IS THIRTY YEARS ENOUGH ? October 15, 2013Posted by wmmbb in CLIMATE CHANGE.
Thirty years of climate change delay and denial is probably enough.
The fossil fuels companies protect their profits, their servant PR practitioners consume their self-generated moral depravity, and the social opportunity cost grow disproportionately. The runaway train of climate keeps rolling on systematically, inevitably, slowly, remorselessly. Human nature (?) and criminal negligence are blind to foreseeable suffering and destruction. The message is clear. Mitigation buys time for adaptation.
Nature published the article by Camilo Mora and others, which in the summary records:
Ecological and societal disruptions by modern climate change are critically determined by the time frame over which climates shift beyond historical analogues. Here we present a new index of the year when the projected mean climate of a given location moves to a state continuously outside the bounds of historical variability under alternative greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Using 1860 to 2005 as the historical period, this index has a global mean of 2069 (±18 years s.d.) for near-surface air temperature under an emissions stabilization scenario and 2047 (±14 years s.d.) under a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario. Unprecedented climates will occur earliest in the tropics and among low-income countries, highlighting the vulnerability of global biodiversity and the limited governmental capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change. Our findings shed light on the urgency of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions if climates potentially harmful to biodiversity and society are to be prevented.
In plainer English it might be suggested that we either go cold turkey on our fossil fuel energy addiction to push back the of full consequences hitting. Those who are economically poorer, but ecological richer who live in the tropics, and who have less agency in creating the conditions of atmospheric change and climate change will be the first impacted.
Skeptical Science describes the research and concludes
So, should we do anything if we are already committed to some climate change? Failing to act will simply test our capabilities to adapt earlier and, unfortunately, we may not be ready for it (overwhelmingly unprecedented climates will occur among developing countries). Alternatively, we could act now, which will buy us and species critical time for adaptation. Failing to act risks saying goodbye to our climate and facing the implications that come with its departure.
So let’s do nothing. Better still let’s engage in symbolic actions. And see how that works.
Putting aside, any remaining credible arguments that ether Climate Change is not happening now, or the outlandish notion that it might be reversible, it seems this train has left the station,and there is now no time to repair the bridge over the ravine. The human destiny will be sounded and foretold in the dying Eco-system.
Disasters of this magnitude are often evidence of a convergence of ingredients. The climate system is difficult, if not impossible to fully comprehend in the implications of its’ inter-relationships and interactions. Then there are other extrinsic factors, among the most significant, are the peaking of world population at about 10 – 11 billion people. Then, there is a collapse of national democratic government, other than any effective, representative, international governance other than pernicious, avaricious, blind, cruel corporate capitalism, supported by international violence. Guantanamo Bay is a striking example of inhumanity, cruelty and international lawlessness. Social inequality is more evidence of the same dynamic.
The fuller picture provides perception and insight. The collapse of civilization, now global in its ramifications, is also a collapse of truth and trust. We might see the erosion of the integrity of science and the attack on the “inconvenient truths” of Climate Science as part of the picture. Similarly, the wholesale manipulation of the process of democracy fundamentally undermines government. At Truthdig, Chris Hedges point to widespread denial and the collapse of civilization. The latter is supported by Paul Erhlich at Macquarie University.
James Hanson just wants people to think about the implications of Climate Change. He fails to take into account the denial process. The critical measure he suggests is density of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, as distinct from mean Global Temperature. What about the potential release of methane from the Arctic?
The Federal Government has the climate crisis covered with its direct action program. Great.