kansas who was murdered for performing third term abortions.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/27/shame-on-pbs-the-late-term-abortion-documentary-that-has-one-group-fuming/
And recently someone told about this show on cable. I wasn’t surprised that there would be a reality show such as this, but was horrified as I calculated out what kind of impact this would have. The family is leaving it all up to God. These people are surely better “schooled” than many of the woman in Africa (or are they).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting
But this sounds like Guy’s current presentation where he gives himself and everyone a pass. His new point focuses on how he didn’t know when he was 15 that NTE was coming (why NTE is the focal point is beyond me, we were destroying the planet, that’s enough of a reason to change behaviors) and so he had a car and drove not knowing what was coming.
I’m not sure I buy that. During the years 1969 – 1972 comic books (the lowest form of crap on the face of the planet (or so my “teachers” and parents were always telling me) were going through a vast metamorphosis. The first generation of writers were being pushed out (after asking for health insurance, hey that’s nothing imagine ALL rights to Superman were sold by Siegel and Shuster for $130) after generating millions for the publishers. A whole new bunch of young and hip writers were coming in and wanted to write more sophisticated stories dealing with topics that were in the news.
So for three years stories were addressing the issues of the day actually based on topics raised in the Limits to Growth and Population Bomb. My point is that if comic book readers were being informed about the crisis we were heading into then most of the general population were as well so we all knew.
The back lash was great enough that it was all gone by 1973. Truly like a vast memory wipe of an entire population who then carried on like zombies.
What makes it all so horrendous was that these issues and books seemed to never make it to school lessons, and that remains true to this day.
Population seems to be the third rail of most discussion. Witness the reaction to Bob from NZ when he raised the issue of having children at one of Guy’s recent presentations. I’m still not sure Guy’s flying all around the world sits well with me, but he’s at least not had any children, so it’s not a double whammy.
Regarding children, saw this Kirby Dick (yes that’s his real name) documentary yesterday. Amazing. he gave out video cameras to a graduating class at a High School in Hollywood for a year. Kirby thinks all these kids are going to turn out all right. Me, I only see Night of the Living Dead when the shit hits the fan.
You can imagine that being interested in food, ecology, economy, etc. etc was not the center of what Kirby extracted to present in the film. The film is called Chain Camera.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Camera
LikeLike
I’m starting afresh, it makes me crazy when the thread turns into skinny one-word-per-line comments. In response to your invoking Prof. Pianka, I don’t know if you are aware that I posted links to his amazing work last month (here: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2014/10/something-where-god-used-to-be.html) in which he quotes Reg Morrisson (author of Spirit of the Gene) – neither of these two great thinkers postulate that the root of our predicament lies in the current economic systems or even fossil fuels – rather, it is in our evolved psyche (note the title is a rhetorical question): “In Can Human Instincts Be Controlled? he wrote:
“Human instincts evolved long ago when we lived off the land as hunter-gatherers and took refuge in simple shelters like caves. Although our instinctive behaviors were adaptive then (that is, they enhanced our ability to survive and reproduce), many do not work so well in modern man-made environments. Our brains appear to be organized in ways that promote such duality (download Morrison’s “Evolution’s Problem Gamblers”). In fact, some of our instinctive emotions have become extremely serious impediments now threatening our very survival. Let us focus on denial, tribal loyalty, revenge, greed, and procreation.”
LikeLike
Pingback from Reddit’s Dark Futurology:
LikeLike
Agreed about the system. Where we seem to part company is on the question of why the system is the way it is. To me, it’s pretty clear that humans the system, and not particularly exceptional humans since the same exploitative behavior is evident across time and cultures.
LikeLike
Pingback from Patrick.net:

LikeLike
Hey xraymike, this is Mike Oehler, author of The $50 & Up Underground House Book, The Earth-Sheltered Solar Greenhouse Book, and The Hippy Survival Guide to Y2K. Since I have been working for the past six months on turning the latter into The Hippy Survival Guide to the Collapse of Industrial Civilization this post of yours caught my eye and I read it and was delighted to find that I agreed with it almost entirely. Would you like to have your essay reprinted in my Hippy Survival Guide, or to collaborate in some other way? Peace and Light Mike Oehler
LikeLike
Sent you an email.
Your website: http://www.undergroundhousing.com/
and http://www.richsoil.com/wofati.jsp
LikeLike
Cool stuff:
LikeLike
My rhino foot humidor with a black boy handle on the top will be arriving in a few days and I’m going to stuff it with the finest cigars. While I’m chomping on cigars and drinking from the finest sterling I’ll read the profit and loss statements from my African plantations. The English were a smug bunch with their prudish Victorian morality, a shield of righteousness to hide behind while they exploited lands far and near. Nothing has changed. Western nations wave the banner of “development” as they descend upon virgin territory to rape and pillage or to take advantage of near-slave labor. But as they will soon find out, not everywhere can be the cancer because the cancer must maintain a certain amount of nurturing tissue to continue growing. Now how would it be if every nation became host to dozens of tumors with populations measuring in the multi-millions with new foci popping up every day? Where would all of the material for growth and metabolic activity come from? A 3D printer? Space elevator to Jupiter? But there they are in the stock and bond markets of the world scrambling for an additional measure of profit, a little more blood for the tumors to grow. In the meantime the common man is titillated with movies and shows featuring futuristic technologies and space expansion that serve as a palliative for their miserable dead-end technology enslaved existences.
LikeLike
Kurt Vonnegut was one of us, wary of technology and the so-called “age of progress” that followed mankind’s one-time engorgement of fossil fuels:

LikeLike
“Canada succeeded in mostly destroying the cultural traditions and identity of aboriginal people, and the legacy of colonization has only replaced them with inner city poverty and violence.” – link
LikeLike
“1492. As children we were taught to memorize this year with pride and joy as the year people began living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America. Actually, people had been living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America for hundreds of years before that. 1492 was simply the year sea pirates began to rob, cheat, and kill them.”
~ Kurt Vonnegut
LikeLike
“America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, ‘It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.’ It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: ‘if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?’ There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.
Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.”
~ Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five
LikeLike
LikeLike
“A first grader should understand that his or her culture isn’t a rational invention; that there are thousands of other cultures and they all work pretty well; that all cultures function on faith rather than truth; that there are lots of alternatives to our own society. Cultural relativity is defensible and attractive. It’s also a source of hope. It means we don’t have to continue this way if we don’t like it.”
~ Kurt Vonnegut
LikeLike
“Thus did a handful of rapacious citizens come to control all that was worth controlling in America. Thus was the savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and humorless American class system created. Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage. And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus the American dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.”
~ Kurt Vonnegut, ‘God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater’
LikeLike
“Socialism” is no more an evil word than “Christianity.” Socialism no more prescribed Joseph Stalin and his secret police and shuttered churches than Christianity prescribed the Spanish Inquisition. Christianity and socialism alike, in fact, prescribe a society dedicated to the proposition that all men, women, and children are created equal and shall not starve.”
~ Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country
LikeLike
“The biggest truth to face now – what is probably making me unfunny now for the remainder of my life – is that I don’t think people give a damn whether the planet goes or not. It seems to me as if everyone is living as members of Alcoholics Anonymous do, day by day. And a few more days will be enough. I know of very few people who are dreaming of a world for their grandchildren.”
~ Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country
LikeLike
“Many years ago I was so innocent I still considered it possible that we could become the humane and reasonable America so many members of my generation used to dream of. We dreamed of such an America during the Great Depression, when there were no jobs. And then we fought and often died for that dream during the Second World War, when there was no peace.
But I know now that there is not a chance in hell of America becoming humane and reasonable. Because power corrupts us, and absolute power corrupts us absolutely. Human beings are chimpanzees who get crazy drunk on power. By saying that our leaders are power-drunk chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many lifeless bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas.”
~ Kurt Vonnegut
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Re Chris Hedges having four children.Numbers matter.An ecological literate person would not have had more than two children per couple in 1970,let alone now.
I put David Suzuki in the hypocrite category,as he wrote several books lamenting the human impact on Earth,then had four children.Hedges probably belongs in the same category,either that or he is not ecologically literate.
Speaking of hypocrisy,we have the shining example of the pope giving a pious speech earlier this year ,lamenting the continuing and increasing loss of biodiversity .
One of the main reasons for that loss is the grotesquely inflated human population.
The whole history of the catholic church is one of opposing any means of controlling the fertility of our fecund species.
LikeLike
In his latest article at Truthout Hedges is promoting veganism as a way to save the world, a perfect example of delusional hopium – and bargaining. Let’s suppose we are all vegans and thus save some percentage of land being used to cultivate crops to feed livestock, we create less pollution, less methane, etc. How many generations would it take if everyone had 4 kids to wipe out any savings? I do not personally know the answer but I am certain that at SOME point, at that rate of reproduction – we WOULD wipe out any savings.
LikeLike
Yes.Veganism as a solution to our predicament is in the realm of fairyland delusion.
LikeLike
David,
FYI, Suzuki doesn’t have 4 children, he has 5. I believe all from the same wife, his high school sweetheart. Doesn’t it just warm the cockles of your heart.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/10/13/david-suzukis-five-kids/
Regarding Hedges. A couple of years ago he did a reading at Revolution Books, the Communist Bookstore in Manhattan. At this event he acknowledged that if he had to rely upon himself to produce his food he and his family would starve to death.
Somehow during the Q&A I found the courage to ask him about his current piece about population and the fact that he has 4 children. His answer was that he had two with the first wife and he wasn’t planning to any more with the second wife. They adopted a child in the second marriage and then surprise, surprise (well it’s only a surprise if you’re having anal sex) she became pregnant. It was unplanned.
Adoption good. He gets points. The accident bad. He loses points.
I wanted to ask 2 questions at that point but others were in the queue waiting to ask their question. Bringing up population already set the temperature of the room down by about 20 degrees.
When the event was over though i did go up to him while he was signing and asked him 1) Why didn’t he have a vasectomy after reached his limit of two and 2) How could he really write about the issue of population while not following his own advice.
He looked at me uncomfortably, the crowd waiting for their books to be signed also looked at me with daggers and the questions never got a response. In that moment I knew why I couldn’t be a investigative reporter as I just couldn’t keep at him in that tense few moments.
LikeLike
Man, you have some balls, don’t you.
LikeLike
Well it’s all about holding people (myself included) accountable for what they speak and write about.
I think of it less as having a huge set of cajoles then having morals and integrity, being able to acknowledge my own flaws and laughing at them. No easy task.
LikeLike
It’s also why in all my years on Wall Street I never seemed to be promoted as often and as highly as many of my peers. Could it be that I spoke my mind? Not the best of career moves.
Not that it’s worked out any better in my foray on the left. During the year I worked at WBAI/Pacifica on the Local Advisory Board Election I learned just how open to the “truth” of their own flaws and behaviors such luminaries as Goodman and Null are. Their behaviors are on par with the managers at Goldman Sacs.
LikeLike
David,
Oops. My bad.
Suzuki has also been married twice. 3 children from wife #1 who he divorced in 1958. Should he get a pass on having 3 pre Limits to Growth and Population Bomb?
Then he married wife #2 in 1972 and had 2 more children. These offspring were unnecessary. he also should have had a vasectomy (ala All In the Family’s Mike Stivic) as it was pretty topical by then. Why he couldn’t push for adoption with the second wife is the question, but then again didn’t Orolov give in to his wife on this point?
http://www.ascensiongateway.com/quotes/david-suzuki/biography.htm
LikeLike
Thanks for that info.I agree on your point re.vasectomies.There are plenty of contraceptive methods available to reduce accidental pregnancies to a minimum.
LikeLike
H/T Thom Juzwik on Twitter
Who here is a jet setter lecturing the world about anthropogenic climate disruption? If you are, then you are a hypocrite.
LikeLike
Where do you draw the line? Anyone using a computer is contributing to the problem in fact, anyone burning anything whatsoever is. So are we all hypocrites? Are some more hypocritical than others? How hypocritical are we allowed to be?
LikeLike
You’re the one calling others hypocrites, so maby you have some formula you are using.
LikeLike
Eh…no. I did not use that judgmental terminology. I am interested in people like Hedges not as examples of hypocrites, but as paradigms of inherent human blindness and folly writ large…generally in a sympathetic way. I rarely use morally laden words like hypocrite (although with someone like Redford it is well deserved – see http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-endocene.html) because I do not think that humans have very much control over their appetite for energy, and by extension growth.
LikeLike
My correction, David did. Using such terms does leave a foul odor in the air, doesn’t it?
Concerning that post you just mentioned, the fossil fuel industry is now using such criticism as a tool to discredit people who may genuinely be concerned about the climate problem:
Hard-Nosed Advice From Veteran Lobbyist: ‘Win Ugly or Lose Pretty’
…Mr. Berman had flown to Colorado with Jack Hubbard, a vice president at Berman & Company, to discuss their newest public relations campaign, Big Green Radicals, which has already placed a series of intentionally controversial advertisements in Pennsylvania and Colorado, two states where the debate over fracking has been intense. It has also paid to place the media campaign on websites serving national and Washington audiences…
“There is nothing the public likes more than tearing down celebrities and playing up the hypocrisy angle,” his colleague Mr. Hubbard said, citing billboard advertisements planned for Pennsylvania that featured Robert Redford. “Demands green living,” they read. “Flies on private jets.”
Mr. Hubbard also discussed how he had done detailed research on the personal histories of members of the boards of the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council to try to find information that could be used to embarrass them…
LikeLike
“There is nothing the public likes more than tearing down celebrities and playing up the hypocrisy angle,”
Exactly, that just goes to show how freaking delusional the so-called environmental activists with gigantic CO2 footprints are, and the mainstream green groups, that they can’t see they are simply feeding the deniers. They seem to be so enamored with their own celebrity, or being within the glow of it, that they think no one will notice they are offering as paragons of environmental virtue the very people you decry for being the 1% – who fly around in private jets and have 3 or 5 mansions. It’s the very definition of human insanity to expect them to influence ordinary folks to accept sacrifice for the sake of the future climate.
I might add that the scientists play into this as well – a popular denier critique is that, if the scientists REALLY thought climate change was all that bad, they would be marching in the streets and chaining themselves to bulldozers.
Why aren’t they?
LikeLike
The prospect of jail time makes their eco-boner go limp.
LikeLike
I’m a hypocrite. I’ve got three kids just because we like them and can keep them alive while other people’s kids die. I had them even though I was aware of Peak Oil although I hadn’t fleshed out the details. Survival of the fittest. Except that, well damn, practically everyone’s going to die or more specifically, they’re going to suffer and die in the proximal future. What good is survival if you have to watch everyone else die around you? Maybe that’s why I don’t want to be around all of the mindless, gun-stocked, hirsute apes that are the predominate sub-species in our area. I long ago gave up on group think, even group think on blogs like this one. Consensus is generally worthless if you have to sacrifice your own divination of the truth. Now it’s just “me” think, a pure distillation.
We’re a very irritating species and mother nature is approaching the human race like a slow moving hand approaches an unaware fly. Then from out of nowhere, SMACK!, and it’s all over. Don’t look now, you won’t see her, but she’s there and she’s getting closer. But in the meantime, until the chitin crumbles, we’re going to have a pretty good time………………right up to the end, and perhaps we will crawl out from the “crust of skull and bones” like fortunate maggots and be amazed at the folly of man(un)kind.
LikeLike
Man this blog would not be worth it without your comments.
“Hey, as long as we are stuck with being homo sapiens, why mess
around? Let’s wreck the whole joint. Anybody got an atomic bomb? Who doesn’t have an atomic bomb nowadays?”
LikeLike
Just a few tasty condiments for the delicious main courses.
LikeLike
James, wanting to have kids is as instinctual as using energy and seeking status. I think it is beyond reasoning. I have had the parental urge a number of times, but never purposely had any kids because my desire for me time was always stronger. I did not want that responsibility either. The ultimate expression of “me” think. I have always been honest about my choice and have found many people find it distasteful. No great sacrifice for humanity here, just selfishness of a different sort.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Must Read:
We have squandered any reasonable chance of keeping within 2C of climate change unless we take draconian action, says climate scientist Kevin Anderson
The former director of the Tyndall Centre, the UK’s leading academic climate change research organisation, talks to chinadialogue’s Tom Levitt about climate politics and his hopes for a global deal on reducing emissions by the end of 2015.
…
KA: The EU has not developed internal policies that are in any way consistent with its repeated and expressed goals of avoiding the 2C characterisation of dangerous climate change. The EU is now aiming for what it says is an ambitious target of a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030. That’s far too weak. We need to achieve more than double that for the EU to be making its reasonably fair contribution to a 2C future as outlined by the IPCC. The science and the numbers that come out of the IPCC report in terms of the carbon budget – taking into account a reasonable element of equity – would mean nations and regions like the US, EU and Australia would need to reduce their emissions at a much faster rate than even the EU is considering.
TL: The UK has been seen as a leader on climate change since the passing of the Climate Change Act in 2008. But is it now in danger of ditching or failing to meet its commitments?
KA: To its credit the UK does have carbon budgets, but, unlike the 80% target for 2050 outlined in the Climate Change Act, they are not enshrined in law. The long-term, 2050 targets are irrelevant and worse still misleading in relation to climate change. The only thing that matters is the build-up of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, in the atmosphere, in other words carbon budgets. The problem with the UK’s 2050 80% target is that it allows us to think that we can do things tomorrow that we failed to do today. If no agreement is reached in Paris next year, there may be increasing pressure on the government to repeal the Act itself. And even if the Act remains, I think the influence of the Committee on Climate Change may be reduced, and there is a risk that it could be abolished.
TL: If we were to have a realistic chance of meeting the 2C target, what expectation would that put on China?
KA: If we look at the IPCC’s carbon budgets for a reasonable chance of staying within a 2C framing of climate change, then the message is fairly stark for Annex 1 countries, i.e. the US, Europe, etc. They have to eliminate fossil fuel use from their energy system early in the 2030s. For non-Annex 1 countries, including and dominated by China, they would need to eliminate all fossil fuels from their energy system by 2050, but also they need to peak their emissions by the mid 2020s and, by 2030, be delivering decarbonisation rates of at least 10% reductions year on year. Together these give a good chance of staying below a 2C rise in temperature.
A big point for China is the issue of infrastructure development. When China constructs airports, ports, roads or buildings it is currently locking in very high energy-use and hence carbon futures, as even China will not be able to transition to low-carbon energy sources at sufficient rate. The other issue is trying to overcome the way the West frames success and progress. China has a very different philosophical and cultural background to that of the West so has real scope to think differently about what it means to be successful. The model we’ve developed in the West is dominated by consumption – that’s how we repeatedly measure success – let us hope China can propose alternatives.
TL: How far can the policies promoted by The New Climate Economy report and others like them take us in reducing GHG emissions and tackling climate change?
KA: The first thing to bear in mind is that these reports are primarily about greening growth. They are not about climate stabilisation. That’s an important distinction. They are genuinely interested in how we can green the process of economic development, but they are not thinking about what the science says about carbon budgets and keeping to the 2C target. That’s a real danger because there is an assumption that if we green growth that’s adequate. But if the temperature keeps rising then the implications of a rapidly changed climate will, overall, play out negatively in terms of economic development.
These reports are authored by well meaning people trying to figure out how far you can push the current socio-economic and political systems to address climate change. The fact is that the speed and depth of mitigation now required for 2C begs fundamental questions of the current systems. Perhaps these systems could have addressed climate change if they’d responded appropriately at the time of the first IPCC report almost a quarter of a century ago. But in 2014 our emissions are 60-65% higher than they were in 1990 and are showing no signs of coming down in the next few years.
TL: Do you still have faith in the UN process or is it time to pursue alternatives like bilateral deals?
KA: I am all for continuing with the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and related processes, I think we need to be pushing them as hard as we can. But there are other things we should do alongside them. The UK’s Climate Change Act was a separate process, outside of the UNFCCC, as were the EU negotiations. We already have a mix of approaches. It’s a mistake to think that these can’t be designed to complement the UN negotiations. Ultimately however, if you are serious about climate change as a global problem then a global framework is necessary to understand the collective implications of everyone’s efforts. It is foolish and naïve to decry the UN process assuming you could substitute it for smaller, bilateral or other negotiations – these are necessary, but only as a complement to the UN process.
TL: Why do you think that message about 2C isn’t getting through to policymakers?
KA: Those of us in the scientific community who have been developing emissions scenarios and pathways have not served the policy-makers or civil society well. We have collectively adopted the approach of the New Climate Economy authors in trying to second-guess how hard we can push the political and economic system. It is our job as academics to stand outside of such constraints and say if the international community wants to meet it targets of 2C then these are the necessary carbon budgets and these are the range of accompanying emissions pathways. We should stand our ground as independent, objective analysts, much more than we have.
By trying to serve the political system in a way that is well meaning, we have ultimately undermined a robust understanding of the severity of the situation we have got ourselves into. It’s led us to the point today where we have squandered any reasonable opportunity of an evolutionary transition to 2°C, and now face revolutionary changes to our energy systems. The scale and timeframe of such systemic re-writing of energy supply, demand and distribution inevitably raises fundamental questions about the structure of contemporary society.
LikeLike
Click to access wwf_coal_report_imperial_college_final.pdf
…The report’s lead author, Dr Rob Gross, added: “Our economic modelling shows that it is unwise to simply assume that coal-fired power stations will all close in the 2020s. If the Government wants old power stations to close it needs to ensure that happens through legislation.”
“With the UK’s existing suite of energy policies, in every instance coal still played a role in generating electricity and 2030 emissions targets were missed,” Dr Gross said…
LikeLike
LikeLike
Mr Greg Boyce CEO of Peabody Energy lashes out at climate change activists, arguing that even as coal is the biggest source of carbon emissions, divesting from fossil fuels is “misguided and anti-poor.”
Mr Boyce said that “It’s pretty strange that, globally, not only the UN, but developed country leaders are spending so much time on, quote, climate change.”
He said that “They aren’t focusing on how you eliminate poverty, eliminate energy poverty, and start driving global economic activity.”
http://coal.steelguru.com/north_america/18085/peabody_ceo_defends_coal_role_in_global_economy
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
The Mystery of Ray McGovern’s Arrest
November 8, 2014
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/11/08/the-mystery-of-ray-mcgoverns-arrest/
Exclusive: On Oct. 30, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern was arrested for trying to attend a public speech by retired Gen. David Petraeus. McGovern had hoped to ask Petraeus a critical question during Q-and-A but was instead trundled off to jail, another sign of a growing hostility toward dissent, McGovern says.
By Ray McGovern
Why, I asked myself, would the New York City police arrest me and put me in The Tombs overnight, simply because a security officer at the 92nd Street Y told them I was “not welcome” and should be denied entry to a talk by retired General David Petraeus? In my hand was a ticket for which I had reluctantly shelled out $50.
(more)
LikeLike
…It was my intent to put the spotlight, via a question or two, on Petraeus’s far more consequentially dishonest behavior. And this seemed particularly important at this point in time, as his starry-eyed emulator generals seem no less willing than Petraeus to throw a new wave of youth from a poverty draft into a fool’s-errand sequel in Iraq and Syria.
In any event, it seems reasonably clear why they did not let me enter the 92nd Street Y on Oct. 30. Someone thought that the thin-skinned ex-general might be discomforted by a less-than-admiring question. His speech was to be another moment for Petraeus to bathe in public adulation, not confront a citizen or two who might pose critical queries…
…A State Department investigation into my background came up dry; but the words “political activism, primarily anti-war” were enough to get me BOLOed. [“Be on the Look-Out”]…
How did the organs of state security learn I was coming? It is more likely to have been guilt by association than the residue from a BOLO. In short, when I travel to New York to teach, I normally email my friend Martha at Maryhouse in the Bowery – the Catholic Worker house founded by her grandmother, Dorothy Day.
If there is a free bed, I gratefully receive Catholic Worker hospitality and have a chance to enjoy the company of those who have been placed at the margins of society, as well to witness the selfless kindness of those forming authentic relationships with them.
Here’s the catch. Catholic Workers are involved not only in extending hospitality but also in activism, trying, as Dorothy Day did, to make the world a less violent, more caring place. It is primarily the activism, of course, that brings scrutiny from the organs of security, but you might call it “political activism, primarily anti-war,” as the State Department did.
Moreover, the Catholic Worker Movement is an international organization widely looked upon as subversive of the Establishment, and this adds to the suspicion. In recent years, many of my Catholic Worker friends have been arrested for protesting the use of drones to kill foreigners dubbed “militants,” most of whom don’t look like most of us.
But the targets can now include American citizens, as President Barack Obama turns the Constitution upside down and takes it upon himself to act as judge, jury and executioner. Yes, the Fifth Amendment has gone the way of the Fourth, and the First has become an endangered species…
…You are perhaps thinking that the National Security Agency stores only metadata; and, if so, you would be wrong. Content is saved. So if the government wants to access the content of emails from the past, no problem.
As Bill Binney reminded me, former FBI director Robert Mueller let that particular cat out of the bag three-and-a-half years ago. In his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 30, 2011, Mueller bragged about having access to “past emails and future ones as they come in.”
Binney explains that the metadata is used to access the content. And, thanks to the documents provided by Edward Snowden, we know that under NSA’s PRISM operation, data is routinely collected directly from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple (and God knows where else, again assuming God is cleared).
So my best guess is that I can blame the “subversive” activities of the Catholic Workers and the monitoring of them by the organs of state security, for my recent arrest and overnight accommodations in The Tombs.
LikeLike
Membership at the Revolving Door Club is much sought after and any attempt to revoke its charter is to be vigorously resisted. The banks, military, mega-corporations, academia, much media and various government institutions are all members. You scratch my back with a little no-bid contract, freedom from prosecution, promotion and your in. Anything that threatens the currency of grift and the inviolable principles of eternal growth and life is suppressed. Maybe we need a Surgeon General’s Warning placed on every Federal Reserve Note, “Quitting Spending Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Planet’s Health.” But they’re all about cancer, all about destruction, it’s their manifest destiny.
LikeLike
Message for Veterans Day today:
LikeLike
Kurt Vonnegut would have been 92 today.
His letter of life-advice to his children:
http://www.brainpickings.org/2013/11/11/kurt-vonnegut-advice-to-children/
“I think it’s important to live in a nice country rather than a powerful one. Power makes everybody crazy.”
LikeLike
Another techno-fix for our complete destruction of the enviros…
LikeLike
The scale of technological intervention to halt or reverse the damage inflicted by our cancer civilization, to reduce the external damage, is impossible to implement. Addressing external damage with a technological solution is the cyanide pill. The only solution, if possible at this stage, is to pull back, but pulling back is politically impossible as each year many millions of more people want to take their place in the cancer’s metabolism and be rewarded with increased consumption resulting in increased external damage. Simply reducing population by technology is insufficient as the damages still accumulate from hierarchical competition. A zero population growth rate solves nothing. A zero growth rate in population and fossil fuel use would only be a start as maintenance cost of civilization’s existing infrastructure is still too great, probably by a factor of at least 10x. A world economy ten times smaller than today’s with a population of 700 million, is a maximum IMO. If we do nothing, we will likely undershoot this by another factor of ten. A world economy of 1/100th the current size and a human population of 70 million. Personally, I don’t think that a sufficient percentage of the human population can control their desires to procreate and compete and any rational argument to reign in such behavior is “denied” by the dopamine influenced decision-maker in their brains. For those interested in surviving, paying off the mortgage and buying guns and beans will not be enough. Prepare for shortages of fresh water, radioactive isotope contamination, coastal superstorms and flooding, crop failure by diseased crops weakened or directly killed by heat waves.
LikeLike
Power went out for 12 hrs yesterday, due to high wind and unmaintained tree branch overhangs. So I finished my book, “The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations” – Brian Fagan (2008), by flickering candle light. The big take away is drought has taken down more civilizations and more people than any other climate crisis. Professor Fagan calls it the elephant in the room. Since it’s publication we have seen the early effects of drought in the ME, California and most of the western US, Brazil, China and many other places. Compared to the visual drama of flash floods, drought seems almost boring, but it is relentless. Slow methodical attrition just like a cancer. Once the real suffering starts in N America, no one will be talking about reducing emissions or saving the planet. It will just be survival of the ruthless and lucky. The most horrific incident in the book is a description by American journalists Francis Nichols of cannibalism in the Chinese drought of 1897-1901,
“A horrible kind of meat ball, made from the bodies of human beings who had died of hunger, became a staple article of food, that was sold for the equivalent of about four American cents a pound” Over two million died in that 5 year drought.
LikeLike
One of my favorite authors… perhaps a spiritual kin of KV:
“Following 9/11, the military-industrial complex seized and then cemented total control of the US Government, a coup d’etat that would have failed without the active assistance of a rapidly growing population of fearful, non-thinking dupes; “true believers” dumbed down and almost comically manipulated by their media, their church, and their state.
So be it. Freedom has long proven too heady an elixir for America’s masses, weakened and confused as they are by conflicting commitments to puritanical morality and salacious greed. In the wake of the recent takeover, our prevailing national madness has been ratcheting steadily skyward: the pious semi-literates in the conservative camp tremble and crow, the educated martyrs in the progressive sector writhe and fume.
It’s a grand show, from a cosmic perspective, though enjoyment of the spectacle is blunted by the havoc being wreaked on nature and by the developmental abuse inflicted on children. We must bear in mind, however, that the central dynamic of our race has never been a conflict between good and evil but rather between enlightenment and ignorance. Ignorance makes the headlines, wins the medals, doles out the punishment, jingles the coin, yet in its clandestine cubbyholes (and occasionally on the public stage) enlightenment continues to quietly sparkle, its radiance outshining the entire disco ball of history. Its day may or may not come, but no matter. The world as it is! Life as it is!
Enlightenment remains its own reward.”
– Tom Robbins
LikeLike
Kevin Anderson seems to me to be the most honest and realistic climate expert.
He refuses to use the airlines.
Blog: http://kevinanderson.info/blog/category/quick-comment/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KevinClimate
World climate expert and head scientist at the British Governments Tyndall centre for Climate Change Research, Kevin Anderson, says that: “ If you have got a population of nine billion by 2050 and you hit 4C, 5C or 6C, you might have half a billion people surviving.” This is why some people call it a climate holocaust, pushed by an economy which puts money in front of life…
…Kevin Anderson refuses to fly and thinks that “Offsetting is worse than doing nothing. It is without scientific legitimacy, is dangerously misleading and almost certainly contributes to a net increase in the absolute rate of global emissions growth.” Keep consuming, keep polluting, no need to change our behaviour, business as usual with a nice greenwash tint. But it’s not just greenwashing that is useful to corporations at the moment, it is also artwashing, the magic slight of hand that transforms ‘radical’ art into a tool for upholding the status quo.
http://labofii.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/an-open-letter-in-the-dark/
LikeLike
I so applaud Anderson for his decision regarding flying. It is one I myself have been committed to for the last 6 years. Would have been 8, but I caved when a relative was dying in AZ.
Alas, I realize that my decision and action will effect no one. Board members of the food clubs TFC and TNG of which I was a board member unfortunately saw my act as one of lunacy. This from a group of people that promotes, yes I say promotes, breeding and then uses the airlines to fly wherever old Sally Fallon has her annual Weston Price conference.
Guess, they believed that the next release of the iPod or iPhone would have an App that made it okay to breed and fly. Anyone have any news on this?
LikeLike
Concerning the newly announced CO2 reduction agreement between the U.S. and China:
LikeLike
Running the agreements through the PAGE09 integrated assessment model, and throwing in the EU’s pledge to cut emissions by 40% by 2030 for good measure, it appears that these agreements on their own give us less than a 1% chance of keeping the rise in global mean temperatures below the iconic 2 degC level in 2100. Most likely the rise will be about 3.8 degC . This assumes all other regions of the world continue to allow their emissions to grow along the IPCC’s A1B business as usual scenario. Annual mean climate change impacts will still rise to about $20 trillion per year by 2100, with about 2/3 of those impacts in poor countries.
So while the deal may be politically important, statements about its ambition should be treated with caution…
http://www.chrishopepolicy.com/2014/11/the-us-china-climate-deal-dont-get-carried-away/
LikeLike
BEIJING—Acknowledging the industrialized nation’s role in global climate change, China reportedly reached a landmark agreement with the United States Wednesday, pledging to significantly increase the rate at which it falsifies air pollution data over the next 15 years. “As the world’s leading manufacturer and a rising global economy, we consider it our responsibility to begin taking aggressive measures to fabricate pollution statistics and openly misinform the rest of the world about our level of carbon emissions,” said Chinese president Xi Jinping during a joint press conference with U.S. president Barack Obama, noting that, while China has already taken steps to misrepresent its air quality, it will steadily expand its current deception and begin distorting data in a variety of new sectors, such as grossly overstating its level of investment in solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources. “China is strongly committed to the goal of claiming its greenhouse gas output has been cut in half by 2030. We will work tirelessly to exaggerate, manipulate, and in many cases flat-out lie about the amount of pollutants Chinese factories and energy plants release into the atmosphere. That is our unwavering pledge.” At press time, Chinese officials announced that the country had already met its goal.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/china-vows-to-begin-aggressively-falsifying-air-po,37429/
LikeLike
Like the treaties with Native Americans, these pacts will be broken when the opportunity arises to fulfill their growth mandate. Unlike the past, where expansion was territorial, right now it’s intensification of existing land. Leaders can always point to this deal as ‘evidence’ that they ‘made an effort’ and are serious about anthropogenic influences on the environment. Appearances are more important than substance. I’m convinced humanity will stay this course until it no longer can. What that world looks like will be nightmarish for our species. Everyone, but especially people of privilege with large ecological footprints, are to blame. None of us will quit the luxuries of industrial life until we are forced to, even though they cause as much stress and spiritual impoverishment as any benefits accrued. We’re all walking the digital chaingang.
LikeLike
REWARDING WITH A LICENCE TO COMMIT ECOCIDE:
High incomes and climate change
http://www.tammilehto.info/english.htm
LikeLike
No techno-fix solution to our predicament:
LikeLike
You know things are beyond hopeless when a German scientist says Nein! to a techno-fix.
LikeLike
My Sennheiser HD540 headphones that I bought nearly three decades ago are still working great, but had to order new ear pieces because the padding on them literally disintegrated over time. LOL!
LikeLike
11-9-14
Ahead of next weekend’s G20 summit, the release of leaked documents
showing Luxembourg’s facilitation of industrial scale tax avoidance by
multinational corporations could not have been better timed.
A cache of documents obtained by the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists, and released on Thursday, found hundreds of
companies – including Australian firms such as AMP, Macquarie Group and
Lend Lease – had funnelled hundreds of billions of dollars into
Luxembourg, slashing their tax bills in the process.
In some cases, the firms were paying effective tax rates of as little as
1 percent.
While immense, the “Lux leaks” documents are only a portion of the tax
avoidance taking place in Luxembourg, representing only those deals
arranged by global accounting firm PwC.
And while Luxembourg is arguably the world’s biggest tax haven, it
represents only a sliver of the global tax avoidance game…
http://www.smh.com.au/national/g20-leaders-in-the-mood-to-act-on-tax-avoidance-after-luxembourg-leaks-20141107-11icy3.html
LikeLike
New classic Pink Floyd song filmed in what was once the Aral Sea, but is now a desolate and haunting moonscape littered with rusting ships and rundown industrial machinery:
LikeLike
Even more haunting is the footage of Pripyat in their remastered song Marooned:
LikeLike
Great musical picks, Mike.
That last one was poignant and disturbing to me. Like birds have songs, I think music, more than words, convey the ‘content’ (if there is such a thing) of reality, and is the human song.
Here we are, in all our sad glory, so clever but unable to take it to even the next level, wisdom and responsibility, let alone the last one of enlightenment. Too little self-reflection, too much being enthralled with our own tricks to pay attention or learn from our lethal mistakes.
Thanks
LikeLike
Here we are
In all our sad glory
So clever
But unable to take it
To even the next level
Wisdom and responsibility
Let alone the last one
Of enlightenment
Too little self-reflection
Too much being enthralled
With our own tricks
To pay attention
Or learn from
Our lethal mistakes
Tom, I have taken the liberty of putting your writing from above in this thread in verse form. For me it sums up our whole tragic situation. Thanks for capturing it so clearly and poignantly.
LikeLike
Great comments!
LikeLike
LI: Now, I just did some rough calculation. If you put U.S. and China’s emissions together, and assuming that the rest of countries will also have their equitable share of the global carbon emission project, and that that would be roughly consistent with long-term global warming of 3 degrees Celsius or higher compared to the preindustrial time–and so I think that that would be would be–this commitment would be far less than the so-called historic claimed by the mainstream media…
REDMAN: So, as Dr. Li mentioned, there is a commitment by the United States to pledge–where it’s pledged to cut its emissions by anywhere from 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. And that’s interesting. I would say that the cooperation, the joint announcement is politically important. But as Dr. Li mentioned, the substance, the content, is actually quite disappointing. So the emissions reduction of 26 to 28 percent from 2005 by 2025 actually is double what was announced in Obama’s earlier targets of ambition for cutting emissions last June, which was 17 percent by 2020. But if we look at the baseline year that every other country uses when they’re setting their targets internationally for cutting emissions, the year 1990 was actually a lower emitting year. So by that benchmark, we’re still doing an incredibly unambitious lift on cutting our emissions. If we’re doubling the ambition from last year, which was about 3 to 4 percent emission cuts, that’s really and still double–kind of a pathetic amount is a not so significant amount…
…it doesn’t move us off of an all-of-the-above energy strategy in China or in the United States.
LikeLike
Oh Goody! Now we are going to play Russian Roulette with 5 bullets instead of 6.
LikeLike
This is just another mean nothing appeasement for the hopeful/faithful middle class after the big climate march. How many times have we heard this shit? It’s like the married man who is a serial cheater; “I promise honey that’s the last affair I will ever have – never again – I promise”. TPTB will say anything to keep our dysfunctional master/slave marriage from falling apart and society is like a cowed insecure spouse that will believe anything to maintain the illusion and sooth the fear & anxiety of starting over. The delusional are talking as if it’s written in stone. Joe Romm is so excited he practically ejaculated on his keyboard (I hope he had some tissues). I give it the same odds of happening as Lockheed’s compact nuclear fusion reactor.
Why The U.S.-China CO2 Deal Is An Energy, Climate, And Political Gamechanger
http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/2155776/why-us-china-co2-deal-energy-climate-and-political-gamechanger
LikeLike
We lost 75% of river bank & marine life in 50 years.
America has 75,000 dams.
Don’t leap to conclusions, let them burst over you
Stairway To Heaven
Energy demand is going to go up 50% at the exact same time emissions have to go down 80% and also at the very same time that post peak minerals forces recognition of the obvious, we are fucked and there is nothing we can do about it. We can’t recycle our way out because of what Ugo Bardi calls “downcycling”, which is the degradation of quality recycled materials deliver. Research into recycling is promising, but dwindles compared to post peak production dynamics.
We’ve mined 50% of all the copper ever mined in human history in just the last 30 years. We are on track for copper to peak between 2030 and 2040. We do not have anywheres near enough copper for our green energy fantasies, and copper is only one example of many. After peak minerals, we cannot accelerate post peak mineral production no matter what the price of that mineral is. We already move some 3 billion tons of earth for 15 million tons of copper, and we will soon have to move lots more for much less. This can’t go on.
And no, you cannot substitute your way out of this. Aluminum is brittle, fire-prone and costs 5 times the energy of copper. Aluminum wire costs twice as much to produce as copper wire. Our faith in material substitutes has to break before it breaks us. We have to have a low-carbon plan that is realistically achievable, and not trillions of batteries, blades and panels. To power Britain today with 100% green energy, you would have to cover 25% of their country with green energy materials. This is plainly as stupid as it is materially mass foolish, or pound foolish as they say.
Our monetary-military culture grew up from minerals and will flame out because of them. We are buying a stairway straight to hell. Going to wikipedia to look up mineral reserves is as reliable as getting your palm read at a county fair. Money is the root of all evil. This is why any future carbon tax dividends should be 100% all yours in a new direct deposit world wide e-currency powered by nuclear thorium because we can’t mine green energy minerals without digging up already radioactive thorium.
Green energy demands we flood the world with billions of tons of batteries. The thorium power will pay for the green energy minerals and destruct battery mass demand. This will change only the mineral-energy imbalance but not any other environmental overshoots. I do not like this reality, but anything is better than the nonsense we engage intellectually now.
Math Made Easy: The Confluence of Crises Formula
Minerals overshoot +
Climate overshoot +
Ecological overshoot +
Population overshoot =
—————————
Near Term Mass Extinction
next chapter: lunch money; diamonds are for heifers extinctions are for evers
hint: search for anything Megan Amram says.
LikeLike
I’m planning on writing a post about techno-fixes after I come back from break. Michael Huesemann and his wife wrote the definitive book on it. See the video a few comments above.
LikeLike
What’s the opposite of techno-fix? Techno-break? What if hackers got really serious? So far I think they have only been disruptive, because they still need the system to live and so do their families. What if life got even more oppressive and dystopian and some of them decided that the only hope for the future was to bring the system down? What if they made an all out effort to cause as much chaos as they could? The list of potential techno-disruptions and their ripple effects are endless. Apparently just deleting files can cause a shit storm.
RedHack hacks into Turkey’s Electric Distribution company website, delete bills worth 1.5 trillion Turkish Lira
http://www.techworm.net/2014/11/redhack-hacks-turkeys-electric-distribution-company-website-delete-bills-worth-1-5-trillion-turkish-lira.html
LikeLike
The human race is in trouble. So is all Life on Earth. And we all spend our time arguing over how to treat the symptoms of the disease that is murdering the planet rather than trying to eliminate the disease.
A disease is not cured by putting band-aids on the symptoms. To be rid of the disease, the source must be eradicated. The source of the disease that’s killing our Mother is industrial civilisation. The end of civilisation as we know it is prerequisite to the continuation of human Life on Earth.
This is not to say that the human race must be annihilated. But, after many years in denial, during which time I clung desperately to a utopian illusion of a sustainable, enlightened, techno-industrial society, I have finally reached the conclusion that industrial civilisation must be brought to an end or the human species will effectively destroy itself and possibly all Life on Earth.
Acculturation to the compartmentalised nature of civilisation makes it extremely difficult for its individual members to reach an understanding of its mortiferous nature. The forest cannot be seen for the trees as it were. People just don’t see the “big picture“. They are consumed with their pet issues, their specialised functions and their own self-interest.
However, it should, by now, be a lot easier for people to see that this system cannot be “fixed”, that we can’t get things back to “normal”, that normal is the problem, not the solution.
That the extraction and consumption of non-renewable resources without restraint cannot go on forever should be self-evident to anyone. Yet this culture not only consumes non-renewables with reckless abandon but devours or destroys renewables, like land, trees, natural food sources, air and water, at a rate far surpassing that of their recovery. Any culture that depends for its very existence upon such a system cannot endure.
What is the big picture?
Industrial civilisation is unsustainable and irredeemable. Its members, both rulers and ruled, will not voluntarily enact the changes needed to transform it to a culture that is rational, sustainable and natural. Therefore, it will collapse.
Civilisation will collapse in due course without any extra “help” or it could be dismantled voluntarily, logically and rationally with the aim of making the transition as painless as possible.
The human species, if it is to survive, must return to the natural world, find its proper place there and accept it with humility. We must go back before we can really go forward. We stopped evolving somewhere around the Neolithic Revolution. We need to go back and resume the process.
Only when Earth has been transformed from a luxuriant, verdant, bountiful and nurturing home into a sterile, barren and lifeless rock will we finally understand the horror we have visited upon ourselves; and then it will be too late.
Just my opinion
LikeLike
“the human species will effectively destroy itself and possibly all Life on Earth”
Possibly is the key word.
Only one realm, the one with the most bio-mass and population, will survive again (The Real Dangers With Microbes & Viruses).
They will be negatively impacted but not eradicated until the 7th mass extinction (Life According To Science).
LikeLike
“Possibly is the key word.”
Which is why I used it with emphasis as a caveat.
“…the human species will effectively destroy itself and possibly all Life on Earth.”
Thanks for the links. Always grateful for useful information. Learning is an endless process.
Admittedly, with more extremophiles being discovered on a regular basis it seems it would take a lot to wipe out everything.
LikeLike
Every empire or civilization that commits suicide gets “extra help” from within. It’s part of the process of collapse. Hackers, DGR, terrorists and all the others are a natural by product of the system. Are you worried my speculating will give the disgruntled some bad ideas and thus end it all sooner than you had planned? No worries Richard we have been on autopilot for sometime; we are not in control.
LikeLike
Worried? No, actually more like wishful.
LikeLike
State Dept computers hacked, email shut down
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_STATE_DEPARTMENT_COMPUTERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-16-15-01-30
LikeLike
Countdown to collapse. I’m 68 yet I think there’s a fair chance I may live to see it and possibly die as a result.
LikeLike
I’m 47 and have no doubt that I will not make it to your age. It’s sad, because my mom is 66 and I sometimes think it would be a mercy if she passed before she has to see her children and grandchildren suffer the worst of it. My brother just got another bump up the corporate ladder; more money, less hours, new car. He thinks everything is just fine. Happy as a pig in shit. I made an effort to warn him but he is a techno-utopian (loves Neil Degrasse Tyson) and thinks I’m a “conspiracy theorist”. Most people are going to believe what makes them feel best and intelligence level does not matter.
LikeLike
When I think about my grandchildren and the incredibly hostile environment they will be faced with, the nightmare battle it will be simply to survive, I’m really overwhelmed by shame and sorrow.
Your brother is only being civilised. Normalcy bias, acculturation, indoctrination, denial and good old willful ignorance are all ubiquitous.
For years I was a great fan of the Venus Project and Jaque Fresco. I was nearly delusional with desperation. Had to let it go. Some things just can’t be denied, reality being one of them.
Good luck Apneaman. Maybe I’ll see you on the other side.
LikeLike
Haven’t yet had a chance to really look this sight over myself, but will post a link to it for everyone’s consideration:
http://theriseandfallofthehumanempire.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Well done TRISHOUSE.
“Since this culture went viral out of the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley, it has encountered untold numbers of sustainable societies, some of them profoundly peaceful and egalitarian, and its response has been to wipe them out with a sadism that is incomprehensible. As one example among millions, Christopher Columbus’s officers preferred their rape victims between the ages of ten and twelve.”
Deep Green Resistance”, Lierre Keith, Chapter 15, Page 477
“To the Cree, and most Native North Americans, greed was a serious psychological malfunction. The Cree called it Wétiko. Native American philosopher Jack Forbes explains that the overriding characteristic of a wétiko, a Cree word literally meaning “cannibal,” is “that he consumes other human beings for profit, that is, he is a cannibal”
Christopher Columbus the Wétiko (from “Columbus and Other Cannibals by Native American philosopher Jack Forbes)
A story reported by Dr. Jane M. Murphy, now director of Harvard’s Psychiatric Epidemiology Unit, serves as an example of the vigilant stance that one millennia-old indigenous culture–a group of Inuit in Northwest Alaska–takes regarding psychopathic types within their midst.
So aware is this group regarding the existence of these individuals that their language includes a term for them–kunlangeta–which is used to refer to a person whose “mind knows what to do but does not do it”, resulting in such acts as lying, cheating, stealing and taking advantage of the tribe without making sufficient contribution. And how seriously do the group’s members take the need to respond to the threat such individuals pose to the group’s sustainability? When asked what the group would typically do with a kunlangeta, Murphy was told “Somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody else was looking”.
http://www.systemsthinker.com/interests/mind/psychopathy.shtml
LikeLike
…Three years ago in mid-September, I walked with my children through fields of milkweed near Elora, Ont. The plants’ leaves were thick with monarch caterpillars, and we saw hundreds of butterflies in the air. Last year, we saw no caterpillars and three monarchs. This year, in a dozen hours of hiking through prime monarch territory, we again saw no caterpillars and only about 10 butterflies.
The migration might recover, but it’s also very possibe that it won’t. The density of adults along the route is now probably too low to sustain reproduction.
Why should anyone but nature lovers care? There are two big reasons. First, what’s happening to monarchs seems to be happening to many other species around North America and the world. These changes may be an early sign of a general unravelling of critical natural systems. And second, what’s happening to monarchs reveals key things about the increasingly complex problems humanity faces.
The monarch is an iconic species, so its troubles receive some media coverage. The drop in bee populations also sometimes makes news, because people worry about crop pollination. But most North Americans now live in cities and don’t interact much with nature. So they aren’t aware that in large parts of the continent, populations of amphibians, bats, swallows and moose are plummeting, too. Off the west coast, oysters and starfish are dying in huge numbers, while the corpses of hundreds of dolphins are washing ashore on the east coast.
The reasons are often unclear. But whether we’re talking about monarchs, bats or starfish, three key lessons stand out – lessons that apply to many of humanity’s problems.
The first is that an increasing proportion of these problems have multiple causes that combine synergistically – that is, their causes don’t add together but instead multiply each other’s impacts. For monarchs, the causal mix includes loss of wintering range in Mexico, extreme weather due to climate change, farmers’ use of pesticides and U.S. federal ethanol policy, which has driven growth in corn acreage and loss of milkweed along the migration route. Multiple, synergistic causation lies behind problems as diverse as the rise of the Islamic State in the Middle East and the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.
The result, when it comes to finding a solution, is multidirectional finger pointing. The farmers can blame the Mexicans, the Mexicans can blame the U.S. government and everyone can blame climate change. In a world of multiple causes, it’s hard to hold anyone responsible. It’s always the other guy’s actions.
The monarchs’ second lesson is that ecological and other complex systems can abruptly flip from one state to another. A system might appear to be chugging along normally one day and then, bang, it shifts to an entirely different behaviour the next. Remember the collapse of the east coast cod fishery, or the world economy’s sudden flip in 2008 from an inflationary state to one that barely skirts deflation.
In everyday conversation, we call these shifts tipping points. Generally, they become more likely as a system’s parts become more connected together. That’s partly why the world economy is becoming more prone to major crises, as globalization increasingly couples together national economies and financial systems.
The third lesson is that once a system shifts to a new state – once the monarch migration collapses, for instance – it’s usually very difficult, even impossible, to tip the system back to its earlier state. The system fundamentally reconfigures itself, and the new arrangement can be very stable. Two decades years later, we’re still waiting for the cod to return, and since 2008, the global economy seems to have become permanently stuck in low gear.
Around the world, national institutions and political systems are designed to deal with single-cause problems and incremental and reversible change. But the world ain’t like that any more. Take a problem like climate change. Its causes are many and tangled; the climate system has flipped from one state to another in the past, and could do so again under human pressure; and once it flips, we won’t be able to get the old climate back.
That little, vanishing monarch tells a big story indeed.
LikeLike
Germany has installed over 24,000 wind turbines and 1.4 million solar panels, and renewables generate 31 percent of the country’s electricity on average – and as much as 74 percent on particularly windy or sunny days. According to the German government, 371,400 jobs have been created by renewable energy. Norway generates 99 percent of its electricity from renewable energy. Denmark already generates 43 percent of electricity from renewables and aims to phase out fossil fuel burning by 2050.
Many view such news as rays of hope in a rapidly destabilizing climate. We all need some good news – but is renewables expansion really the good news people like to think? Can we really put our hopes for stabilizing the climate into trying to simply replace the energy sources in a growth-focused economic and social model that was built on fossil fuels? Or do we need a far more fundamental transition towards a low-energy economy and society?
Here’s the first problem with celebratory headlines over renewables: Record renewable energy hasn’t stopped record fossil fuel burning, including record levels of coal burning. Coal use is growing so fast that the International Energy Authority expects it to surpass oil as the world’s top energy source by 2017.
Perhaps the 1,500 gigawatts of electricity produced from renewables worldwide have prevented a further 1,500 gigawatts of fossil fuel power stations? Nobody can tell. It’s just as possible that renewables have simply added 1,500 gigawatts of electricity to the global economy, fueled economic growth and ever-greater industrial resource use. In which case, far from limiting carbon dioxide emissions worldwide, renewables may simply have increased them because, as discussed below, no form of large-scale energy is carbon neutral.
Germany’s Energy Transition illustrates the problem: Wind turbines and solar panels have certainly become a widespread feature of Germany’s landscape. Yet if we look at Germany’s total energy use (including heating and transport), rather than just at electricity, energy classed as renewable accounts for just 11.5 percent. The majority, 87.8 percent, of Germany’s energy continues to come from fossil fuels and nuclear power (with waste incineration accounting for the difference of 0.7 percent). Coal consumption, which had been falling until 2008, has been rising again since then. Germany remains the European Union’s (EU) top coal consumer. Net electricity exports are being blamed for the rise in coal burning and carbon dioxide emissions, yet they account for just 5 percent of Germany’s electricity – and electricity accounts for less than half of the country’s energy use.
The picture looks even worse when one examines the mix of energy classed as renewable in Germany: Solar photovoltaic (PV) makes up 11.5 percent of renewables, wind, 16.8 percent. The bulk of it – 62 percent – comes from bioenergy, much of which is far from low carbon or sustainable. It includes biofuels, many of them made from imported soya and palm oil that are being expanded at the expense of tropical forests and peatlands and that destroy the livelihoods of small farmers, indigenous and other forest dependent peoples worldwide. It includes biogas made from 820,000 hectares of corn monocultures in Germany – a key driver for biodiversity loss in the country. And it includes wood pellets linked to forest degradation across Central Europe. On closer examination, therefore, 24,000 wind turbines and 1.4 million solar panels have scarcely made a dent in Germany’s fossil fuel burning and carbon emissions.
Norway’s situation is unique in that virtually all of the country’s electricity is generated from hydro dams, which were gradually expanded over the course of more than a century. Fossil fuels (mostly oil) still surpass renewable energy in Norway’s overall energy mix (with electricity accounting for less than half of the total), though only marginally so, and Norway’s economy remains heavily dependent on oil and gas exports.
Norway’s own hydro dams – many of them small-scale – have raised little controversy but the same cannot be said for Norway’s efforts to export this model to other countries. The Norwegian government and the state-owned energy company Statkraft have been at the forefront of financing controversial dams and associated infrastructure in Laos, India, Malaysian Borneo and elsewhere. One example is Statkraft’s joint venture investment in a new dam in Laos that has displaced 4,800 people and is causing flooding, erosion, and loss of fisheries and land on which people relied for growing rice.
Another example is Norwegian aid for transmission lines for mega-dams in Sarawak, a Malaysian province in Borneo which has seen vast areas of tropical rainforest – and the livelihoods of millions of indigenous peoples – sacrificed for palm oil, logging and also hydro power. One dam alone displaced 10,000 people and at least 10 more dams are planned, despite ongoing resistance from indigenous peoples. Far from being climate-friendly, hydro dams worldwide are associated with large methane emissions – with one study suggesting they are responsible for 25 percent of all human-caused methane emissions and over 4 percent of global warming. The disastrous consequences of Norway’s global hydro power investment illustrates the dangers of the simplistic view that anything classed as renewable energy must be climate-friendly and merits support.
What about the much-heralded renewable transition of Denmark? There coal use is falling and around 21 percent of total energy is sourced from renewables. Denmark holds the world record for wind energy capacity compared to population size. Unlike many other countries where wind energy is firmly controlled by large energy companies, Denmark has seen strong support for locally owned wind energy cooperatives, widely considered an inspiring example of clean, community-controlled energy. Nonetheless, wind energy in Denmark accounted for just 3.8 percent of Denmark’s total energy use in 2010.
Bioenergy accounts for a far greater percentage of Denmark’s “renewable energy” than does wind – and indeed for a greater share in the country’s overall energy mixthan is the case in any other European country. As in Germany, Denmark’s bioenergy includes biofuels for transport, which studies show tend to be worse for the climate than equivalent quantities of oil once all the direct and indirect emissions from deforestation, peatland destruction and other land use change associated with them are accounted for. And it includes wood pellets, with Denmark being the EU’s, and likely the world’s, second biggest pellet importer after the United Kingdom. Most of those pellets come from the Baltic states and Russia, from countries where clear-cutting of highly biodiverse forests is rampant. Studies show that burning wood from whole trees can be worse for the climate than burning coal over a period of decades or even centuries.
Thus, on closer inspection, many of the “great renewable energy successes” don’t look so great after all.
Clearly, the current catch-all definition of “renewables” is a key problem: Defining methane-spewing mega-dams, biofuels, which are accelerating deforestation and other ecosystem destruction, or logging forests for bioenergy as “renewable” helps policy makers boost renewables statistics, while helping to further destabilize planetary support systems. As long as energy sources that are as carbon-intensive and destructive as fossil fuels are classed as “renewable,” boosting renewable energy around the world risks doing more harm than good.
A saner definition of “renewable energy” clearly is vital but would it open the door toward 100 percent clean and plentiful energy? Comparing the rate of wind energy expansion in Denmark and wind and solar power expansion in Germany with the tiny contribution they make to both countries’ total energy supply indicates otherwise.
Wind and solar power require far less land per unit of energy than biomass or biofuels, but the area of land needed to replace fossil fuel power stations with, say, wind turbines is vast nonetheless. According to a former scientific advisor to the UK government, for example, 15 offshore wind turbines installed on every kilometer of the UK coastline would supply just 13 percent of the country’s average daily energy use. And offshore turbines are more efficient than onshore ones.
Researchers agree that the life-cycle impacts of wind and solar power on the climate and environment are definitely smaller than those of fossil fuels, as long as turbines and panels are sensibly sited (not, for example, on deep peat). But this doesn’t mean that the impacts are benign. Generating that 13 percent of UK energy from offshore wind would require wind turbines made of 20 million tons of steel and concrete – more than all the steel that went into US shipbuilding during World War II. Steel manufacturing is heavily dependent on coal, not just as a fuel for the furnaces but because it is needed to enrich the raw material, iron ore, with carbon to make it stable. And concrete is hardly “carbon neutral” either – cement (a key component) accounts for 5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions.
Solar PV panels are up to four times as energy and carbon-intensive to produce as wind turbines: Aluminum – used to mount and construct solar panels – is about as carbon and energy-intensive as steel. Silicon needs to be smelted at 2,000 degrees Celsius and materials used to replace silicon have an even higher environmental footprint. Then there’s an array of highly toxic and corrosive chemicals used during manufacturing. Yet with regards to pollution, building wind and marine turbines is likely worse than making solar panels, because efficient and lasting turbine magnets rely on rare earth mining and refining. One 5-megawatt turbine requires a ton of rare earths, the mining and refining of which will leave behind 75 cubic meters of toxic acidic waste water and one ton of radioactive sludge. Two-thirds of the world’s rare earths are refined in one town in China, where people have become environmental refugees and virtually all who remain suffer from ill health associated with toxic chemicals and radiation. In the quest for “clean energy” rare earths mines are being sought and opened around the globe. The only US rare earths mine, Molycorp’s in California, has been reopened, after having been shut down due to a long history of repeated spills of toxic and radioactive waste. Since reopening, the operators have already been fined for spilling yet more hazardous waste.
Zero-carbon, clean energy? Well, no. And yet, there are no large-scale energy sources with lower carbon emissions and less harmful environmental impacts than wind and solar power. As one scientist argues from the perspective of thermodynamics: “To talk about ‘renewable energy’ or ‘sustainable energy’ is an oxymoron, as is ‘sustainable mining’ or ‘sustainable development.’ The more energy we use, the less sustainable is humanity.”
We certainly need to swiftly end fossil fuel burning and the destruction of ecosystems and that will require us to rely on the least harmful energy sources such as wind and solar power. But the myth of plentiful “clean” energy stops us from focusing on the far deeper changes needed – a transformation toward a low-energy society. A depressing conclusion? Not necessarily. As UK climate change campaigner and author George Marshall has pointed out, we could cut flights (and probably all transport emissions) and slash energy used for home heating by 80 percent overnight by going back to the way people used to live as short a time ago as 1972, provided we used home insulation and efficient boiler technology developed since then. Instead, 40 years of efficiency gains have been wiped out by ever-greater consumption. Yet UK “personal satisfaction” surveys show that people’s sense of satisfaction or happiness peaked in 1970. Once people’s basic needs for energy are met, rising energy use remains vital for corporate profits and economic growth, but not for people’s quality of life.
Most readers will have never lived in a low-energy society. Imagining what such a society might look like and how to move toward the transformation required to get there, and to overcome the corporate interests that depend on profits from ever rising energy use, must be priorities for anyone aware of the seriousness of climate change. Daunting no doubt, but once we’ve abandoned faith in plentiful “clean” energy, we can finally make a start.
LikeLike
Ugo Bardi is Ozzie’s Harriet:
WHY I DON’T TALK TO MY DOG ANYMORE…
If you, or a friend, want to have a baby, then
this is all you need to know for its future.
► Humans and livestock were 0.01% of land vertebrate biomass 10,000 yrs. ago.
► Humans and our livestock are now 97% of land vertebrate biomass.
► Humans and our livestock eat 40% of land chlorophyll biomass.
► 50% of vertebrate species died off in the last 50 years.
► 50% of remaining vertebrate species will die off in the next 40 years.
► 75% species loss = Mass Extinction.
► 1,000,000 people are added to earth every 4½ days. People live longer.
► 90% of Big Ocean Fish gone since 1950.
► 50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985.
► 50% of Fresh Water Fish gone since 1987.
► 30% of Marine Birds gone since 1995.
► 28% of Land Animals gone since 1970.
► 28% of All Marine Animals gone since 1970.
► 50% of Human Sperm Counts gone since 1950.
► 90% of Lions gone since 1993.
► 90% of Monarch Butterflies gone since 1995.
► 93 Elephants killed every single day.
► 2-3 Rhinos killed every single day.
► Bees die from malnutrition lacking bio-diverse pollen sources.
► Extinctions are 1000 times faster than normal background extinctions.
► Ocean acidification doubles by 2050.
► Ocean acidification triples by 2100.
► We are on track in just 13 years to lock in a near term 6°C earth temp rise.
► Mass Extinction will become unstoppable and irreversible in 40 years.
► Permian mass extinction of 95% of life took 60,000 years 250 million years ago.
► Dinosaurs mass extinction took 33,000 years after asteroid impact.
► Anthropogenic mass extinction will take 300 years max.
► This mass extinction is 100x faster than any other mass extinction event.
► Antarctic meltdown now irreversible and unstoppable.
► Arctic methane burst is irreversible and unstoppable within current system.
► It takes 10 times as much rated “green” energy to displace 1 unit of fossil energy.
► Efficiency and conservation only causes more growth within our current system.
► World Bank says we have 5-10 years before we all fight for food and water.
► We combine bacteria DNA with plant DNA and eat them like corn chips.
► We are eating stuff that never, ever existed on earth before.
► We put man-made, computer designed, synthetic DNA into our food.
► We put nano metals and nano particles into our food.
► We put poisonous pesticides and herbicides directly into food cells.
► There are thousands of different chemicals in our foods.
► We are turning into genetic mutants because of our food.
► We are wiping out all life on earth because of our food.
► Energy demands to increase 50% by 2060.
► Emissions have to decrease 80% by 2060.
► 40% Green Energy requires 200% more copper according to John Timmer.
► To power England today with “green” power, 25% of its land needs to be used.
► Peak copper hits 2030 – 2040. Read Ugo Bardi’s work.
► Post peak copper production cannot accelerate at any price says Dave Lowell.
► This is true of any post peak mineral production.
► We mined 50% of all the copper in human history in just the last 30 years.
► 100% green energy requires 500% more copper.
► There is no real substitute for copper according to Mat McDermott of Motherboard.
► Peak minerals includes more than just copper.
► By 2050, expect to be past peaks for tin, silver, cadmium and more.
► We now move 3 billion tons of earth per year to get 15 millions tons of copper.
► We can’t afford to mine 500% more copper at ever lower concentrations.
► We cannot recycle it into existence.
► We cannot conserve it into existence.
…
► Green Energy is our solution to Climate Change.
► But, Climate Change is only 1 of 6 Direct Drivers for Mass Extinction.
► The 6 Direct Drivers of Mass Extinction are:
►► 1) Invasive Species
►► 2) Over-Population
►► 3) Over-Exploitation
►► 4) Habitat Loss
►► 5) Climate Change
►► 6) Pollution
► Therefore, Green Energy will not stop the End of Life on Earth.
► The only thing left will be our genetically modified trees, if we’re lucky.
► If those GM trees become sentient, they will laugh at the stories the grasses tell them of legendary cereal killers called cows.
DO THE MATH: The Confluence of Crises.
Peak Minerals +
Climate Heating +
Ecological Breakdown +
Human Population =
——————————
Near Term Mass Extinction (NTME)
NTME = Catastrophic Ecological Cascading Extinctions Collapse
NTME = Hunger + War
Believe it not, NTME will be ever so very terribly, extraordinarily unpleasant.
If you read all this, and you still want a baby, then you’re good to go —
just like Naomi Klein, and she’s a fucking millionaire — not that it’ll help.
My CV? I cut grass in a trailer park in Canada and graduated grade 8.
The reason I know all this stuff is because my dog woke me up hung over licking my face and told me aliens gave him telepathy to warn us.
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/documentary/watch-online/play/7350/Call-of-Life–Facing-the-Mass-Extinction
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tim+garrett+is+it+possible+to+decouple+economic+wealth+from+carbon+dioxide+emission+rates%3F+part+i
.
LikeLike
…ACD has been added to the list of causes for fewer bees in the United Kingdom, according to new research. The study showed that the increase in global temperature could be disrupting the “synchronization” that has evolved over millennia between bees and the plants they pollinate.
Long referred to as the “lungs of the planet,” a stunning new report by Brazil’s leading scientists revealed how the Amazon rainforest has been degraded to the point where it is actually losing its ability to regulate weather systems.
Speaking of degradation, over 50 percent of China’s arable land is now degraded, according to the official state news agency Xinhua. This means that the country now has a reduced capacity to produce food for the world’s largest population, and ACD is named as one of the leading causes…
LikeLike
…The paper published this September in Routledge’s Journal of Urban Technology points out that 50 major power outages have afflicted 26 countries in the last decade alone, driven by rapid population growth in concentrated urban areas and a rampant “addiction” to high-consumption lifestyles dependent on electric appliances.
Study authors Hugh Byrd and Prof Steve Matthewman of Auckland University, a sociologist of disaster risk, argue that this escalating demand is occurring precisely “as our resources become constrained due to the depletion of fossil fuel, a lack of renewable energy sources, peak oil and climate change.”
Blackouts, they warn, are “dress rehearsals for the future in which they will appear with greater frequency and severity,” they find. “We predict increasing numbers of blackouts due to growing uncertainties in supply and growing certainties in demand.”
The problem is that industrial era grids simply cannot keep up. Average electricity use by US households increased by 1300 percent from 1940 to 2001, and is forecast to rise by a further 22 percent over the next 20 years.
According to Byrd and Matthewman, we are in the midst of a proliferating, global blackout epidemic that is likely to worsen. “Throughout our study, we observed a number of network failures due to inadequate energy, whether through depletion of resources such as oil and coal, or through the vagaries of the climate in the creation of renewable energy,” said Prof Byrd, who specializes in international energy policy and environmental performance in urban areas.
EXTREME WEATHER AND CLIMATE CHANGE
According to a little-known report last year to the Executive Office of the President by the Council of Economic Advisers and Department of Energy, between 2003 and 2012 the US saw 679 blackouts due to extreme weather events, costing on average $18-33 billion a year. In 2012 alone, the US suffered eleven “billion-dollar” weather disasters.
“The number of outages caused by severe weather is expected to rise as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, blizzards, floods and other extreme weather events,” the report found.
The growing prevalence of extreme weather including droughts due to climate change could also significantly undermine coal, gas and nuclear production, all of which require large inputs of water, to spin and cool turbines in thermal power plants…
YOUR AIR CONDITIONER AND CLEAN CAR COULD BE KILLING THE GRID
One side-effect of higher temperatures due to climate change is a dramatic increase in energy use. As climate change brings warmer summers and more intense rains to regions of North America, people resort to more air-conditioning to stay cool.
Byrd and Matthewman point out that the US is currently “the undisputed champion” of air-conditioning, which accounts for a whopping 20 percent of the country’s domestic electricity consumption, and 13 percent of the commercial sector’s. This is equivalent to the entire electrical demand of Africa. By 2035, the use of air-conditioning in just the US commercial sector will rise by another 22 percent…
LikeLike
To power England today with only solar and wind would require 25% of land surface according to physics professor, David MacKay.
Solar panels and wind turbines won’t help the Philippines in the new age of mega storms since most of us live near the oceans.
LikeLike
like animations try to post…http://www.climatecentral.org/news/nasa-year-earth-co2-18345
LikeLike
Waste Water from Oil Fracking Injected into Clean Aquifers
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Waste-Water-from-Oil-Fracking-Injected-into-Clean-Aquifers-282733051.html?utm_content=bufferfc275&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
LikeLike
LikeLike
H/T Nate Hagens:
Do We Live on a One-Party Planet?
So just who is in charge of this damn planet anyway? Is it a small group of people with one plan? A large group of people with lots of competing plans? Several groups of people? Does it even make sense to think of “control” in these terms at all?
A new pamphlet is an attempt to answer this question. The case it makes is, yes, it not only makes sense to think of control in these terms, but it is essential. Those of us who believe in the potential for vastly less inequality and poverty, and a richer, more stable natural environment must do so because the few thousand people who are in control don’t share the view that anything is profoundly wrong; they are most certainly conscious of their power and busy doing what they can to extend it, and would like the rest of us to leave them to it.
This is not the story of a conspiracy in the dramatic Hollywood meaning of the word. There are no dark, smoky control rooms where a group of shady individuals are plotting together to spread mayhem and misery purely for their own enjoyment or profit. There is profiteering aplenty and there is a surfeit of selfish and villainous behavior, to be sure, but it would be unhelpfully simplistic to characterize it as a conspiracy because that invites us to ignore some of the important ways in which the whole seething system works. It doesn’t need that sort of active plotting to do its thing, and to a certain extent there are no people alive who are as powerful as they’d need to be to orchestrate control in that way.
We’re in a system, and to thrive it just needs internal logical consistency, enough alignment of motives, and a degree of misunderstanding amongst those who would change it. The road to hell is paved with the good intentions of those who misunderstand how complex systems work. And what we’re talking about here is the mother-system for all the many complex systems on our planet.
The purpose of this pamphlet is to try to define some of what makes the system operate in the way it does, and therefore help stimulate discussion, and hopefully introduce some new ideas on how change might be achieved.
We start by looking inwards, at our cognitive capacities. The world we see around us today is a reflection of human consciousness; we long since passed the point where we could say, “it wasn’t us.” So whatever challenges we face – climate change, rampant inequality, endless violent conflict or vast impoverishment – are challenges, first and foremost, of and for the human mind. It helps, therefore, to spend a small amount of time reflecting on what we know about its character.
Then we turn to what might be more familiar territory: power theories, processes and players. This breaks into six parts: The Neoliberal Heart and Soul, Fashions in Global Power, Financial Might, Concentration of Corporate Power, Active Political Projects and In Their Own Words.
And finally, a few thoughts on the system’s internal logic; that alignment of forces that mean none of this was really planned and no one is actually to blame. This is looked at in The Logic Within, and we conclude with the most human considerations in Facing Ourselves and Where Hope Lies.
We have presented this argument as a pamphlet in honor of the long and distinguished history pamphlets have of spreading ideas that might not be well liked in the corridors, taverns and tents of power. The alarming “The Kings Maiesties Alarum for Open War, Declared by His setting up His Standard at Dunsmore-Heath,” published in 1642, helped kick off the English civil war. Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” (1776) declared that “these are times that try men’s souls” and helped start the American Revolution.
The French went pamphlet mad in the run up to the French Revolution of 1789 with everyone from the King’s Ministers to philosophers to revolutionaries churning out tens of thousands of fiery pages. In August 1789 the National Assembly declared that “all citizens can speak, write and print freely” and the whole system of state censorship began to break down. Pamphlets helped spread anti-slavery ideas in America, like the wonderfully titled, “Am I Not a Man and a Brother?” (1810). The heyday of the pamphlet drew to a close once radio and the cinema hit. We think they might be due a comeback, for the digital age.
– See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/do-we-live-one-party-planet#sthash.yp19j65Z.dpuf
LikeLike
It’s not the same. Every other revolution and social movement was asking for more. More economic equality, more rights for minority groups. To prevent disaster we must have less of every material thing and comfort. Most people will fight that to the bitter end. If all the middle class pseudo environmentalists were to understand that there is no such thing as green industrial civilization and the only choice is “back to the land” vs a future of untold horrors, what do you think they would do? No cars – no computers or internet, no supermarkets, no central heating & cooling, etc. Just lots of physical labour doing everything for yourself. I don’t think you would see many people jetting off to climate marches or driving to pipeline protests; they just want someone else to fix things. I think the fossil fuel corporations wasted their money on PR. If they would have legislated them out of business the economy would have tanked and then we would have really seen anger in the streets. Which is what will happen when the economy takes the next big hit or two. The vast majority of people want even more crap; just look under most peoples Christmas tree next month.
LikeLike
LOL! Agreed!!!
LikeLike
Concerning the Russia-China gas deal…
One obvious question:
How much CO2 emissions would be reduced if all the Russian natural gas replaced coal in power generation in China?
Apparently, nearly zilch…
“1.4 quads of nat gas cubic feet at a heat rate of 6.2 mmbtu HHV per mwh (latest CC nat gas plants from GE or Siemens) will generate 226 million mwh per year. Each mwh will have half a metric ton less CO2 versus coal. Hence the Chinese could reduce CO2 emissions by 113 million metric tons. This is about 1.5% of China’s CO2 emissions. Something like 26 gigawatts of power stations could be fired on this natural gas…Just checked co2 emissions in China. Ten billion tonnes a year. The savings will be 1.1%, man are we doomed !!”
http://www.greenexplored.com/2014/09/russian-gas-to-china.html
LikeLike
Humans are not wired to care about the future, nor their cellular relatives in nature. Humans are barely wired to care deeply about one another. But there are some things they want and will compete to acquire including all of the things that Americans consume on a hereto regular basis. The protective and entertaining accouterments of the cancer’s infrastructure, its distribution systems, waste removal, electricity, communication, heat, A/C, medical care, five-thousand pound personal conveyances ergonomically designed to safely shuttle three-hundred pound homunculi from cell to cell. Fast food packaged in non-biodegradable hygienic wrappers and containers. Cable television and the Internet. The wants are infinite………bigger, better, more. In return for this consumerist orgasm they cease being people and become jobs, fully trained, functioning accessories to the technological system which cancerously grows into life’s tissues.
Homo sapiens has truly made a valiant attempt at escape from the natural world and many have put billions of dollars between themselves and the natural world, but it won’t help, just as their money can’t buy a cure for the cancers that take their lives, their billions are only markers for the permanent damage done at a larger scale. Perhaps the imagined deliverance to the heaven of choice is as valuable as the piles of money that, in the end, have no chance of competing with the forces of nature. A real capitalist will burn 100 units of energy to obtain 110 and everyone wants to be a successful capitalist. You can see where this gets us, with billions written on a ledger and not much else, we consumed everything in the quest for more.
LikeLike
George Mobus has once written about it…i translated it into german…no reaction just to avangadistic ideas http://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2013/08/either-profits-go-or-we-go.html
LikeLike
I used to read Dr. Mobus’ site but I think he spends most of his time on artificial intelligence now, but his essay was excellent. At the end of that essay I thought “Cantab” made some good observations in a comment regarding some rich friends. I would agree that the rich are not in control of themselves, at all. Like a farmer that grows tobacco regardless of the societal cost, the rich will continue to deploy technologies and destroy whatever and whomever stands in the way of profit.
LikeLike
If only people would act according to the economic models none of this would be happening God damn it!. Last month Paul Krugman threw a hissy fit at Richard Heinberg for his lack of understanding of proper economics now he is claiming “Abenomics” is a failure because “Japan did not do enough”.
“Apparently, debt to the tune of 250% of GDP fighting deflation was not enough. 500% would not have been enough either, for obvious reasons.”
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.jp/2014/11/mystery-of-unexpected-japan-slides-into.html
I like this documentary that features behavioral economists who look at economics from how real humanoma’s behave; not how the wishful models and magical theories say they should.
LikeLike
I understand your cynicism and, to some degree, identify with it. However, I’ll have to respectfully disagree with your first paragraph. Every member of the human race is at fault only insofar as they are, by virtue of their naturally cooperative nature, too easily manipulated by the small number of genuinely evil individuals who have repeatedly risen to the status of “ruling class” throughout history.
PSYCHOPATHY: THE CAUSE OF EVIL
”Inherited and acquired psychological disorders and ignorance of their existence and nature are the primal causes of evil. The magic number of 6% seems to represent the number of humans who either carry the genes responsible for biological evil or who acquire such disorders in the course of their lifetime. This small percent is responsible for the vast majority of human misery and crime, and for infecting others with their flawed view of the world.”
With the second paragraph I largely agree. Still, it’s mostly a result of the machinations of the “ruling class“, which inevitably becomes a pathocracy, that we have been led down the path to ruin repeatedly and are now being pushed toward the precipice of extinction.
Just my opinion
LikeLike
Worth looking for this documentary…
LikeLike
LikeLike
Sometimes I just can’t help it
LikeLike
Global Warming Is Probably Boosting Lake-Effect Snows
The short answer is: yes. Global warming is probably juicing lake-effect snows, and we’ve had the data to prove it for quite some time…
LikeLike
The Energiewende’s emissions gap
In 2010, Germany embarked on an ambitious programme to decarbonise its energy sector, known as the Energiewende or ‘energy transition’. The Energiewende set a series of 2050 targets to guide Germany’s climate and energy policy for the next 40 years.
To assess the Energiewende’s progress, the government also set shorter-term targets. A goal to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels is just one of these.
But Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions have been rising for the last three years, bringing this interim goal into question…
Read more:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/11/germany-debates-plan-to-save-2020-emissions-reduction-target/
LikeLike
LikeLike
Interesting Youtube clip where Kurt Vonnegut says he thinks the world is ending at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRlwtgaxO20&spfreload=10
LikeLike
Google says today’s technology won’t save us from anthropogenic climate disruption, but is still enamored to techno-fixes…
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/19/7247103/google-renewable-energy-research
LikeLike
Industrial pollution turning Canadian lakes into ‘jelly’
LikeLike
Just add your favorite chemical flavoring and you have a near inexhaustible supply of nutritious sandwich spread
(LAND O LAKEScum) for decades to come. See? That’s the kind of resource swapping the econ-priests have been talking about.
LikeLike
Resource-swapping down the chain of life until we’re scavenging for cockroaches. Capitalism is omnicidal.
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
My laugh for today… The assistant editor at The Sacramento News and Review used Rob Ford, crack-smoking mayor of Toronto, as the backdrop for his Twitter profile:
LikeLike
One month of rain in half an hour.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-weather-more-storms-possible-as-city-mops-up-20141120-11q6ya.html
LikeLike
Cooperation Is What Makes Us Human
http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/cooperation-is-what-makes-us-human-rd
LikeLike