It’s a Collective Climate so where is our Collective Will?
A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.
The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped.
I guess the question now is no longer can we adapt fast enough to stop the change, but rather can we adapt fast enough to survive it.
Perhaps geoengineering has the ability to fix the mess we have got ourselves into? (Geoengineering is still full of speculative procedures and processes so it wasn’t included in the study). Geoengineering can probably fix the climate climate crisis, but strangely it still it is not within our collective will at the moment.
Below is a chart by New Zealander Phillip Boyd located at Brave New Climate and Nature Geo-Science measuring cost-effectiveness of different geo-engineering options for mitigating climate change impacts. Check these sites out for the full studies.
Lately I’ve been trying to get my head around the climate change issue and start thinking that it doesn’t exist. Attempting to remove my subjective experience and start thinking like a sceptic.
Why?
Fuck knows…
But here’s a news article that my inner-sceptic found interesting: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
Oi Thomas! You got a take on this?
I wonder what is to be gained by being a skeptic? The benefits for being an advocate are quite clear: a cleaner and healthier ecosystem; new sustainable industries/employment; etc.
Then again I am a filthy hypocritical polluter who drives his car around for hours looking for surf. I also wear a petroleum-based wetsuit, and ride such a surfboard. Although, my new board is supposed to made out of hemp and recycled-PET plastic.
you shouldn’t drive your car around for hours looking for surf, clif.
not wanting to wade in too deep in this forum…some thoughts. the science you both are referring too are just particular types of sciences. all sounds very lineal, rationalist and intstrumentalist. this is what disaffects me about the techno-solutions to the techno-generated problems. it is therefore inherently a philosophical question with teeth, as clif counters under aegis of advocate as opposed to skeptic/denier
there must be a change fundamentally in ‘design philosophy’. therefore all products at a design level, start from a design brief that requires 100% recycleable and or 100% biodegradable (see cradle to cradle theory McDonough- architect and Braungart- chemical physicist). there will of course be of necessity, a transition and a collective political will.
Concerning the 1,000 year stuff (totally anthropocentric) does not account for more-than human complexity. for example the principle of synergy where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, in other words when species’ act synergistically with eco-systems and bio-regions there are outcomes that are unaccountable from a strictly rationalist/instrumental viewpoint.
for example the screwy view of water when considered, merely as a resource, unbundled from the living entities (human, non-human, ecosystem) it, water hydrates and sustains. the importantance therefore of claiming, reclaiming and maintaining regenerative environments both on a micro and macro scale is imperative. debbie rose puts it this way. there are life and death cycles that tend to life and there are life and death cycles that lead to double death (irreparable and completely lost).
clif, by the way I heard about a guy who had a bong made out of that stuff, he said it really sucked (just kidding) sounds interesting
I really don’t care about the man made climate change theory. it’s just a way for the govt. to raise taxes by scaring us. The seventies had “global cooling” another fad crisis. What a joke-don’t fall for it brosephs.
Having been an ‘environment’ professional now for so many years and now being across all things currently labelled ‘climate change’ I am probably waaay to embedded to come up for air and join your discussion without freaking everyone out. I have two points to make for people to think about. The first is; how many of us are able to fully comprehend the earth’s natural systems on a geological timescale? The second (related question) is have you ever paused to consider the labeling “climate change” that all people seem so comfortable with ? I consider it a ridiculous label and one that has clouded most thinking around the deeply serious threats our planet faces. On a geologic or if you prefer bio-evolutionary timescale what is happening to our planet’s biology is catastrophic. It is not a ‘change’ to climate. It is far more serious in its rapidity. Most people are not natural scientists and have a great deal of trouble grasping the concepts of evolutionary biology. It has been our failing (both scientists amd world leaders) in having completely mismanaged the message and communication to the masses. But then even if everyone did fully comprehend what is happening I’m not so sure people would change their bahaviour. We are a species at war with ourselves both directly and indirectly through outr life support systems. It’s deeply saddening to me but I have to try to not dwell on it and press on because it’s too sad a prospect to just give up.