Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
- This topic has 904 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You are correct, ALB. 🙂
But ALB was wrong when he wrote in #189857 above that global warming had already risen by 1.5 degrees since pre-industrial times. Actually it has risen only by about 1 degree. So a rise to 4 degrees by 2055 would be a further increase of 3 degrees rather than 2. 5, making it even less realistic or realisable.
http://theconversation.com/what-is-a-pre-industrial-climate-and-why-does-it-matter-78601
“… scientists are defining “pre-industrial” or “natural” climate in different ways. Some work from the beginning of global temperature records in the late 19th century, while others use climate model simulations that exclude human influences over a more recent period. One recent study suggested that the best baseline might be 1720-1800…There is no definitive way to determine the best “pre-industrial” reference point. An alternative might be to avoid the pre-industrial baseline altogether, and instead set targets from more recent periods, when we have a better grasp of what the global climate looked like.”
“While late 19th century temperatures are commonly taken to be indicative of pre-industrial, there is no fixed period that is used as standard and a variety of other periods have been used for observational and palaeo datasets. There are limitations in available data in the early instrumental record, making the average temperature in the reference period less certain. There is not a reliable indicator of global temperatures back to 1750, which is the era widely assumed to represent pre-industrial conditions. Therefore 1850-1900 is chosen here as the most reliable reference period, which also corresponds to the period chosen by IPCC to represent a suitable earlier reference period.”
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015
That’s not the only thing that climate scientists don’t know for certain. They don’t know the exact relationship between an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the consequent rise in average global temperature. There is a causal link but nobody knows exactly what. Hence the differing views of different scientists depending on their assumption. The proof of the pudding is going to be in the eating, not that any of us here are going to be around in 2100 to eat it.
That’s not the only thing that climate scientists don’t know for certain. They don’t know the exact relationship between an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the consequent rise in average global temperature. There is a causal link but nobody knows exactly what. Hence the differing views of different scientists depending on their assumption. The proof of the pudding is going to be in the eating, not that any of us here are going to be around in 2100 to eat it.
Exactly my observation on the whole debate of climate change. From what I have observed the main issue is the measurements for ‘average global temperature’ is not a given or exact. In that most measurements are taken in urban areas where the local temperature is influenced by the surrounding buildings.
See more here:
The point on urban locations for met measurement equipment is very well known one for a very long time. Usually for the reason of the effect of buildings they are often at airports, out in the open. There are diverse locations for measurements, I can’t see how polar and sea temperatures are urban. I have enough trust in that aspect of scientific community methodology and that community itself is a collection of different professions, overlapping but also with distinct focus that ensure a certain amount of check and balances when it comes to raw data.
However, my issue is that the projections are global, as Brian said.
We do know that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as other regions. But what about the other regions around the world. Global warming isn’t uniformly equal everywhere and the projections are averages as said, so that means some are higher, some are lower.
What it appears to me to be happening and I am not sure whether it is due to the lack of infrastructure but already the extreme climatic influences are damaging much of the poverty-stricken parts of the planet.
We are a world socialist movement so lets not allow our relatively unaffected local climate make us complacent or any less outraged. Let us not follow the denialists and begin to split hairs and cherry-pick facts to challenge the prevailing science. Let us assume that the overwhelming evidence is that we are suffering climate change and accept the consensus opinion of the consequences.
Personally, as I have made clear, I think that the scientists are not being alarmist, although some of the media is in its reporting, but on the contrary the scientists are erring on the side of caution. What they do not know to quantify, may well be the tipping points that lead to the thing they all dread – runaway climate change and game over.
Good points, Alan! By the way, maybe I have missed it, but did anyone here have any experience with these guys?
https://greenanticapitalist.org/They seem to be like XR, only strongly anti-capitalist. I am trying to find anything in their stance that would be in fundamental contradiction to the principles of the SPGB, and cannot.
Is the environmentalist movement the end of class politics?
For sure, we rightly continue to make capitalism culpable for the climate crises but when it comes to the need for social change our previous emphasis on working class exploitation appears now to be superfluous in convincing people to end the capitalist system.
And the traditional organisations of workers such as the unions are standing aloof to the eco-problems, if not actually taking side with the State and the polluters, who are more often than not, their employers.
Has the focus of Marxian economics now shifted?
No longer is it the extraction of surplus value from our toil, but the externalities of capitalism in making the environment pay the price for profits and capital’s expansion.
Can we appeal to the eco-activists on the case of rising class consciousness based on wage-slavery? Or is there now a better opportunity to present the arguments for the end of capitalism built on the anti-capitalist environmentalist movement?
How can we effectively merge both approaches so it resonates with an audience that primarily concentrated on the climate issues?
Just thought I throw that thread of thought into the pot.
Excellent question, and a very timely one at that. I see it as class struggle on various levels: it is still very much a class struggle, only now we are becoming dispossessed not just of our means of production, but also of the very basic conditions of healthy life we as biological organisms require. In other words, this is, in a sense, an even deeper, existential class struggle, a struggle to survive. From that point of view it does overshadow the extraction of surplus value from labor.
I do not think this is a fringe philosophical exercise. Given how important of an issue is has become for the society, I do believe the party should take notice and incorporate it into our core principles and objectives.
Came across this article on Medium. Normally its behind a paywall so I thought I would grab the opportunity and copy and paste. It might add something to the discussion though I think the writer is living in false hope if he thinks a solution will emerge from within capitalism itself
________________________________________
What Do We Do Now That We Know Climate Change is Inevitable?
https://medium.com/@glenhendrixGlen Hendrix
Climate change experts say global emissions of CO2 must be reduced to 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. It must reach a “net” zero” level by 2050 in order to limit warming to 2.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees centigrade). The goal was originally set at 2 degrees centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), but the Paris negotiations changed it to 1.5 degrees C. to appeal to a broader base of nations. This half degree means 10 million fewer people are displaced by the ocean’s rising, a 50% reduction of people experiencing water shortages around the globe, 50% reduction in species losing half their habitat, and a 80–90% destruction of coral reefs instead of 100%. The level of atmospheric CO2, however, has risen from 387 ppm in 2010 to 413 ppm in 2019, a 6.7% increase.
For the first time, Saudi Aramco revealed its finances publicly. Although it was April 1, this was no April Fool’s prank. The company made $111 billion last year, twice as much as Apple, the most profitable public company in the world. ExxonMobil made $20.8 billion. Royal Dutch Shell made $23.4 billion. The financial inertia of the fossil fuel industry is making a mockery of world climate goals. It is not just the fossil fuel industry but the industries it fuels as well. Trucking, shipping, airlines, auto, steel and concrete industries must all switch to electric or hydrogen by 2050 for “net zero” to happen. That’s 31 years away. Can you see all of these industries making the staggering commitments necessary to switch over without laws in place to make them? Can you see all 195 countries on Earth passing laws to force them to do this? It is not going to happen.
If CO2 levels rose 6.7% from 2010 to early 2019, it’s safe to say that by sometime in 2020 it will be an even 7% for the decade and the CO2 level in Jan. 2020 will be 420 ppm, 449.4 ppm in 2030, 480.9 in 2040 and 514.6 ppm by 2050. This does not take into consideration the positive feedback loops evaporating mass quantities of natural gas (methane) into the atmosphere from melting permafrost. Methane is 21 times better at warming the atmosphere than CO2. The hotter it gets, the more methane injected into the atmosphere and so on.So what would more than 2 degrees centigrade do in terms of damage to the world? It could kill 50–80% of the fish in the oceans. Ice melting could raise sea levels by more than three feet by the end of the century. If Greenland and Antarctic ice eventually melts, it could raise oceans 230 feet. While it is doubtful this could happen on Earth, positive feedback loops and runaway greenhouse gasses created the hellish conditions seen on Venus.
That is not going to happen on Earth. As soon as the general population realizes fossil fuel companies have been gas lighting (no pun intended) them for decades, it will become possible to overcome their propaganda efforts and the legalized bribery our congressmen and senators disingenuously call lobbying. By 2050, strict environmental laws will force the fossil fuel industry to change or die. Don’t feel sorry for them. They will build a lot of renewable energy plants and CO2 sequestration plants and still be making money. Taxes will have to go up to pay for research on how to do this. The U.S. saw marginal rates of around 70% to 92% from 1950 to 1981. When you hear rich people complaining nowadays about taxes, take it with a grain of salt. They will be bitching until it’s zero.
The political process will be too slow to mediate the effects of climate change. We must develop a slew of technologies and social standards to counter this lack of social progress.
1. Carbon dioxide sequestration and other technologies actively removing CO2 must be developed and implemented. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies are already being developed, but more work must be done to make it economically viable.
2. Reforestation must take place on a grand scale. This will assist in carbon capture and restore habitats to insects and animals.
3. Cheap water technology will need to be implemented to offset the increasing scarcity of potable water.
4. We must find a way to capture energy from low temperature heat from industrial processes and server farms. This is a huge inefficiency in our global society.
5. Grants and prizes must be increased for the development of new technologies to mediate and reverse greenhouse gas levels.
6. Products will have to be designed to be recycled with the least amount of energy possible.
Our social evolution must strive to keep up with technology. Stringent laws concerning carbon output must be enacted on industry and society.
One half of the population acting as if nothing is wrong and living a huge carbon footprint is not going to work.
It is a sad commentary on humanity that the captains of the industries that have taken us so far so fast would play chicken with a world threatening event. It is our responsibility as citizens of this world to reign them in and redirect their efforts to the common good. The only way to do this is to change our leadership by any means, preferably democratic, to people that are clear-headed, logical, moral, and responsible enough to lead us successfully through this age of salvation and into a brave new society of technological marvels in balance with the natural world.Came across this which is an update on the possibilities on climate change adaptation.  However, it seems to suggest that capitalism will find adaptation profitable.
Wez, I agree the market will respond to the problems thrown up by capitalism but only when and if there’s a possibility for a profit to be realised. John Englander is implying that most, if not all, adaptations will be profitable. Which is just not the case.
If the cost of the adaptation outweighs the profitability society will have to bear the consequences. A recent example of this occurring is the cancellation of the M4 extension around Newport.  Nevertheless, he’s honest enough to admit that there’s no solution to climate change, and we have to live with it.
With the probability of capitalism taking a hit and miss approach to climate adaptation its essential we make a start on putting some flesh on the bones on how socialism will go about tackling the effects positively. Once that is the cause has been dealt with.
I thought the solutions have already been devised and are out there except that they are either unacceptable to government expenditure, various business interests or that the timetable given to them is not suffice for their implementation.
Obviously there may well be a many that can be put into immediately, such as energy saving or the ceasing of armament production but others will have to be decided on a priority basis.
But the most important difference for the climate change adaptation under capitalism and socialism, is that the socialist communities will have also the task of improving the living and working conditions of billions as a complementary and an equally urgent aim.
So on reflection, the scientists and geo-engineers and town-planners will have the remit of incorporating that objective, some of which may well be in harmony with climate change mitigation proposals such as making slum clearance and rebuilding flood-proof, energy conserving with least use of unrenewable resources and which include urban farming carbon capturing green space. The experts merely require to re-shape their projects rather than invent totally new ones.
Can the Party presently put meat on the bones of what has already been suggested by the informed professionals as solutions. We can collate them and we can categorize them but presently our 100 active members have not got the sufficient technical expertise other than access the knowledge that is already out there to offer new answers with new ideas.
As an aside I always thought in the short term transition period, the military with some changes will be retained and re-deployed as a “land army”, making use of the skills of the Royal Engineers, the Corp of Signals, the REME, and many other useful units with the superfluous combat troops given their sense of adventure and risk by being retrained in what was called the Pioneer Corp, to deal upfront with natural disasters. The USA actually use their military in this role more with the levies in the Southern states being the responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Who says my name should be Bad News Johnstone?
Good news for twitchers
Climate change is having an overall positive impact on most English bird species, according to new research based. Warmer temperatures probably have a positive effect on resident species by improving survival rates over the winter
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.