Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Change Could Happen Much Faster Than Previously Thought
Humans are in danger of making large parts of the Earth uninhabitable for thousands of years because of man made climate change, according to new evidence based on geological records.
The US study predicted that if society continues burning fossil fuels at the current rate, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could rise from the current level of 390 parts per million (ppm) to 1,000 by the end of this century.
The last time the world had such high levels of carbon dioxide temperatures were on average 29F(16C) above pre-industrial levels. Evidence has been found of crocodiles and palm trees at the Poles and only small mammals were able to survive.
Jeffrey Kiehl, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), who carried out the study, said the Earth could return to such temperatures over hundreds or even thousands of years.
But unlike last time, when it happened over millions of years, temperatures will rise too fast for species to adapt and change.
In the short term he said temperatures could rise by more than 10.8F (6C) by the end of the century, which will also wipe out species.
"This is happening at such a rate how will species, including humans, respond? The implications for the biosphere is of great concern."
Dr Kiehl not only looked at geological records but also computer models to predict what will happen if carbon dioxide levels rise at such a rate.
He included 'feed back factors', such as melting sea ice, methane released from thawing permafrost and Amazon die-back.
This showed that temperatures will increase much faster than previously thought as a result of rising carbon dioxide.
"If we don't start seriously working toward a reduction of carbon emissions, we are putting our planet on a trajectory that the human species has never experienced," he said. "We will have committed human civilization to living in a different world for multiple generations."
Dr Kiehl hit back at critics who claim that acting on climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels will upset the world order.
"A truly conservative position is to conserve what we have, to not radically change things and if we do not want to radically change the environment then the conservative approach is to conserve the Earth as the human species has known it ever since we have been around on this planet."
115 Comments so far
Show All>>Dr Kiehl hit back at critics who claim that acting on climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels will upset the world order.
"A truly conservative position is to conserve what we have, to not radically change things and if we do not want to radically change the environment then the conservative approach is to conserve the Earth as the human species has known it ever since we have been around on this planet."<<
Each of us should pause for a moment, think long and hard about doing whatever is in our capacity to change course and avert disaster for future generations. There seems to be a distinct lack of concern about future generations even among those who think they're on the left. And a disconnect with nature.
PLEASE!
Let this be at the top of everyone's agenda - to look within at our own ecological and carbon footprints, to learn about the crisis, to learn about ways to avert disaster by changing course and to spread the word at every opportunity. Don't bother too much about being politically correct. Talk to young people. They are more intelligent and receptive than we think. And their positive energy is needed to counteract our own cynicism. Again, let this be at the top of everyone's agenda. Because, without a livable planet, all other arguments about everything else are pointless.
When confronting a denier or someone pretending to be a skeptic, ask this question:
What would happen if the deniers are wrong?
Answer: Disaster for all!
What would happen if the climate scientists are wrong, we do all this to change course and there is no climate change?
Well, we still get to live, most likely in a cleaner, healthier, more equitable world.
Talk. It sounds so simple, but is crucial. Talk to everyone, especially the children. Plant the seeds of appreciation for Nature early. One daunting hurdle is the religion that declares human domination over Nature a god given holy mission. Nature is not a toy.
Doubly important, live it. Make the changes yourself, now. Show others that it is doable.
Great last line, which states the goal:
We get to live in a cleaner, healthier, more equitable world.
yes, I am always encouraged when I talk to my 16-year-old son and his friends...
they are aware of our dangers, and not afraid to explore possibilities...
the talk spreads, as well...the ol' ripple-effect analogy...it works...
we need to rekindle lost skills and diversions, that a life with less technology might be viewed as positive...this is our key weakness...no knowledge of how to do such things, and a fear of that unknown...
we are given a day in a life...not so much required, really...
imagination, humor and sex go far...music is a great life lubricant...
religion is a tough one...I answered that one truthfully, and was glad I did, as strange as it felt to do so...
strange to think that, no matter what we do, we face a chemical situation unlike ever before, and difficult, if not impossible, to completely clean up, or repair...
our future is already compromised...the question is one of degree...
peace to you, brother Buck...
Great post.
Buck: "One daunting hurdle is the religion that declares human domination over Nature a god given holy mission. Nature is not a toy."
Correction: God gives us dominion (not "domination") over nature as God has over us. The charge is to preserve and protect, not to despoil and destroy.
It doesn't matter, Rainborowe. The effect has been the same - a distinct lack of respect for Nature, a deep disconnect with Nature and a certain arrogance, and the results are there to see. And, **to some extent**, the contrast with cultures that respected and feared Nature can be seen too.
It does matter in that the previous poster blamed God--or our belief in God-- for our despoliation of the earth. My point is that we have despoiled the earth but not because of any divine instructions pro or con. We just did it because we could.
Same thing. Both words have the same root.
dom·i·na·tion [dòmmə náysh’n]
n
controlling power: control, power, or authority over others or another
do·min·ion [də mínnyən]
1. ruling control: ruling power, authority, or control
2. sphere of influence: somebody’s area of influence or control
3. land ruled: the land governed by a ruler
This is getting to be like a broken record. Winters are getting colder, summers hotter, and average annual temperatures keep rising.
The ancient Greeks were terrified of hubris. When Xerxes bridged the Hellespont some Greek playwright suggested it was at the bidding of some god trying to plot his downfall.
By modern standards that bridge was a very modest engineering accomplishment. Now everything gets the big yawn---going to the moon, genetic engineering, even changing the climate.
It does not seem to have occurred to anybody that we are not gods, or that the higher we climb the harder we are likely to fall.
Winters are not getting colder. In North America, the last two winters may be colder than the peroid of nonexistent winters of the late 90's to 00's, but not at all cold compared to what would be considered a cold winter in earlier decades.
Here is some historical and current information from NASA.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Interesting. The near-surface temperatures were actually colder in winter-less 1998 than current years. I don't understand why the "near-surface" temperatures are so cold (-13 to -17C) even in summer. Can't be very "near-surface".
Thank you for the correction
Here we go again...
But wait, Nietzsche did not start to deny global warming as some of the other commentators may have assumed. He's pointing out that it's our own hubris that thinks that whatever we've done can still be fixed. (the statement that winters are colder is inaccurate, they might be colder in some parts of the world, but they're quite a bit warmer in others.)
I think part of the lack of worry by the real decision makers about things like global warming have a great deal to do with the past achievements in recent human history.
Going to the Moon, sending submarines near to the bottom of the oceans, etc. Has given the elite the idea that no matter what happens to the rest of us, they're going to make it through whatever bad thing happens to the earth.
I don't think that we've got a chance of averting this little environmental train wreck. There is still a chance that the humans will survive, but we'll not recognize our great grandchildren as being human at all. If they survive they'll have to be a new species.
Thank you, and there are people who think money can buy anything, even people who know that this planet is hardly more than a speck of dust----and a few lifeforms on this speck believe with a religious fervor that scraps of paper called money is the answer to everything.
There was a scene in the movie 'The Godfather' in which a dying man called Don Coreleone to his bedside in the belief that the Don could bully even death.
Stop making babies.
The greatest GHG emissons are from rich people who don't make babies.
Blaming population growth for GHG emissions belies a lack of knowlege of basic capitalist economics. GHG emisions are a function of economic growth. Under capitalism, economic growth has nothing to do with population growth. Even if the earths population were only 100 million, capitalists would still find a way to grow the economy, and with it, resource usage, to the same levels as a planet with 7 billion. I repeat, it's basic economics.
Well, another reason to stop making babies is that they would be born into a miserable, hellish, toxic world on the brink of asphyxiating itself.
Won't someone think of the children? ;)
I cetainly agree with the reason you gave. The state of humanity's future is a big reason I never had any children, unlike my nine brothers and sisters (I have 24 nephiews/nieces), save the brother who is gay emigrated moved to Toronto with his longtime - now married - partner.
It would seem that the USA Hell is among the worst---if you believe that the killer suffers along with the victim.
"It" is basic economics, but "it" is also basic Earth science. True that capitalism is a monster system that will seek to grow on an endless curve, and "externalize" costs to come up with a phony P&L statement and balance sheet. But basic Earth science tells us that never in the history of life has there been anything REMOTELY approaching the absurd overpopulation of big animals we currently have with humans.
The gross overpopulation of one species of large animal IS DRIVEN by capitalism, along with industrialism and agriculture. You can't just turn off capitalism, and hum along with 7B humans. There are numerous instances of pre-capitalist human societies contributing to their own demise by degrading their environment.
If 7B humans is not "too many" for this Earth, is 700B? If capitalism would destroy the Earth with 100M people, would it do so with 100? There is truth in what you write, but to assert that human population is immaterial to human impact on the Earth, becomes an absurdist argument.
As with so many things:
- It is not either / or;
- It is both / and.
It hasn't been proven that population growth in a capitalist economy gsa any sort of detrimental affect upon peoples living standards. That's just another conservative excuse the ruling class uses to justify the ongoing existence of an inherently flawed economic system that is incapable of providing even the most basic means of living to the masses.
CIVILIZATION
I wondered some things the other day and shared with you what they were and today there is another thing to wonder about and that is: What is the civilization that everyone aspires to? It seems that throughout history that people who have been supposedly civilized the one thing that is common to all is that they acquired things and the more things they had the more they thought they were “more” civilized than any other people that they could have contact with. When they reached a point where there were not enough things they encouraged their leaders to raise an army so that they could go and get more things and they could show other peoples how civilized people do things and if they had no desire to learn how to be civilized they were removed and collateral damage was the norm. When the leaders saw how easy it was to sway the people with things it became easy to control them and push them into ideas and actions that were against their own self interest. Power corrupts.
Civilization, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing
Civilization, what is it good for absolutely nothing, say it again y’all
Civilization good God what is it good for absolutely nothing, listen to me
Oooh, civilization I despise because it means destruction of innocent lives.
Civilization, it ain’t nothing but a heartbreaker
Civilization, friend only to the undertaker
It’s an enemy to all mankind
The point of civilization blows my mind
Who wants to die?
Civilization what is it good for?
As you can see I took some deep liberties with Edwin Starr’s song, hope he doesn’t mind. We are nothing new under the sun; are we going to have a short shelf life? Tony
I have read that in 1600's New England most white settlers who lived with the Indians, whether they were captured or were driven to native villages by hunger, refused adamantly to ever rejoin 'civilization'.
Civilization has some advantages but God, at what price. It's like spending billions to go to the moon and maybe we will get the incidental benefit of hand held calculators.
I've read much on this subject and it wasn't only whites that saw the value of life with the Tribes. Many blacks, especially escaped slaves, were taken in by the Tribes.
Tribal culture revered Nature, respected the rights of the individual, and held a loving sense of community. What's not to like?
Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic magazine has a chapter on the myth of the idealic life hunter/gatherer/fishers had in his book The Borderlands of Science. His review of the literature indicated that the HGF societies that did not despoil their environment had low population densities. When populations grew too large, problems occurred, even in those cultures. Think about Easter Island, an excellent metaphor for the entire planet.
Early people had more free time, also. Think about the time spent making their tools works of art, beading moccasins, pecking symbols on stone faces, drawing horses on cave walls, carving rocks into exaggerated female forms. Nature was always underfoot and there was plenty of time to think about it.
High Philosophy by acceptance of low station.
"problems occurred, even in those cultures"
In the environmental sciences, the problems are called limiting factors.
Easter Island was folly, presumably worship based.
Same today, different god; media.
The word of god, hd tv, tells people what to do, think, and believe.
Man was created in god's image.
translation:
western culture people worship themselves
yeah buddy! can you say 20 hr work week!
I read some Marshall Sahlins back during my first go at college in the late 80's and I remember him or a colleague writing about hunting and gathering societies averaging a 20 hour work week compared to our 40 (really 60-80) hr work week. the rest of time was for art, eating, sleeping, drugs and sex.
love the limiting factors comment!
of course, we will need a lot less people. so for our lifetime its a pipe dream. however, we could have more of a small scale agricultural society that respects wild nature and actually strives to have natural areas big enough to support a small population of hunters and gatherers. but the middle and upper classes will have to get over their aversion to manual labor that gets you dirty for that to happen.
[yeah buddy! can you say 20 hr work week!]
That's the modern version of the 'noble savage'. Really it was a bit of a stretch. The working hours might have been lower when you were talking about food and clothing. But the flip side was that the hunter/gatherers were also conducting what we'd call a low level war with their neighbours.
[the rest of time was for art, eating, sleeping, drugs and sex.]
I don't believe that the early humans were living in a Utopian paradise. I'm also not saying that they lived in a hellish war zone either. However, if all the tribe did was to eat drink and be merry, they'd have been wiped out by the tribe that was more martially oriented than they were.
There never has been and never will be any utopias as long as human animals are involved, but it was far better than working sixty hour weeks for a TV, a BMW, and a house made of tickey tacky.
We have sold our souls for participation in a 'Pleasant Valley Sunday' society, a very poor bargain in which I for one do not participate. When the Barbeque or Coctail Party is over and the person made out of ticky tacky goes home and closes the door---then the split level trap slams shut.
I do not believe there ever was a noble savage, but what the North American Natives called war was more like what would be a game to us. The concept of genocide or wiping out another tribe did not exist. Carpet bombing and Napalm would have horrified them.
What can you buy that is worth working to exhaustion on a regular basis?
"There never has been and never will be any utopias..."
Sorry, but I disagree with your assertion as there have been functional societies that despite their imperfections ought to be considered utopias, albeit imperfect as they are human constructs and thus incapable of being perfect.
Building and maintaining a functional society isn't easy, but needn't be difficult, the key being the strength of the culture. BUT as per my definition of a functional society above, democracy is not a prerequisite as most functional societies are known to be/were governed by a council of elders with or without a titular king. Eventually, societies will devolve to similar situations as the remaining energy slaves get consummed. In Big Man cultures, the Big Man is the one able to produce the most food and other shared needs for the society where he's celebrated by a fete that contains a ritual ceremony whereby the ammased wealth is given away to all. This is quite similar to the Potlatch of the Northeast Pacific, from which it's separated by 7,000+ miles of ocean. The point being humans found a method of employing culture to contain the most corruptive a priori aspects of Human Nature well before written language was developed.
Since I don't know for sure either way, and I would far rather believe your post---I will.
By the time we get down to 1B people or less and and HGF society, the entire ecosystem will be destroyed. The oceans oiled, the land destroyed by monoculture pesticides, fracking, mountain top removal, loss of species, raising water level, clear cutting, covered over with asphalt, concrete, useless skyscrapers, etc. What will it be like for HGFers of the future compared the what HGFers of the past had?
My hypothesis sees a civil society as a functional society, with functional defined as all societal members having all their needs met AND able to exert very strong cultural control over the a priori urge within Human Nature known as Envy, which if left uncontrolled will destabilize a society from within through greed--the product of Envy. History provides examples of such societies. If such societies were able to maintain harmonious relations with their neighbors, then we can call them civilized. One of the aspects along my path toward a minor in Antropology I noted about the cultures of various societies was how they designed their cultures to contain this very volitile aspect of Human Nature. A few such societies still exist today, mostly in Micronesia, although some distortions were/are caused by colonialism and modernity, the Trobiand Islanders being the best documented example I know of.
The USA's society is clearly dysfunctional and its culture is almost bereft of norms and mores meant to contain the worst features of Human Nature, nor is it alone. A hypothesis that states a very simple cause as the root of our dysfunction is easily dismissed, but I would invoke Occam's Razor and additional evidence as to its being correct and testable. If Envy is indeed the Demon, then deep changes in both society and culture are required in an attempt at reforming a functional society that would need to be global in scope for any society to call itself civilized.
>>karlof1 wrote: "The USA's society is clearly dysfunctional and its culture is almost bereft of norms and mores meant to contain the worst features of Human Nature, nor is it alone. A hypothesis that states a very simple cause as the root of our dysfunction is easily dismissed, ..."<<
Interesting observation on "functional societies", karlof1. I have my own hypothesis too:
Things were really bad in Europe by the time Columbus set out to go to "India" and the "norms and mores meant to contain the worst features of Human Nature" were already eroded greatly, with the church playing all kinds of mischief that was having an effect in everyday life and in the fears and the machinations of the rulers. Greed was already rampant among the wealthy and the concept of karma and the related fear of repercussions were singularly lacking. One of the mischiefs of the prevalent religion was the offer of "absolution" - that is, absolving a ruler of his sins after he had just finished off a bunch of his rivals and burned a few villages that dared to challenge his authority.
Scientifically too, I think there was a lack of adequate ecological knowledge that would have shaped local societies to live within the limits of the local ecosystem. Perhaps there was little room for such knowledge to develop and permeate because of the constant predations by various kingdoms and the empire. On the whole, life was largely miserable and dysfunctional, save for the occasional "renaissance" which itself required major material and energy inputs, and was therefore unsustainable.
Some of the European travelers did indeed marvel at the level of development elsewhere in Asia or were surprised that there could be societies that produced just enough for their immediate requirements and had left the rest of the resources intact, as in Africa and Southeast Asia. I really have to think there was something different in the psyche, even though the base urges such as envy are common to all humans. Maybe the fear of nature and a fear of repercussions for one's actions had kept the greed under check in other societies.
It was in this context that Columbus "discovered" the "New World". And then, all hell broke loose. It was a mad rush to grab as much of land and other resources by the European powers, only partly out of any real need, but mostly to gain an edge over their rivals there.
Howard Zinn does a great job in portraying the early contact of those times. Books like Jeremy Rifkin's "Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture" and "Stolen Continents" by Ronald Wright only seem to add to the impression that morality was already weak in the Old World.
People pushed out of their lands by the wealthy to make room for their livestock and luxurious castles were themselves victims, and it is possible that they had less qualms about doing the same to the natives in the New World - qualms that someone not so victimized might have felt more strongly.
So what we see is only a continuation from there, and that is why I think it is necessary to truly reconcile with that part of history and deliberately set out to "unlearn" all the WRONG lessons that have been learned as a direct result of these conquests and colonization - wrong lessons that seem to be taken for granted as valid and natural, and that seem to color the world view of so many otherwise good and decent people.
Thanks much for your reply. There are many details I omitted as I wanted my post to be brief. Some of the details are on this comment thread, which I'll refer to instead of reposting them here, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/09-2
We're on the same page regarding causality, but I'm lost regarding a solution that doesn't rely on Authoritarianism given the current cultural dysfunction gripping most of the planet's societies.
Thanks for referring me to that thread, karlof1.
Yes, "a solution that doesn't rely on authoritarianism" - that's a concise and intelligent way of describing what it is that we need, I think. Having read J. Krishnamurti, I can absolutely relate to what you mean. This is also the reason that I find somewhat uneasy about the mindset of some on the left, and have to seriously wonder if they learned anything at all from recent history as to what authoritarianism can do or what happens when the individual is considered "expendable" in the name of the cause. Psychologically, I find a parallel between such extreme ideologues and religious fanatics because both are convinced on the universal validity of their particular ideology and the need for achieving conformity so as to bring about "order" as their limited brains understand it. They both fail to see that they are personally responsible, of course, to varying degrees, to what happens around them, and will be looking for solutions only on the outside, convinced as they are about their own righteousness. I have seen objections to any talk on personal change as if it is somehow contrary to societal change or systemic change. No one denies the need or the urgency for societal and systemic change. What I don't understand is why it should be difficult for people to realize that change has to necessarily start with the individual and that internal and external change can and should go hand in hand.
Although I referred to history and other cultures, I think it is possible that humanity can achieve even greater levels of harmony, and this change does not have to be all gradual. There could be quantum jumps in consciousness, because at a fundamental level we are all connected. It is possible... let me just leave it at that :)
Yes, it is rather convoluted, isn't it? There's an immense amount of detail that provides the best evidence.
i appreciate that you keep pushing Rifkin's book "Beyond Beef." i have two copies on my shelf. i'll take one down and read it again.
Thanks, webwalk.
>>"...you keep pushing Rifkin's book "Beyond Beef"<<
Haha, I know, right? I should be getting a commission or something :)
I should add one more book here: "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" by Walter Rodney. I just posted a comment on the article
"World Hunger Best Cured by Small-Scale Agriculture: Report":
www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/01/13-0
where I mentioned this book. Out of curiosity, I did a site search and was surprised to find no one has mentioned this book. Not that I agree with everything that's in it, but it does provide a different point of view that cannot be ignored.
Every new discovery concerning warming, pushes the time line forward. We are running out of time.
Have you noticed that? You could practically set your watch by how regularly the IPCC has to re-estimate the consequences upward. They were so tardy in figuring out what was going on in the Arctic, that's why I don't trust them when they say 'arctic methane isn't a problem'.
ENJOY YOURSELF - THE SPECIALS
Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think
Enjoy yourself, while you're still in the pink
The years go by, as quickly as you wink
Enjoy yourself, enjoy yourself,
It's later than you think
Hello, I'm Terry,
And I'm going to enjoy myself first
It's good to be wise when you're young
'Cos you can only be young but the once
Enjoy yourself and have lots of fun
So glad and live life longer than you've ever done
Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think
Enjoy yourself, while you're still in the pink
The years go by, as quickly as you wink
Enjoy yourself, enjoy yourself,
It's later than you think
Never right, yes I know
Get wisdom, knowledge and understanding
These three, were given free by the maker
Go to school, learn the rules, don't be no faker
It's not wise for you to be a foot stool
Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think
Enjoy yourself, while you're still in the pink
The years go by, as quickly as you wink
Enjoy yourself, enjoy yourself,
It's later than you think
Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think
Enjoy yourself, while you're still in the pink
The years go by, as quickly as you wink
Enjoy yourself, enjoy yourself,
It's later than you think
Seems like everyone's been enjoying themselves just fine. Now the bill is coming due and no one is prepared to pay.
"A truly conservative position is to conserve what we have, to not radically change things and if we do not want to radically change the environment then the conservative approach is to conserve the Earth as the human species has known it ever since we have been around on this planet."
It would be nice if Dr Kiehl would attempt greater coherence and specificity than this. He urges us toward serious reduction in carbon emissions, then seems to be saying, in this final quote, that we'd best not make any changes at all--hardly a conservator's approach, or a conservative one. Might he have been too agitated by these findings to speak straight?
The quote could have been better spoken, but you misunderstand.
don't necessarily blame the mangled quote on him. if it came from a press release than maybe he was frazzled. but if it came from an interview the culprit is likely the journalist and possibly the editor.
remember, regular journalists are not the brightest bulbs in the bunch.
I still remember in my early days of activism having a tv journalist up to a college treehugging event where she gave a talk about relating to reporters. She said to write press releases simple, at an 8th grade level, and always, always hand 'em out, as journalists were generally lazy and you would be better represented by giving them words on paper.
there is a reason people make fun of communications degrees.
back to the subject at hand, I like Dr. Kiehls comment, i got it, and I am going to borrow it for some of my arguments with Big Oil's sycophants.
Dr Kiehl: "A truly conservative position is to conserve what we have"
This is not emphasized enough. Oil left in the ground is oil left 'in the bank'. It can be drawn upon later, or for other purposes.
You make such definitive time-crunch statements but then end by saying that we have a little time left. Well, do we or don't we? If the slug from a gun held to our head is on its way then no one has the reflexes to catch something like that in time. I appreciate that you're trying to ratchet up the alarum as loud as possible, but you're preaching to the converted here at CD.
My feeling is that the species is going to opt for geo-engineering hacks to stop a runaway effect. That's a stupid and risky undertaking, but all I see are stupid and risk-taking governments and corporations causing this mess.
These hacks may or may not work, and may or may not have extremely bad side effects, but that's par for the course for our "civilization" as well. What do pharmaceutical companies do? Do they cure you? No. Do they help prevent you from getting a disease? No. They design expense, dangerous, barely tested products to mitigate some symptoms and help you live a little longer.
We're going to get that kind of response to any runaway greenhouse scenario. So expect particles in the stratosphere, seeding of oceans, space lenses you name it. What you won't see is Exxon stop selling oil while there's a drop left anywhere on earth.
I believe the only way to cool the planet suddenly is to shade it, with aerosols or orbiting mylar discs. But try meeting human food needs with a shaded planet. It would be a catastrophe and there would be much starvation.