Yelling Fire in a Crowded Room
Or How to Become a Climate Hero
Part II – Climate Change Editorial by Marnie Parker
Published 9/9/2011
Very bad, so bad your instinct will be to stop reading, but, you should continue! Please continue, because some of these predictions and ideas are relatively new, and you may not know them. Big oil and others have been trying to deny and sow confusion about global warming for the past twenty years. So, if you stop reading, you could be complicit in their suppression of the truth and in their attempts to confound you.
Also, remember, while scientists can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere, and make predictions by comparing past and present temperatures, the one thing scientists cannot predict is human behavior and actions. Therein lays our hope.
(If you feel you are well-versed in the science of climate change already, feel free to skip down to "Climate Change Predictions." If you want hope more than anything, skip to the last section, "Witnessing, Becoming a Climate Hero, & The Rise of Green Gandhis." But I hope you come back to read most of the rest later.)
Global Warming and Climate Change In A Nutshell
You probably know the science already, but to make sure we are all starting on the same page, let’s review global warming and climate change. Global Warming is what is happening to the earth: a rise in global temperatures due to an excess of man-made greenhouse gases. Climate change is the effect: the impact higher temperatures will have on the earth’s natural systems.
(Hey, I am not a scientist and it’s been a long time since high school/college science, so the below is the best I could do.)
Civilization has built up over the last 10,000 under a relatively stable climate. This period is called the Holocene geological epoch. Human beings built bridges, dams, buildings, and plowed and planted farms with the security of knowing that we would probably survive most geological and weather events. We relied on things remaining stable. For most of human history, until about 200 years ago, CO2 was at 275 parts per million. It is now at 292+ parts per million. (Parts per million is the way of measuring the concentration of a small thing, such as a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. 1% means 1 part per 100 parts. 1 ppm means 1 part per 1,000,000 parts.)
The presence of greenhouse gases1 in the upper atmosphere and the “Greenhouse Effect” are a part of natural part of the carbon cycle. Thermal radiation (heat) from the planet’s surface is trapped by greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere and radiated in all directions. Some escapes out to space, and some is radiated back to the earth’s surface. This system keeps the earth’s surface warmer than it would be if t was just heated by solar radiation. It keeps the surface warm enough to support life.
When human beings combust hydrocarbons for the warmth and energy that hydrogen provides, carbon dioxide, the waste product, is emitted into the air. This has overloaded the natural carbon cycle. Some concentrates in the upper atmosphere, adding onto existing natural and man-made CO2. As atmospheric CO2 increases, more heat is radiated back to earth and less escapes to space. Over the last century, the earth’s average temperature has increased by 1 degree Fahrenheit and the seas have increased by about 1/2 degrees. That may not seem like very much, but with a system that is delicately balanced and has been stable for a long time, the impact can be great. We are probably already seeing some of the early effects now: more heat and stronger hurricanes. Worse effects are in store when the average global temperature is predicted to rise 5 degrees or more.
2010 was the hottest year on record, and 2000-2010 is the hottest decade on record.
Oceans operate as ‘sinks” and have absorbed about 1/3 to ½ of man-made CO2 . Carbon dioxide is very water soluble, so oceans easily absorb CO2. It turns into carbonic acid and their ph balance becomes more acidic, threatening coral and fish. Oceans also warm as global temperatures rise. Since warm water expands, sea levels rise. But the thermal inertia of oceans means that they can take longer to warm; they can take decades. However, as water temperature rises, the solubility of carbon dioxide is reduced. Warmer ocean water rises to the surface and oceans lose some of their ability to absorb more CO2 .
National Geographic – “Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide"
Increased heat also melts ice sheets. Arctic ice is melting at about 9% each decade and by 2030 the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer. Melting Arctic ice will not raise sea levels (floating ice displaces water, melting land-based glaciers will raise them), but it does change weather patterns. And some countries are already haggling over the oil in the Arctic seabed that is now made accessible.
NPR – “Arctic Ice Hits Near-Record Low, Threatening Wildlife"
AFP – “Denmark moves forward on North Pole claim"
Oceans, in turn, then operate as ‘sources’, releasing CO2 back into the air. This happens over centuries, but there is still question about how much faster warmer oceans will release CO2. In other words, about 1/2 of man-made CO2 is probably still waiting in the wings to affect things.
New Scientist – “Warmer Oceans Release CO2 Faster Than Thought”
The Guardian – “Sea Absorbing Less CO2, Scientists Discover”
Plants and trees absorb CO2 as part of the carbon cycle of using and recycling CO2. Through photosynthesis, plants and trees use sunlight as energy to convert carbon dioxide into sugars, and release oxygen as a “waste product.” Photosynthesis is vital to maintaining normal oxygen levels in the atmosphere. As heat increases, and plants and trees dry out and become more vulnerable to wildfires and forest fires. They are especially susceptible to lightening strikes during thunder storms. If the first rainfall is late due to a prolonged summer/fall or storms follow a period of high heat, then the likelihood of fires increases. As plants and trees burn, they release all the CO2 they have sequestered into the air instantly, rather than more slowly into the ground.
Mother Nature Network – “Are Wildfires Getting Worse?”
Warmer air holds more water vapor. Hurricanes form when warm, moist air from the ocean surface begins to rise rapidly and encounters cooler air. Warm water vapor condenses and forms storm clouds. In other words, warmer oceans cause more hurricanes. Some coming hurricanes may not increase in intensity, but may collect and drop more water on land than normal.
Live Science – "Increase in Major Hurricanes Linked to Warmer Seas"
“Undoubtedly the temperature of the globe has fluctuated since the very beginnings of our planet. The real problem is not just the fact that it is warming, but the rate at which it is warming. The ten warmest years since global temperatures have been measured all occur within the last 12-year period between 1997-2008. (Slightly out of date quote.)
But that is the recent past, and scientists are suggesting that the current rapid rate of warming has no parallel within the last million years. Even when the globe did warm towards the end of an ice age the process was very gradual, warming up over a period of about 5,000 years. Our Earth is heating up, and heating up quickly.” From http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com
Graphic from Skeptical Science com.
(Please see the Appendix for more climate change graphs and charts.)
In other words, when we burn fossil fuels, we are also injecting carbon dioxide (and other green house gases) into the air… and everything else. Some CO2 collects in the upper atmosphere and acts as a blanket, holding heat in. Too heavy a blanket and we have global warming. Too much global warming and we have climate change, resulting in a permanent alteration to the world’s weather.
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted in a number of ways. It is emitted naturally through the carbon cycle and through human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.
Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’ and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’ When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal.
Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution.” The Environmental Protection Agency
I am going move on, assuming you know the basics. There are natural processes that remove green house gases1 which worked well until we started chopping down trees and burning fossil fuels, unbalancing nature’s scales with an over abundance of CO2. We humans have created a “carbon burden.”
However, let’s take note of Two Crucial Things.
- Sinks - The ‘sinks’ are crucial too (oceans/growing plants). What is happening to the ‘sinks,’ the parts of earth’s ecology that normally remove CO2 from the air, is almost as important as what is happening in the upper atmosphere.
- CO2 Shelf Life - The exact “shelf-life” of CO2 is still unknown. This is an extremely important point. I, uh, duh, admit my ignorance. I didn’t really realize until I did my book reading, how l-o-n-g CO2 hangs around. Common figures given are “for a century,” “over a century,” 100-500 years, or longer.
This is the problem. Even if we stopped all fossil fuel burning right this minute, we would still have global warming because of the CO2 already present. CO2 lasts. Some CO2 now in the upper atmosphere was thrown off 50 years ago, some 100 years ago, and some has probably been lingering since the start of the industrial revolution. It’s a sobering thought. No, that is a massive understatement – it’s a devastating thought.
“University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer… is credited with doing more than anyone to show how long CO2 from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere. As he puts it in his new book The Long Thaw, ‘The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this’.‘The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge,’ Archer writes. ‘Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far.”from nature.com, Nature Publishing Group, a division of MacMillan Publishers, Limited
Life, The Earth, and Everything2
The following is the worst case scenario. But, remember, this is nothing happening now, no coordinated international or national plan, which ensures the worst case scenario will not happen. I tried to confirm most of the “predictions” from the books that I read (Eaarth by Bill McKibben, Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth by Mark Hertsgaaard, and Plan B 4.0 by Lester R. Brown) with two or more independent sources. This is not a scholarly paper and I only had so much time for research (i.e. “googling”), so these are not the only sources available.
2020 – We reach the “tipping point,” at which some massive climate change is “locked in”: sea level rise, large-scale droughts, and “perfect storms” among them. According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), “…fossil fuels are projected to maintain their dominant position in the global energy mix to 2030 and beyond. Hence CO2 emissions from energy use between 2000 and 2030 are projected to grow 40 to 110%.”
C02 was predicted to reach about 400 parts per million (ppm) by 2020, a level some consider to be the highest we should go. So the most common date I have read as the tipping point is 2020.
But CO2 concentration is increasing faster than some expected – it is rising by 2 (to 3.4) ppm per year. Dr. James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, feels that 400ppm as a danger level was an underestimation and the current level of CO2 at 392+ ppm is already too high. For most of human history, until about 200 years ago, CO2 was at 275 ppm.
In the above quote from the IPCC, if business continues as usual, CO2 will reach 450 by 2030. Other scientists feel that we will be well beyond 450 by 2030; it could be 600 ppm. So the tipping point may still be a few years away, or we may have already hit it. What you really need to know is: TIME IS RUNNING OUT.
ABC News - "NASA: Danger Point Closer Than Thought From Warming"
The UK Independent – "Global Warming: passing the ‘tipping point’"
2100 – Sea levels will have risen by 2 to 3 feet, possibly by 20 to 23 feet. The uncertainty is that no one yet knows yet if the Greenland ice sheet will melt. If it does, there will be a dramatic rise. By 2050 there could be a rise of one foot. The majority of the melting Arctic and Greenland ice will not be replenished, because doing so would require another ice age. The predicted sea level rise may or may not be already locked in. Certainly the amount seas will rise, is not.
"NASA Finds Arctic Replenished Very Little Thick Sea Ice in 2005"
Mother Jones - "Quote of the Day: One Foot Sea Level Rise by 2050"
MSN – "Sea Levels Could Rise by 2-3 Feet More, Arctic Experts Say"
2300 – The world has become too hot for humans. This predicted effect is not locked in… yet.
CNN – "Weather Experts: US Summer Hottest in Last 75 Years"
New Scientist – "Earth, 2300: Too hot for humans"
Live Science – "Earth Could Become Too Hot for Humans"
Of course, that is a rough prediction. The important point is, if business continues as usual, if we keep emitting CO2 into the air at the current rate, eventually it will get too hot for humans. And that “eventual” is not that long from now.
Climate Change or Climate Chaos?
What will happen to our air quality? Smog is increasing as well. How bad will it get? How will that affect human health? Since storms are supposed to increase in severity and frequency, what will future ones be like? Will “we” even make it to 2300?
What happens when a Category 3 hurricane, which does not decrease in intensity, follows the same path as Irene did? What if we have more hurricanes like Katrina (Category 3-5), which land on shore and do not stay in the Mid-Atlantic? More tsunamis? Larger tornados? Really STRONG storms could wipe out large portions of the U.S. Not to mention prolonged droughts, wide-spread flooding, unrelenting forest fires and wildfires, and bouts of extreme heat. We’ve already seen what devastation can occur on a smaller scale.
THIS is what many climate scientists are really concerned about, an onslaught of large-scale “natural’’ disasters of extreme harshness. There is no way for them to predict individual events, of course, except to say if we continue on the path we are on, they WILL increase in number and severity.
“Although scientists apply the term climate change to all these phenomena, Schellnuhuber (German government advisor) told me that climate chaos better conveys, the abrupt, interconnected, wide-ranging consequences that lie in store. ‘It’s a very appropriate term for the layperson,” said Schellnhuber, whose early work as a physicist happened to focus on chaos theory, ‘for it refers to perhaps the most important concept that laypeople should understand about climate change – it’s nonlinear nature.
I keep telling politicians that I’m not so concerned about a gradual climate change that may force farmers in Great Britain to plant different crops, I’m worried about triggering positive feedbacks that, in the worse case, could kick off some type of runaway greenhouse dynamics.’ …Although the human mind tends to think in gradual, linear terms, ice records, and other historical data show that climate shifts, when they occur, tend to happen suddenly and exponentially. ‘Society may be lulled into a false sense of security by smooth projections of climate change,’ Schellnhuber and his colleagues warned in a 2008 study.” Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth by Mark Hertsgaard
The Interconnected Web of ALL Existence
Our seventh principle is: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. That principle is “right on.” The earth’s systems are complex and INTERDEPENDENT. They work together, interconnected, coordinating, and affecting each other. As humans it may be beyond our comprehension how they really work together as one big whole. Scientists are discovering more and more about how if we affect something here, we affect something over there. Climate scientists, in particular, because it is so crucial, have been trying very hard to see the big picture. The big picture is that the earth is a finely balanced network of interconnecting systems.
Important Parts of the Big Picture
- Peak Oil – Ironically, everything I have read also says that we are have hit “peak oil.” “Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline.” Wikipedia
That is the reason that BP (British Petroleum) was deep drilling in such a risky place as the Gulf -- oil that was easy to reach and inexpensive to extract, has been reached and extracted. That is also why there is a big push to go after the Canadian tar sands, even though the cost of extracting the oil will almost be as much as the profit. (Making oil from tar sands, bitumen, produces 2-3 times more greenhouse gases than producing conventional oil.) We are like “oil junkies” because we are so used to cheap and available energy. So, at the same time big oil companies (and others) are pushing for deregulations and negating climate change, we are running out of oil.
In other words, there is a race on between those who want to grab remaining sources of potential oil, thus burning more and emitting more CO2, and those who want to reduce CO2 so we can avoid the worst case scenario.
National Geographic – "Has the World Already Passed Peak Oil?"
Business Insider – "Why Time Is Short Now That We’re Past Peak Oil"
- Climate Lag – This is the lag, delay, between increased CO2 concentration and increased heat. The effects of releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere may not be known for some time because a large fraction is dissolved in the ocean, only to be released into the atmosphere years later. And warmer oceans may release some sooner. Some of the effects we are seeing now may actually have begun a couple of decades ago. The important point is, we haven’t seen the effects of all the CO2 we have already emitted yet.
Newsweek – "Is Global Warming Responsible for Wild Weather?"
This is how things can appear to be better now, than they actually are. This lag also enables climate change deniers to continue to remain oblivious to global warming.
“The reason the planet takes several decades to respond to increased CO2 is the thermal inertia of the oceans. Consider a saucepan of water placed on a gas stove. Although the flame has a temperature measured in hundreds of degrees C, the water takes a few minutes to reach boiling point. This simple analogy explains climate lag. The mass of the oceans is around 500 times that of the atmosphere. The time that it takes to warm up is measured in decades.” From http://www.skepticalscience.com
Understanding climate lag is crucial to understanding climate change.
- Deforestation – Deforestation is a major climate change factor. Trees are sinks. There too few trees to remove enough CO2 from the air. The IPCC says deforestation accounts for about 18% of global warming. Could we plant enough trees to help? Yes. (Nature Conservancy’s “Plant a Billion Trees.”) Could we plant enough trees to handle all future carbon emissions? Probably not, and we’d still have to deal with the CO2 already present.
USDA – “Forest Service – Urban Forests and Climate Change”
National Geographic – “Deforestation”
- Feedback Loops/Sinks – Global warming sets up feedback loops that lead to more global warming. Rising temperatures change the environment so it creates more heat. As Arctic ice melts, there is less white to reflect heat back into space, and more dark water to absorb heat, which in turn, melts more ice. As peat soil and tundra, (one of the largest natural land covers in the world -- shrubs covering permafrost in treeless, low temperature areas), “defrost,” they release methane. More methane (another greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere leads to more global warming.
CBS News – “Arctic ice might win short reprieve”
US Dept of Energy – “Scientists Fear Methane Emissions from Oceans and Tundra due to Warming"
New Scientist – “Global warming may raise tundra wildfire risk"
- Sea Food/Life Threatened – Oceans are sinks. In addition to getting warmer, as oceans absorb more CO2, they become more acidic. Coral reefs act as hatcheries and nurseries for open ocean fish. Reefs are predicted to disappear first, then varieties of fish. Fish still supply about 20% of the world’s per capita animal protein intake.
“Higher temperatures serve to bleach and kill coral; some scientists expect 98 percent of the world’s coral reefs to be gone by 2050.
Coral also suffer grievously from the acidification of the ocean caused by greenhouse gas emissions… seawater has grown more acidic than it has any time in the last 800,000 years. High acid levels not only degrade coral; they make it very difficult for shellfish to make thick enough shells to live.” Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth by Mark Hertsgaard
BBC – "World’s oceans in ‘shocking’ decline"
Reuters – "Ocean chemistry changing at 'unprecedented rate'”
National Geographic – “Global Warming has a Devastating Effect on Coral Reefs”
- Agribusiness Failure/Increase in Pests – Environmentalists say that agribusinesses are likely to fail. For two reasons: agribusiness plants ‘mono-crops,’ large fields of just one crop, and it is heavily supported by fossil-fuel-burning machinery and carbon-based fertilizers. As oil is also likely to become scarce, both the availability of cost-effective machinery and fertilizers will probably decline. Chemical fertilizers, with prolonged use, leach nutrients out of soil. This forces agribusinesses to move to “new” fields. Mono-crops are very subject to temperature changes, and will be adversely affected by permanently elevated heat. Cold snaps which once “knocked off” crop eating insects, will decrease and warmer temperatures will probably become ideal for breeding.
In fact, other than surviving lethal heat and massive storms, the biggest crisis facing humanity is growing sufficient food.
“Since farming began thousands of years ago, crops have been developed to maximize yields in a relatively stable climatic regime. Now that regime is changing.
Since crops typically are grown at or near their thermal optimum, even a relatively minor increase during the growing season of 1 or 2 degrees Celsius can shrink the grain harvest in major food-producing regions, such as the North China Plain, the Gangetic Plain of India, or the U.S. Corn Belt. Higher temperatures can halt photosynthesis, prevent pollination, and lead to crop dehydration.” Plan B 4.0 by Lester R. Brown
I didn’t know until I read “Plan B” that various countries around the world are already dealing with increasingly infertile land by buying/leasing land in other countries to grow crops, usually in secret deals.
“China for instance, signed an agreement with the Philippine government to lease over a million hectares of land on which to produce crops that would be shipped home… the government of Pakistan, which is trying to sell or lease 400,000 hectares , is offering to provide a security force of 100,000 men to protect the land and assets of investors…
Growing world food insecurity is thus ushering in a new geopolitics of food scarcity, one where the competition for land and water resources is crossing national boundaries. Many of the land acquisitions are in hunger-ridden, land-scarce countries, leaving less land to produce food for the people who live there.” Plan B 4.0 by Lester R. Brown
This approach will only be successful in the short term, however, because agribusiness will run out of “new” land. Snow packs around the world are decreasing each year, and numerous rivers will fall or fail. A decreasing irrigation supply is a major factor as well.
However, we can change the way we grow food. Some countries are currently using ‘no till’ agriculture, which allows crop debris to remain on the top soil to function as mulch. Mulching, over time, puts nutrients back into soil, and eventually, yields are as high as before, when chemical fertilizers were used. Also multi-crop fields are more resistant to increasing heat. And, in one place in Africa, in the western Sahel, already very hot, they are inter-planting trees and crops, with the trees providing needed heat cover.
“…a practice they have named “farmer-managed natural regeneration,” or FMNR, and that is known generally as agro-forestry – brings a range of benefits. The trees’ shade and bulk offer crops relief from the overwhelming heat and gusting winds… Leaves serve other purposes. After they fall to the ground, they act as mulch, boosting soil fertility; they also provide fodder for livestock in a season when little other food is available… ‘I think trees are at least a partial answer to climate change, and I’ve tried to share this information with others,’ Sawadogo added. ‘I’ve used my motorbike to visit a hundred villages, and others have come to visit me to learn. I must say, I’m very proud these ideas are spreading.’
In 2009 Sawadogo flew to Amsterdam and Washington, DC, to address conferences on climate change, food security, and poverty. His message was the same one he gave me: ‘My conviction, based on personal experience, is that trees are like lungs. If we do not protect them, and increase their numbers, it will be the end of the world.’” Hot: Living Through The Next Fifty Years on Earth by Mark Hertsgaard
Reuters - "In the world's breadbasket, climate change feeds some worry"
There Has To Be a Way Out of This
Is it Really This Bad? – Yes. It would serve no purpose for me to lie to you. It is this bad. There really is very little disagreement among climate scientists around the world. After all, CO2 in the atmosphere can be measured. Heat levels can be measured. Ocean acidity can be measured. And if science is about anything, it is about proof. The scientific method is to propose hypotheses and then experiment or study data to prove or disprove them. Those that don’t hold up get tossed out.
Technology Must Be Able To Fix It – As modern human beings we tend to look to technology to solve problems. After all, we keep being bombarded with new cell phones, touch pads, computers, GPS systems, social media, etc., almost faster than we can keep up with them. And we love our electrical toys. So, yes, some technology may help mitigate. But the current state of technology can’t stop climate change. I know I had that reaction, too. Nanonites that can scrub the atmosphere, big domes with filtration systems, and anti-gravity cars (aren’t we supposed to have those now?). Something. But they are not being developed now, and we need them now.
The Government Has to Solve This -Noticed any gridlock lately? There are so many who still don’t believe in human-caused climate change (or profess to not believe), that there is a great deal of resistance to doing anything nationally. Even the EPA repeatedly comes under attack.
Quite frankly, climate change is the most under reported story of the decade. Do you see it plastered all over mainstream media? You would think species and civilization survival would be addressed everywhere and, yet, it’s not. To solve problem you have to first identify what it is. A problem that is deliberately buried or obscured is unlikely to be solved. There is also human nature, which tends to run from catastrophe to catastrophe, “putting out fires,” but has a hard time imagining, let alone planning for, future threats.
I also didn’t know until I read it recently that environmentalists/climate change activists had been deliberately not plugging adaptation. They didn’t want to give people the false impression that only adaptation would work. In other words, climate change will be too severe for adaptation alone to work. They are mentioning it now because: we are at or near the “tipping point;” frustration with inaction by our government; and they want to prepare people for changes in their lifetimes.
This is a fairly recent shift.
Environmental voices are also going to get LOUDER, because the situation is dire and warnings have not been heard. People need to prepare and push for more laws.
So the environmental buzz words now are mitigation and adaptation – and you will be hearing them a lot from now on out.
Mitigation is about changing the world. Adaptation is about changing ourselves.
Mitigation – The meaning of this is pretty clear. Since climate change has already started, obviously it cannot be “stopped” or “halted.” We are beyond that. Dictionary.com defines mitigate as: 1.) to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; to moderate, 2.) to make less severe. So mitigation means to continue to push for cutting carbon emissions as much as possible, while all the time realizing it will not be enough to halt or reverse climate change. But it may be enough (maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe) to avert the worst case scenario.
Adaptation – The meaning of this is pretty clear, as well. Cities which are likely to drown (New York, San Francisco, London, and Tokyo) need to plan how they will survive rising sea levels. Communities need to develop non-fossil-fuel-burning sources of energy and probably local sources as well. Since agribusiness may fail, regions need to support local farms and grow even more food locally. Adaptation tends to emphasize planning on the local level, because there may be large system failures.
The climate is a large earth system, so as it “fails,” large human systems, which rely on it, may fail as well.
Remember the phrase, “Too big to fail,” from the bank bailout? An understated theme in most things I’ve read has been that the U.S., as a state, may also fail. No one has stated it explicitly, or belabored it, for fairly obvious reasons3, but there is an underlying awareness it may happen. Lester Brown in “Plan B 4.0” quotes a list 20 failed states (from a joint study by the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine), such as: Somalia, Zimbabwe, Chad, etc.
“States fail when national governments lose control of part or all of their territory and can no longer ensure the personal security of their people. When governments lose their monopoly on power, the rule of law begins to disintegrate. When they can no longer provide basic services such as education, health care, and food security, they lose their legitimacy. A government in this position may no longer be able to collect enough revenue to finance effective governance. Societies can become so fragmented that they lack the cohesion to make decisions…
Among the top 20 countries on this failing state list, all but a few are losing the race between food production and population growth. Close to half of these states depend on a food lifeline from the WFP (World Food Programme – United Nations).” Lester Brown, Plan B 4.0
Over simplifying, when nations cannot feed and provide basic services for their citizens, or the majority of their citizens, they fail.
I’ve read a lot of science-fiction. You may have, too, as a lot of UU’s do. Okay, let’s say we’ve hit peak oil, which means gas prices will continue to go up and up and up. What will that do to interstate trucking, which is the main method of food transportation in the U.S. now? Some people are looking ahead and promoting high-speed rail (Huffington Post - "Bloomberg, Schwarzenegger: U.S. Must Modernize Its Infrastructure, Invest In High-Speed Rail"), because they can foresee the coming crunch. But let’s say that meets political resistance and does not happen. Interstate transportation and commerce could fail, and, yes, we could devolve into “city states.” In California, I can see one centered around LA, and one centered around San Francisco.
Local areas need to produce their own food, energy, and trade/businesses. Things could get extremely nasty too, like states throwing fences up around their borders to keep out Mid-West and South West climate change refugees (fences like Arizona wants, and like India already has). Social justice issues could become crucial. Of course, human beings are capable of a great deal of compassion too, so there is no way to know what the future holds. The U.S. may not fail, but it easily could. Who would bail it out? Especially if FEMA gets overloaded in the coming years as it tries to deal with the aftermath of one climate change disaster after another?
Bill McKibben mentions civilization failure in Eaarth.
“As Diamond (Jared Diamond, “Collapse”) shows with abundant example, ‘ one of the main lessons to be learned from the collapses of the Maya, Anasazi, Easter Islanders, and those other societies is that a society’s steep decline may begin only a decade or two after the society reaches its peak numbers, wealth, and power.’ We’re overleveraged in ways that resemble those past civilizations. In fact, they were pikers compared to us: the Anasazi may have died out when the climate shifted, but they didn’t make it happen. And if our societies start to tank, we’ll be in much worse shape than those came before. For one thing, the crisis is global, so there’s no place to flee. For another, most of us don’t know how to do very much – in your standard collapse scenario; it’s nice to know how to grow wheat.
The trouble with obsessing over collapse, though, is that it keeps you from considering other possibilities…The rest of this book will be devoted to another possibility – that we might choose instead to try to manage our descent. That we might aim for a relatively graceful decline.” Eaarth by Bill McKibben
And from Hot…
“’We have to accept that there will be losses,’ Suzanne Moser, a scientist formerly with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and one of the first American experts to investigate the role of adaptation in climate policy, told me. ‘We can’t do everything, everywhere. Even if we could financially afford to build a seawall around the entire continent, if wouldn’t be the right way to go. It would be Fortress America, and besides, the ocean is just way more powerful. You can put as much money against the ocean as you want: eventually the ocean will win.’
If losses are inevitable, said Moser, the human response should be twofold: minimize those losses by accelerating our mitigation efforts, and prioritize the losses – focus our adaptation efforts on those places and people that matter the most. That sounds sensible in the abstract, but the reality promises to be messy. Who makes such decisions? Who pays? And who delivers the bad news to those deemed impractical to save?...
‘Environmentalists have tended to see adaptation as a capitulation and a distraction from mitigation…’, said Suzanne Moser…’But if you start thinking about adaptation, you realize pretty quickly we simply can’t adapt past a certain point. If we let global warming get out of hand, our current outlook on adaptation will look quaint.’…
Our guiding strategy, I submit, should be the following: ‘Avoid the unmanageable, and manage the unavoidable.’” Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth by Mark Hertsgaard
So it is mentioned, but not a lot, because climate scientists/activists are trying to find ways to avoid the worst case scenario. But I think you should be aware that it is a real possibility, and you need to factor it into your future thinking.
But I agree with Mr. McKibben, let’s try to manage our own descent. Although I might use a different word than descent, not being that enamored of some of our highly-competitive society. And I agree with Mr. Hertsgaard, let’s avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable.
Witnessing, Becoming a Climate Hero, & The Rise of The Green Gandhis
I don’t know why it seems so many feel a sense of “disempowerment” these days. Maybe it’s because global warming is so BIG. Maybe it’s because we elect politicians which, once they are in Washington, don’t seem listen to us. Maybe it’s the bad state of the U.S. economy which engenders such a feeling of helplessness.
When I was in National Organization of Women in the 1980’s (the tail end of the “second wave” of feminism, not that we paid any attention to such an academic label), it was fun to watch individual women get “empowered.” Empowerment means gaining self-confidence and discovering your own power. And the even greater power you can wield when it is multiplied by others. I think when it comes to the environment we need another wave of empowerment. After all, each individual IS very powerful. We all have power to change our lives for the better: leave a bad relationship, change to a more rewarding job (well, just maybe, these days), and move to a nicer location. And join with others to form a movement.
Most of the progressive advances in the this country started with one person: Jane Addams’ settlement house movement led to child labor laws, Margaret Sanger’s campaign for birth control led to the formation of Planned Parenthood, and Mary Harris Jones’ (“Mother Jones”) organization of mine workers led to the formation of one of the U.S.’ first labor unions. And, of course, there was Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Most of our progressive laws have not originated from the “top,” from politicians. Most came from “below,” growing out of a movement that pushed upwards. Only when it was clear that the public will was there did politicians enact laws to try to accommodate people's demands. One person standing up for what she/he believes can accomplish an incredible amount.
Personally, I also always think of Mahatma Gandhi who moved a whole country. Who moved TWO countries: moved one to demand that an occupying power leave, and moved the other to become enlightened. Each person does have a great deal of power. But, in the end, Gandhi would have been nothing without his followers. They listened, they followed, and because so many followed, others listened as well.
Very few of us have the time or dedication (and maybe the purity of purpose) to “give ourselves up” for a cause. But we can do “little things’ that we know will add up with others’ little things. We can also find our “Green Gandhis” to follow -- we can become part of their movement. (With climate change there might be more than one, there might be a bunch of “mini Green Gandhis.”)
In fact, the circumstances are “perfect” for the rise of Green Gandhis: a resisting, apparently unmovable government; wide-spread misinformation and prejudice; and an overwhelming need. Some Green Gandhis are alive now, and as things worsen, more are likely to emerge. If we throw our bodies behind them we can form a movement that will rival any in history. In the end, we HAVE to, if we want humankind and the earth to survive. We truly have no other option. We can SAY NO to climate change nay-sayers, an inactive government, and businesses that push for even more environmental deregulation. It’s not like mass movements haven’t happened before. NOW is definitely the time for another. And it won’t necessarily involve civil disobedience, although some might. It could just be massive petition campaigns, massive e-mailings, and massive protests.
I think one major Green Gandhi may emerge -- maybe not in this generation, the adult generation, but from a younger generation. He/she could make climate change their “life’s work.” A young Green Gandhi would attract young followers, with their youthful passion and energy. I can almost see them now, standing or sitting, amassed in the thousands, non-violently blocking yet another assault on our increasing stressed environment. Or, a bunch of Green Gandhis might emerge. But, regretfully, that may be too late to cut back carbon emissions ENOUGH.
I admit, I sometimes wake up early in the morning with a creeping sense of horror, because upon arising I remember the sentence of doom we are living under. I have no children, and I have never been accepting about death. But I have found comfort in knowing “the world will go on without me.” Now I don’t even have that anymore. It’s like attending a disaster movie where you can’t leave the darkened theater.
Other times I get filled to the brim with anger that some people, who very consciously set out to mislead the American public about climate change, are getting away with it. They should be brought to justice. Put on trial for “crimes against humanity” (the author of Hot also fantasizes about this). Or I think about others who just bought their lies, but pushed hard politically to support them. Why should the world die because of their ignorance and intransience? But a trial would be a hollow victory if global warming/climate change continues unabated.
Then I realize, while I want to urge others to not to feel powerless, when I dwell on fear and anger, that I am “buying into” feeling helplessness myself.
Our religious heritage includes the idea of “witnessing.” If there is nothing else you can do, you can at least witness. That basically means to observe some atrocity that others might let go. You acknowledge it and admit it is real. That it happened. You do not try to deny it or cover it up. Of course, witnessing also usually leads to some action. But, we must go beyond witnessing, study reports, and writing an occasional e-mail. In fact, it’s hard to imagine the effort we must make to mitigate climate change.
We and the world are worth saving. We and the world are definitely worth fighting for. I discussed this editorial, and mitigation and adaptation, with a friend recently. She said it is similar to the serenity prayer, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.” Only, considering the dire state of the earth, and the serious threat to the survival of the human species, I would argue we cannot be that passive. The world could literally end if we let others steam roll us as they claim that profit and the way-things-have-always-been-done are more important than life.
Because we CAN “solve” climate change. No, we can’t stop it; we will suffer the effects of changes already under way. But numerous people world-wide have given this a great deal of thought and there are ways we can cut back on carbon emissions. There are ways we can stop altogether. We can come up with more efficient buildings. We can come up with new, and revive old, agricultural methods. We can come up with new, and revive old, forms of transportation. We can plant billions and billions of trees to remove CO2 from the air. Exasperating as we can be sometimes, we are also an extremely inventive and creative species. Personally, I believe in us – as human beings and UUs. We don’t have to feel helpless, assume that “business as usual” will proceed no matter what we do, and that, powerless, we are on an inevitable downhill slide toward the worst case scenario. We don't need to "give up and die." The technological tools are within our grasp. We have individual and collective power. It isn’t impossible. None of it is.
So maybe our inspiration should be worded, instead: Grant me the courage to fight for the things that others say cannot be changed; the strength to change the things about myself that I can; and the self-empowerment and self-awareness to know the difference.
I said I would include a dash of hope about what is happening right now. So here they are: Communities for a Better Environment (long-time local group for environmental justice), 350.org (a movement that has started now, Bill McKibben), Climate Reality Project (information to counter denier misinformation, Al Gore), and technological hopes and individual actions: “Mayor Bloomberg Gives $50 Million to Sierra Club’s Anti-Coal Campaign,” “Bill Gates Looks to Reinvent the Toilet,” New York Times -- "Green Tech Intends to Build Electric Vehicles in Mississippi," “World’s First Nuclear Fusion Reactor,” and “Australia Commends World Vision for Its FMNR Project.” Encouragement is around if you just keep your eyes peeled and look for it. But, there still is no coordinated plan, so, without government support and sanction, some of the people above are courageously moving forward anyway.
However, we ARE running out of time, so WE, the responsible adults, everyone of us, have to move forward as well and do everything we can now. Become climate heroes and bravely don our boots and capes. At the least, we can hold the line for any Green Gandhis that may emerge from younger or future generations. While we wait for them, let’s ensure that a future, in turn, will be awaiting them.
Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office – “Climate Risk and UU Issues”
Blue Prints for Survival (Appendix and Links will be posted later.)
I am going to offer a couple of blue prints for survival. One comes from Lester R. Brown, one from Bill McKibben and the other, supplemental, comes from me.
Lester R. Brown – Mitigation – Most of Mr. Brown’s ideas have to deal with mitigation. “Plan B 4.0” was published in 2008 and political hopes have changed since then. However, these things could work in the U.S., if political will is present. He sees the need for a large, coordinated international and national plan. (Many of the examples he cites are in Europe, Japan, and China. His plans are so comprehensive I can barely summarize them, so this is just to give you an idea.)
- Energy Efficiency
- Improved Lighting Technology – CFL use 75% less electricity than incandescent light bulbs. LEDs use 85% less.
- Energy Efficient Appliances – These are still improving world-wide.
- Zero-Carbon Buildings – In the U.S. buildings account for 72% of electrical use and 38% of CO2 emissions. Retrofitting buildings can reduce energy use by 20-50%. And it is possible for buildings to use carbon-free energy.
- Electric Cars & High Speed Rail
- New Materials – The global steel industry accounts for 19% of electrical use. Adopting the new efficient blast furnaces would cut that by 23%. Producing recycled plastic uses 20% less electricity than producing regular plastic. Producing recycled paper uses 64% of the electricity of regular production.
- Shift to Renewable Energy
- Wind Power – In 2008 wind accounted for 36% of new generating capacity in the European Union. Harnessing 1/5 of the earth’s available wind energy could provide 7 times as much electricity as the world currently uses.
- Solar Cells and Thermal Collectors –World-wide solar photovoltaic production is growing by 45% annually, doubling every two years.
- Bio-fuels
- Hydropower: Rivers, Tides, Waves – 16% of the worlds electricity comes from hydropower. Small scale projects, rather than large dams, could provide more.
- Redesign Cities for People
- City Ecology
- The Return of Bicycles
- Redesign Urban Transport
- Redesign Urban Water Use
- Urban Farms
Bill McKibben – Adaptation – In contrast to Mr. Brown, most of Bill McKibben’s survival plan, with one major exception, has to do with adaptation. (It’s hard to summarize his ideas because he doesn’t list them.) In his book, I feel that he has basically “given up” on the U.S. government finding and promoting solutions since there has been so much resistance. He also seems to believe that there will be large system failures, especially agribusiness and transportation. But he has not given up completely on our government’s willingness to be green, simply because we cannot afford to.
- Back Off – “Hunker down,” and consume less energy. Stay where you are and build up your local community so it will become: durable, sturdy, stable, hardy, and robust. Go small; embrace the local and a simpler way of life.
- Grow Food – Shift (back) to smaller farms, family-owned farms, and manually-intensive farms. Support composting, and grow your own food.
- Decentralize – Develop alternative sources of energy and local sources.
- Keep the Internet – While we can back off and return to a simpler way of life to some degree, in other ways we can’t. We are too modern and too used to being plugged into the world, so keep the Internet.
- Build a Movement – Build a national/international movement to push for climate change legislation. Because some things are so big, like global warming, that relevant laws can only be created by national governments.
My Survival Plan (which is all over the place):
- Turn off the TV – Most mainstream news stations are ignoring or not covering climate change very well. The “news cycle” is too short to provide adequate attention to a long-term story. If you turn off your TV and get your news from the Internet (most newspapers/magazines have an online presence), you will get more complete and accurate coverage. Also you avoid the yelling or sarcasm-dripping political pundits that have not helped our national debate. Taking adversarial positions leads to a split government.
You also avoid scare-mongering, especially as practiced by some late night “news” hosts. The world is not nearly as scary as TV often presents it. For example, there really aren’t that many serial killers or mass murderers; they are tiny percentage of the whole population. TV seems more and more designed to make us “adrenalin addicts.” In addition, you can avoid “the death cult” -- fiction shows that seem to glamorize and/or glorify death: indiscriminate killings, random violence, postmortems, vampires, ghosts, etc.
I know since I turned off the TV about 2 1/2 years ago, I have become a much happier person. I don’t miss its adrenalin rush at all, and I get plenty of news from the Net. I do rent DVDs, now and then. And I find myself with amazing amount of free time to do other things. I suspect most UUs watch less TV than most other people and are selective about what they watch, but you might think about how many hours you spend in front of the tube. - Check Your Sources – Read a book about climate change. Read newspapers articles about it. But always check your sources. If you go to Amazon and plug “climate change” into their search engine you will find almost as many debunking books as truthful ones. Google is your friend -- google the authors so you know who and what you are getting. I have found the most reliable online source is the Union of Concerned Scientists. They also have a Berkeley office and keep up with California issues. Reuters and the BBC are also reliable, and fairly neutral, news sources about climate change.
- Remain Civilized – One thing that all the books I read did not go into much is that people in the U.S. will not STAY in areas that become severely impacted by climate. If the Mid-West turns into a dust bowl, if the South West becomes intensely hot and runs out of water, and if the South become very hot, muggy, and wet; people will not stay. They will move. The ability to remain civilized and treat climate refugees fairly is likely to become difficult.
- Don’t Allow Yourself to be Thrown Under the Bus – At the same time you remain civilized, take care of yourself. Some people seem to want to throw a large portion of the U.S. under the bus, economically. Some may want to do it with climate change. Pay attention, keep yourself informed, and plan for a climate-challenged future.
- Find a Place You’d Like to Live and Settle Down – In the next 8 – 12 years (or sooner), pick out a place that you’d like to live and settle down. In other words, make sure you are where you want to be. Because we have hit peak oil, America is going to become a much less mobile society. You might consult the newly released Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Change Impact Map to find a likely place. (It is an excellent map and well worth a look.)
- Consider Your Location/Re-location Carefully - Think about selling any ocean-front/river-side property that you might have and think about not retiring to the South West.
- Find Out What Your City/County Is Doing – One of the things that surprised me in my reading was finding out most countries are taking climate change much more seriously than the U.S. The other thing was that many cities and states are taking it more seriously than the federal government. Find out what “green action plan” your city/county/local water company/local power company has (they all have them), and how far along it is in the process of being implemented. Ask if, in addition to mitigation, they are also considering adaptation. (Most green plans just address mitigation.)
- Reduce Your Carbon Footprint – Drive less, cut down your use of plastic and other petroleum-based products, weather-proof your house, get rid of high-energy-consuming appliances, install solar, and checkout PG&E’s online Smart Meter program that will help you track your electrical usage.
- Grow Your Own Food/Eat Locally – You might even try raising chickens.
- Plant Trees – Check out the Nature Conservancy’s “Plant a Billion Trees.” It’s just one dollar for one tree.
- Join our Green Action E-Mail List – A sign-up list will be on the Green Group table after church services. Check our Green Group main page every month or so for more things you can do. Join national environmental groups too.
- Find a Green Gandhi – There are several “Green Gandhis” alive now. Find one you respect and follow her/him and join their movement, not blindly, but equipped with knowledge and hope. Use your own conscience to choose, I cannot recommend one.
- I am not going to get into methane much, another, troubling green house gas. I had so much to cover in this editorial I decided I had to limit my scope. I also don’t mention diseases that are likely to increase as heat increases, massive loss of biodiversity, etc., etc., etc.
- With apologies to Douglas Adams. :-)
- The obvious reasons are sedition and panic. But mainly, panic. Because the implication is that millions (billions) of people will die, but some may survive, largely because all those gone will no longer be emitting CO2. Of course, no environmentalist wants this to happen -- they want to save the planet and everything on it, not just human beings -- but they can obviously foresee it happening. So there is an underlying theme of promoting adaptation in hopes of saving little pockets of humanity. At least, in my opinion, that theme is there. And climate change scientists/activists don’t really think saving little pockets here and there will work either; not in the long run. When parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches a certain point it will probably too hot for everything and everyone. Some other people I am not so sure about – they may see massive die-offs as “problem solved.” But I admit I am cynical.
Marnie Parker is a long-time friend and member of MDUUC (8 years friend, 20 years member), who was formerly the President (2 years) and Newsletter Editor (4 years) of Single U which is a defunct singles group that was once affiliated with MDUUC (as an independent committee). She has also been the newsletter editor for Contra Costa N.O.W (4 years), briefly on the board of Eco-Info, and MDUUC’s Social Action chair (2 years --all in the 1980’s). She is a semi-retired independent computer consultant and programmer who numbered among her clients: the California Veterans Advocacy Corporation (veteran employment), Fresenius (dialysis machines), Triad (electrical co-generation), and General Electric (engineering department). She has been a member of MDUUC’s Green Group for about 3 years and is responsible for maintaining its section of the church’s web pages. Considering the severity of the problem, she has decided climate change will be her focus and ‘personal mission’ for the rest of her life. If you have questions, comments, or suggestions about this editorial, please contact her at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
