Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Burning Questions: What Does Economic "Recovery" Mean on an Extreme Weather Planet?
It turns out that you don't want to be a former city dweller in rural parts of southernmost Australia, a stalk of wheat in China or Iraq, a soybean in Argentina, an almond or grape in northern California, a cow in Texas, or almost anything in parts of east Africa right now. Let me explain.
As anyone who has turned on the prime-time TV news these last weeks knows, southeastern Australia has been burning up. It's already dry climate has been growing ever hotter. "The great drying," Australian environmental scientist Tim Flannery calls it. At its epicenter, Melbourne recorded its hottest day ever this month at a sweltering 115.5 degrees, while temperatures soared even higher in the surrounding countryside. After more than a decade of drought, followed by the lowest rainfall on record, the eucalyptus forests are now burning. To be exact, they are now pouring vast quantities of stored carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas considered largely responsible for global warming, into the atmosphere.
In fact, everything's been burning there. Huge sheets of flame, possibly aided and abetted by arsonists, tore through whole towns. More than 180 people are dead and thousands homeless. Flannery, who has written eloquently about global warming, drove through the fire belt, and reported:
"It was as if a great cremation had taken place... I was born in Victoria, and over five decades I've watched as the state has changed. The long, wet and cold winters that seemed insufferable to me as a boy vanished decades ago, and for the past 12 years a new, drier climate has established itself... I had not appreciated the difference a degree or two of extra heat and a dry soil can make to the ferocity of a fire. This fire was different from anything seen before."
Australia, by the way, is a wheat-growing breadbasket for the world and its wheat crops have been hurt in recent years by continued drought.
Meanwhile, central China is experiencing the worst drought in half a century. Temperatures have been unseasonably high and rainfall, in some areas, 80% below normal; more than half the country's provinces have been affected by drought, leaving millions of Chinese and their livestock without adequate access to water. In the region which raises 95% of the country's winter wheat, crop production has already been impaired and is in further danger without imminent rain. All of this represents a potential financial catastrophe for Chinese farmers at a moment when about 20 million migrant workers are estimated to have lost their jobs in the global economic meltdown. Many of those workers, who left the countryside for China's booming cities (and remitted parts of their paychecks to rural areas), may now be headed home jobless to potential disaster. A Wall Street Journal report concludes, "Some scientists warn China could face more frequent droughts as a result of global warming and changes in farming patterns."
Globe-jumping to the Middle East, Iraq, which makes the news these days mainly for spectacular suicide bombings or the politics of American withdrawal, turns out to be another country in severe drought. Americans may think of Iraq as largely desert, but (as we were all taught in high school) the lands between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, the "fertile crescent," are considered the homeland of agriculture, not to speak of human civilization.
Well, not so fertile these days, it seems. The worst drought in at least a decade and possibly a farming lifetime is expected to reduce wheat production by at least half; while the country's vast marshlands, once believed to be the location of the Garden of Eden, have been turned into endless expanses of baked mud. That region, purposely drained by dictator Saddam Hussein to tame rebellious "Marsh Arabs," is now experiencing the draining power of nature.
Nor is Iraq's drought a localized event. Serious drought conditions extend across the Middle East, threatening to exacerbate local conflicts from Cyprus and Lebanon to Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel where this January was reported to have been the hottest and driest in 60 years. "With less than 2 months of winter left," Daniel Pedersen has written at the environmental website Green Prophet, "the region has received only 6%-50% of the annual average rainfall, with the desert areas getting 30% or less."
Leaping continents, in Latin America, Argentina is experiencing "the most intense, prolonged and expensive drought in the past 50 years," according to Hugo Luis Biolcati, the president of the Argentine Rural Society. One of the world's largest grain exporters, it has already lost five billion dollars to the drought. Its soybeans -- the country is the third largest producer of them -- are wilting in the fields; its corn -- Argentina is the world's second largest producer -- and wheat crops are in trouble; and its famed grass-fed herds of cattle are dying -- 1.5 million head of them since October with no end in sight.
Dust Bowl Economics
In our own backyard, much of the state of Texas -- 97.4% to be exact -- is now gripped by drought, and parts of it by the worst drought in almost a century. According to the New York Times, "Winter wheat crops have failed. Ponds have dried up. Ranchers are spending heavily on hay and feed pellets to get their cattle through the winter. Some wonder if they will have to slaughter their herds come summer. Farmers say the soil is too dry for seeds to germinate and are considering not planting." Since 2004, in fact, the state has yoyo-ed between the extremities of flood and drought.
Meanwhile, scientists predict that, as global warming strengthens, the American southwest, parts of which have struggled with varying levels of drought conditions for years, could fall into "a possibly permanent state of drought." We're talking potential future "dust bowl" here. A December 2008 U.S. Geological Survey report warns: "In the Southwest, for example, the models project a permanent drying by the mid-21st century that reaches the level of aridity seen in historical droughts, and a quarter of the projections may reach this level of aridity much earlier."
And talking about drought gripping breadbasket regions, don't forget northern California which "produces 50 percent
of the nation's fruits, nuts and vegetables, and a majority of [U.S.]
salad, strawberries and premium wine grapes." Its agriculturally vital
Central Valley, in particular, is in the third year of an already
monumental drought in which the state has been forced to cut water
deliveries to farms by up to 85%.
Observers are predicting that it may prove to be the worst drought in the history of a region "already reeling from housing foreclosures, the credit crisis, and a plunge in construction and manufacturing jobs." January, normally California's wettest month, has been wretchedly dry and the snowpack in the northern Sierra Mountains, crucial to the state's water supplies and its agricultural health, is at less than half normal levels.
Northern California, in fact, offers a glimpse of the havoc that the extreme weather conditions scientists associate with climate change could cause, especially when combined with other crises. In a Los Angeles Times interview, new Secretary of Energy Steven Chu offered an eye-popping warning (of a sort top government officials simply don't give) about what a global-warming future might hold in store for California, his home state. Interviewer Jim Tankersley summed up Chu's thoughts this way:
"California's farms and vineyards could vanish by the end of the century, and its major cities could be in jeopardy, if Americans do not act to slow the advance of global warming... In a worst case... up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water vital to agriculture. 'I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,' [Chu] said. 'We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California.' And, he added, 'I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going' either."
As for East Africa and the Horn of Africa, under the pressure of rising temperatures, drought has become a tenacious long-term visitor. For East Africa, the drought years of 2005-2006 were particularly horrific and now Kenya, with the region's biggest economy, a country recently wracked by political disorder and ethnic violence, is experiencing crop failures. An estimated 10 million Kenyans may face hunger, even starvation, this year in the wake of a poor harvest, lack of rainfall, and rising food prices; if you include the drought-plagued Horn of Africa, 20 million people may be endangered, according to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Recently, climatologist David Battisti and Rosamond Naylor, director of Stanford University's Program on Food Security and the Environment, published a study in Science magazine on the effect of extreme heat on crops. They concluded, based on recent climate models and a study of past extreme heat waves, that there was "a 90% chance that, by the end of the century, the coolest temperatures in the tropics during the crop growing season would exceed the hottest temperatures recorded between 1900 and 2006." According to the British Guardian, under such circumstances Battisti and Naylor believe "[h]alf of the world's population could face severe food shortages by the end of the century as rising temperatures take their toll on farmers' crops... Harvests of staple food crops such as rice and maize could fall by between 20% and 40% as a result of higher temperatures during the growing season in the tropics and subtropics."
Not surprisingly, it's hard to imagine -- perhaps I mean swallow -- such an extreme world, and so most of us, the mainstream media included, don't bother to. That means certain potentially burning questions go not just unanswered but unasked.
The Grapes of Wrath (Updated)
Mind you, what you've read thus far represents an amateur's eye view of drought on our planet at this moment. It's hardly comprehensive. To give but one example, Afghanistan has only recently begun to emerge from an eight-year drought involving severe food shortages -- and, as journalist Christian Parenti writes, it would need another "five years worth of regular snowfall just to replenish its aquifers." Parenti adds: "As snow packs in the Himalayan and Hindu Kush ranges continue to recede, the rivers flowing from them will diminish and the economic situation in all of Central Asia will deteriorate badly."
Nor is this piece meant to be authoritative, exactly because I know so relatively little. Think of it as a reflection of my own frustration with work not done elsewhere -- and, by the way, thank heavens for Google University. Yes, Googling leaves you on your own, can be time-consuming, and tends to lead to cul-de-sacs ("Nuggets end 17-year drought in Orlando"), but what would we do without it? Thanks to good ol' G.U., anyone can, for instance, check out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Drought Information Center or its U.S. Drought Monitor, or the National Weather Service's Climate Prediction Center and begin a self-education.
Now let me explain why I even bothered to write this piece. It's true that, if you're reading the mainstream press, each of the droughts mentioned above has gotten at least some attention, several of them a fair amount of attention (as well as some fine reporting), and the Australian firestorms have been headlines globally for weeks. The problem is that (the professional literature, the science magazines, and a few environmental websites and blogs aside) no one in the mainstream media seems to have thought to connect these dots or blots of aridity in any way. And yet it seems a no-brainer that mainstream reporters should be doing just that.
After all, cumulatively these drought hotspots, places now experiencing record or near-record aridity, could be thought of as representing so many burning questions for our planet. And yet you can search far and wide without stumbling across a mainstream American overview of drought in our world at this moment. This seems, politely put, puzzling, especially at a time when University College London's Global Drought Monitor claims that 104 million people are now living under "exceptional drought conditions."
Scientists generally agree that, as climate change accelerates throughout this century (and no matter what happens from here on in, nothing will evidently stop some form of acceleration), extreme weather of every sort, including drought, will become ever more the planetary norm. In fact, experts are suggesting that, as the Washington Post reported recently, "The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems."
Now, no one can claim beyond all doubt that global warming is the cause of any specific drought, or certainly the only cause anyway. As with the Texas drought, a La Niña weather pattern in the Pacific is often mentioned as a key causal factor right now. But the crucial point is what the present can tell us about the impact of a global pattern of extreme weather, especially extreme drought, on what will surely be a more extreme planet in the relatively near future.
If global temperatures are on the rise and more heat means lower crop yields, then you're talking about more Kenyas, and not just in Africa either. You're probably also talking about desperation, upheaval, resource conflicts, and mass out-migrations of populations, even -- if scientists are right -- from the American Southwest. (And in case you don't think such a thing can happen here, remember Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath or think of any of Dorothea Lange's iconic photos of the "Okies" fleeing the American dustbowl of the 1930s.)
Burning Questions
Right now, the global economic meltdown has massively depressed fuel prices (key to farming, processing, and transporting most crops to market) and commodity prices have generally fallen as well, including food prices. Whatever the future economic weather, however, that is not likely to last.
So here's a burning question on my mind:
We're now experiencing the extreme effects of economic bad "weather" in the wake of the near collapse of the global financial system. Nonetheless, from the White House to the media, speculation about "the road to recovery" is already underway. The stimulus package, for instance, had been dubbed the "recovery bill," aka the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the question of when we'll hit bottom and when -- 2010, 2011, 2012 -- a real recovery will begin is certainly in the air.
Recently, in a speech in Singapore, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, suggested that the "world's advanced economies" -- the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan -- were "already in depression," and the "worst cannot be ruled out." This got little attention here, but President Obama's comment at his first press conference that delay on his stimulus package could lead to a "lost decade," as in Japan in the 1990s (or, though it went unmentioned, the U.S. in the 1930s), made the headlines.
If, indeed, this is "the big one," and does result in a "lost decade" or more, here's what I wonder: Could the sort of "recovery" that everyone assumes lies just over a recessive or depressive horizon not be there? What if our lost decade lasts long enough to meet an environmental crisis involving extreme weather -- drought and flood, hurricanes, typhoons, and firestorms of unprecedented magnitude -- possibly in some of the breadbasket regions of the planet? What will happen if the rising fuel prices likely to come with the beginning of any economic "recovery" were to meet the soaring food prices of environmental disaster? What kind of human tsunami might that result in?
Once we start connecting some of today's drought dots, wouldn't it make sense to try to connect a few of the prospective dots as well? After all, if you begin to imagine what the worst might look like, you can also begin to think about what might be done to mitigate it. Isn't that more sensible than looking the other way?
If the kinds of hits regional agriculture is now taking from record-setting drought became the future norm, wouldn't we then be bereft of our most reassuring formulations in bad times? For example, the president spoke at that press conference of our present moment as "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." On an extreme planet, no such comforting "since the..." would be available, nor would there be any historical road map for what was coming at us, not if we had already run out of history.
Maybe the world we knew but scarce months ago is already, in some sense, long gone. What if, after a lost decade, we were to find ourselves living on another planet?
Feel free, of course, to ignore my burning questions. After all, I'm only an amateur with the flimsiest of credentials from Google U. Still, I do keep wondering when the media pros will finally pitch in, and what they'll tell us is on that distant horizon, the one with the red glow.
- Posted in




44 Comments so far
Show AllGood Morning. There are always going to be regional problems in the world. Always have been, always will be.
Yes good point Sigurdur.
Tom sounds on the verge of panic to me. That is why the media is careful not to connect too many dots for the general public who unlike Tom are not necessarily as educated nor aware.
Public panic would not help.
I think I will piss myself luaghing on the day Siggy posts how hungry he is, how he can't drive anywhere, and why is it so damn hot..
Walk in peace.
Sounds like whistling past the graveyard Sigurdur and Leea...
Like all those who downplayed warnings about the Iraq Disaster, the New Orleans levies, and what Warren Buffet called "weapons of financial destruction" a couple of years ago.
We need to take this totally seriously.
Which is why we should follow James Kunstler, Lester Brown from Worldwatch Institute and others and SERIOUSLY cutover to Rail from the auto obsession.
We cannot sustain the suburban automobile-required sprawl lifestyle.
Forget the "more efficient" cars mantra as the way out of our mess in terms
of peak oil, climate change and now economic depression.
When transportation accounts for 70% of oil consumption in the US and over
30% of global warming gases, this is the first place to take serious steps
for change.
But although there are baby steps in the Stimulus Bill to at least stave off mass transit cuts, there is still way too much spending on highways.
Instead the first step is simply to run the mass transit we have - a number of train lines in New Jersey do not even run on the weekends. This is also true for Maryland's MARC system and many other transit systems.
Next step is to consider ways to quickly allow more trains to run via passings
in key places.
Then reopen rails that have been closed.
Add shuttle vans and buses built by US auto companies being bailed out to
do the last miles from rail stations.
Last we need to consider placing rails down existing highways instead of expanding lanes forever.
This could have huge and QUICK payoff in terms of reducing global warming instead of waiting years for the car fleet to turnover.
The number of cars actually went DOWN last year for the first time in history in the US. This is a GOOD thing!
We can get something like 5 to 10 X the savings in oil and greenhouse gases by using rail instead of cars.
We need to press this with all urgency!
Yes I generally agree with you. Do you then think instigating mass panic is a good solution to how bad it is? I read Lester Brown quite often and he does not take a panic perspective. He takes a solutions perspective. Any input that is constructive and helpful and more of it is important. Though I think the general public might fall asleep trying to read his stuff, just MO, I could be wrong.
Leea,
Any solution depends on first admitting that you have a problem. How would finally acknowledging that global warming is a real problem, and we need to stop it, instigate mass panic? People already know it. They will only panic if they see that the danger is imminent. People like Sigdur muddy the waters, because they are duped by lies and pseudo-science financially supported by esp. energy industry.
Some companies would have to limit their activities, or find a solution to their CO2 emissions, if it was widely accepted that that's what needs to be done. They are spending huge amount of money to confuse the general public, and influence lawmakers, so that they are not forced to accept responsibility for contributing to global warming - which would mean huge financial cost and losses for them. They are like Wall Street, in that respect - profit is the only god for them, even if that means that it will eventually kill them, unfortunately, along with everybody else.
Looks like with the new administration things are ever slowly starting to change - we must be running out of oil, or something. Anyway, looks like it's too little, too late. We can't stop all the effects of global warming. However, I hear, chances are we might prevent the worst. Maybe.
Bea
You have good points. As I see it the danger is imminent. I don't think many people do know this. But I could be wrong, of course. I don't really read that Sigdur is muddying the waters, and you might be missing his point. But then you may know him/her better from previous posts, this is the first posting I have seen from him/her. I liked how he/she said good morning to open their comment, very nice.
I hope we can prevent the worst and am in full support of that action.
Thanks for you input to my comment.
Unfortunately I am afraid that a lot of people only react when they realize how serious the problem really is. There have been warnings for years about global
warming and ecological problems. There were warnings for some years about the housing bubble and also the financial gambling casino of derivatives.
Most people are too busy going about their lives as it is to pay attention
unless it is made plain to them how important it is and it is truly clear as a crisis.
"Inconvenient Truth" was a wakeup call for some people but unfortunately
glossed over the role of cars and trucks in helping create the crisis.
Instead Al Gore, like many affluent environmentalists, continues to promote the
placebo "re-invented" car as an adequate solution as it is so much easier for
car addicted Americans to swallow.
Galinwainwright:
I will never be hungry. I will take heat over cold any day of the year, and as far as driving, I hate to drive, but I do have to drive.
Ever read the Bible? The plagues that happened ohhhh so many centuries ago?
Or the last little ice age? How the worlds population declined during that period because ag production fell so dramatically?
Regional weather will always change, just as the climate will always change. There is nothing stagnant about climate. Never has been, never will be.
I will re-iterate, conservation should be the mantra.
I agree, conservation is absolutly nessesary.
However, what the author of the piece was talking about was not talking about 'weather'. He was talking about the impact of a global change in temperature. An increase of as little as 2 degrees GLOBALLY will result in widespread desertification, and will drive the engines of larger, more powerful and more frequent storms.
The expected increase, going by the EVIDENCE, hard data, collected so far by THOUSANDS of scientists, is pointing towards an increase of 6 DEGREES globally!
You say you like it hot. Well, if you live in the American southwest, be prepared to suffer. If you live in northern Europe, especially near the coast, be prepared to move.
You say you will never be hungry... bold assertion. You may have your own garden. And that is good. So do I.
But if rainfall alters drasticly, or your water supply dries up, you WILL starve. It's that simple.
Walk in peace.
Sigurdur, you will survive extremely hot weather for a while, in your air-conditioned house or office, that's for sure. However, animals, and ,more importantly (from the standpoint of your survival), plants won't survive prolonged extreme heat combined with lack of water. Please, explain how you will never be hungry then.
Yes, there have been mass extinctions, plagues, and starvation in Earth's history. So what? I'd rather not go through one, if I can help it. Same goes for a rapid climate change.
Do you really think the fantasy hallucination "God" will save you from the scientifically documented fact that global climate change is real and will drastically effect the Earth's biological systems? Get real!
The peer reviewed Science journal Science lays it all out here in black and white:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
When the world uses an economic system that demands ever increasing growth rates, while at the same time, is confronted with a planet in peril due to rising industrial growth and consumption, I'd say that we have a major contradiction here. The world, to survive, will need to fashion a much different economic system than the capitalist system we presently have. It will require a system that isn't dependent on always accelerating growth based on increasing the consumption of the Earth's resources so that more profits can be made from this exploitation. The starting point is socialism. The elimination of the capitalist class so that a fairer redistribution of wealth to ordinary people can happen, is the first step in controlling our assault on nature. We need a planned economy, under the democratic control of the people, that can come to terms with the environmental crisis rather than the anarchism of production of the capitalist economic model that weighs "success" based on increasing consumption.
-----------------------------------------
What Is Marxism? - a short primer on a subject the working class needs to know.
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html
Marxism has some good insights but living in an environmentally sustainable way isn't one of them, Marx wrote in an age of endless optimism about the ability for industry now owned by the workers to expand infinitely. We now now know that is a 100% fantasy. Try again I suggest reading Herman Dailey on steady state economics or even EF Schumaker Small is Beautiful for a start. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid also hits closer to the mark than Marx as Kropotikin addressed agriculture and small scale cooperative manufacturing something we are going to have seriously think about as resources decline.
Try Karl Polanyi as well.
You are incorrect. Sure, he couldn't have seen the possibility of climate change but he certainly was aware of pollution and the exhaustion of farm lands and spoke of this.
-----------------------------------------
What Is Marxism? - a short primer on a subject the working class needs to know.
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html
Fundamentalist Marxism like all forms of fundamentalism and narrow thought shows its limits rather quickly. In an information age we are far wiser to draw on diversity of approaches drawing on the exponential explosion of scientific and cross cultural knowledge we have had since Marx's time. As I said above Herman Dailey directly deals with the problems of exponential growth using modern scientific and economic theory unlike Marx:
http://www.dieoff.org/page88.htm
Pres. Obama stated in his inaugural speech "We will not apologize for our way of life."
I would ask him "Not even if our luxurious way of life causes the end of a stable climate and the extinction of 50-99 percent of the species on earth?
Below is a list of solutions that no NGO or politician is talking about publicly.
Will you?
Dieoff of 6 Billion by 2100
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of England in the 1920’s did not achieve the lifestyle of today’s average American.
They had no major electric appliances, no air conditioning, no heat pumps, no airline travel, no malls, no super markets, no computers, no cell phones or television.
They may have owned an automobile or two. They were royalty, however they lived without the modern luxuries we take for granted every hour of every day.
The Real Problem: Our Industrial and consumer based civilization does not factor in the external costs of our current lifestyle on the health of the biosphere. Its is delegated to an after thought or mitigation after the damage has been done.
If one weighs all the current science on the state of our natural world, there is only one conclusion, that there is no solution to maintaining our current lifestyles as well as a livable biosphere. What is being offered to us by industry, governments, politicians, and even the big environmental groups are false solutions that only postpone our doom by a few years.
Green Cars: A False Solution
The manufacturing of hybrid, electric or hydrogen automobiles has a larger environmental footprint than manufacturing conventional gasoline automobiles because of the toxics produced during the manufacture and recycling of the batteries and electronics.
Real Solution: No New Automobiles
• Moratorium on the manufacturing and sale of new automobiles by…. 2012
• End of manufacturing of new light trucks and passenger vehicles that achieve less than 30 MPG by 2010
• Existing autos must meet strict emission standards and will be maintained with new motors and parts
Liquid Biofuels: a false solution and great threat to all ecosystems and the world’s poor.
• Rainforest and grasslands are being destroyed around the globe to grow bio-fuel crops
• The Forest Service states that 67 million acres of our National Forests are available to produce 21 billion gallons of ethanol per year (regardless of the consequences to biodiversity and health of the ecosystems)
• Ethanol creates higher formaldehyde and ozone emissions degrading air quality
• Food shortages and riots around the world are already being caused by turning food crops into ethanol
• Genetically engineered microbes for wood-to-fuel conversion could create catastrophic harm if accidentally released into the natural world
Real Solutions via Biofuels
• Utilization of waste oils to power public transportation and waste collection fleets within cities
• Biofuels to farmers for food production and food transportation only
Real solutions to avoid human die off and biological holocaust:
• A Moratorium on new highway construction
• 80% Reduction of man made CO2 & methane releases by 2020
• Build New Rail transportation infrastructure to replace essential highways and freeways throughout the US
• Retool industries that are destroying the biosphere to manufacture components for a new restoration and renewable energy economy
• Re-localization of food production, as well as the manufacturing of essential goods and services to minimize trucking
• A Moratorium on all new fossil and uranium fueled power plants
• A Moratorium on all new airports and airport expansion
• Military and aerospace industries will be retooled to manufacture windmills, high efficiency heating appliances and solar electric technologies
• The Military budgets and personnel will be directed to perform toxic site cleanup (here and abroad), windmill and grid installation, restoration on public lands, and basic energy conservation upgrades to every livable shelter
• Mandate zero release of CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs and methyl bromide
• Mandate zero release of toxics and hormone disrupters into the environment via any manufacturing process or product
• Mandate all non-organic products sold will be reusable or 100% recycled by manufacturer
• Mandate the end of industrial grazing, logging, and mining on public lands
This will require a greater economic and social transition than that during World War II.
However, modern lifestyles will be maintained far beyond that of any human before that time.
We must ask ourselves: what is a living biosphere worth?
Is it worth giving up luxuries like airline travel, a new car, a big screen TV, a few meals per week containing meat, driving alone to work, and buying food and goods produced more than 200 miles away? Is maintaining a functioning community and a stable biosphere worth giving up a few luxuries?
In Conclusion, the big question remains even if we can accomplish the measures prescribed above, will this be enough to avoid the tipping point where global warming is unstoppable, toxics in the environment are beyond biological tolerances, and the subsequent collapse of civilization by the latter half of the 21st century?
I do not know that these real solutions will be enough, however “business as usual” and the false solutions being offered up by industry, corporations, politicians, and the big environmental groups is a recipe for disaster.
Thanks Mr. Englehardt for writing so boldly.
I totally agree with all that with the caveat that the poor are given some sort of vouchers to buy alternative transportation. As someone who makes less than 10,000/year I cannot afford a hybrid, or electric, or fuel cell car and as a landscaper I can't take my tools on the bus. And no that's not apologetics, as an environmental studies major I know we need to change now, the point is that the change needs to made available to everyone or not only is it unjust it simply won't work because 70+% of the worlds poor people won't be able to participate.
"... 70+% of the worlds poor people won't be able to participate."
The world's poor people aren't generating the emissions causing Global Warming. It is the world's rich, those in the G20 nations. The injustice you mention is due to the effects of Global Warming harming those most who've done the least damage to the planet. Vaporize the planet's 1.5 Billon people generating the fatal emissions and we'll see an 80%+ drop in emissions virtually overnight. Just getting rid of the USA's 310 million people who generate over 25% of greenhouse gasses would make quite a dent. Being poor is a good thing; striving for riches is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Way to 100% miss the point Karl, there are a lot of poor people in the large carbon foot print countries especially the U.S. and Europe, Latin America and China to some extent who are for example driving relatively low efficiency cars that they need for their jobs. Until this overall all problem is addressed the problem won't be solved. And no I am not trying to argue the problem shouldn't be addressed I'm saying it should be addressed with the needs of poor people in ALL countries in mind. As I said above if poor peoples transportation needs aren't met not only is that unjust but it simply won't even address the problem period end of story. To put it in concrete terms how many people in the Europe and U.S. drive ten year old plus cars that are probably out of environmental spec due to economic reasons? I would guess it's well over 74 MILLION cars in that condition. I myself drive a 20 year old Toyota Corolla that while it is gas efficient I have no idea if it's on spec C02 wise. The original post I was responding didn't address this which is why I brought it up. If you have anything constructive to add I'm all ears. These are real world problems that we need to address if we want to make massive C02 reductions which we NEED to actually happen.
CO2 emissions are not like other pollutants. If you burn less fuel, you emit less CO2.
The way to address poor peoples transportation needs is for everyone poor and rich, to get out of the suburban areas and live in proper cities again. Employers should be prohibited from locating anywhere there is not ample access to public transportation. These sprawling suburban office/industrial "parks" need to be abolished.
I am aware that there are service jobs which will require a car or truck for the job, but most people are not in this situation.
---USAn---
In Europe, the poor have an excellent public transit system; most don't own autos. The poor in Latin America also use what public transit there is; they cannot afford autos. In China, very few own an auto, and it will be a modern one since auto ownership is a very recent phenomenon; the Chinese poor still rely on their bicycles and public transit. Globally, most of the poor are subsistence farmers--well over 3 billion--and perform an admirable, unpaid service of carbon sequestration through their farming techniques. Automobile CO2 emissionss are directly linked to the displacement of the engine, which determines the amount of fuel it requires. Your older auto is very good when it comes to CO2 pollution, as auto weight is the second major factor in the amount of CO2 emitted.
You're young, in college, face a catastrophic future, and will need to gain wisdom much faster than the norm--4 to 5 times faster. Economic activity must be reduced at least 80%--where does that leave you? Have you ever read The Grapes of Wrath or The Good Earth? Do you understand Overshoot or the implications of Limits to Growth or Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies? Do you comprehend that despite their current state the USA's poor enjoy a degree of comfort and ease far beyond that attained by most people throughout human history?
Damn you are a presumptuous ass Karl, I am 42 years old and was an environmental studies major at Oberlin College (most Phds per capita of any college in the U.S.) TWENTY YEARS AGO and yes I have read most of the above, and some things even more technical like Herman Dailey's economic writings on a steady state society, Jared Diamnd's Collapse, etc. My point if you could read the English language Karl is that as I said in all 3 of my responses yes we need to address all these issues and very soon, we need to do in such a way that poor people can retain their livelihoods how hard is that for you to understand?
Fucking elitists like you bum me out almost as much as war mongering neo-cons. It is exactly pretentious elitist presumptuous people like you who give those of us on the left a bad name as latte drinking effete volvo drivers with more bumper stickers than solutions. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.... Try coming down to my hood outside Detroit and coping that attitude.
Do you really think you'll be able to do outreach to poor people to implement solutions behaving like that?
As for me I have lived at an Earth First base camp in the rain for a year to save the old growth forest in California including getting arrested for locking down to a logging gate. Have canvassed door to door for Greenpeace, have gone to more anti war rallies than I can count, and was pepper sprayed protesting Bush's second inauguration in 2005.
And what have you done EXACTLY to save the planet? Do you drive a car? If so what kind and how many miles a week? What is your domicile heated with? Have you been to any political demonstrations or do you just spend your time on the internet berating activists with what you incorrectly perceive to be your superior wisdom?
If you were any kind of decent human being you'd arguing with that damn climate denier Sigdur and not harassing someone who is quite poor because of time devoted to environmental and anti war activism.
Sensitive, aren't you? Homeless I've been twice, without a car for twelve years, and rode motorcycles for 6. I worked very hard for 35 years and understand just how fortunate I am do be where I am today. I own and designed the greenest house I could. It runs on 100% green electricity and uses wood as its supplementary heating source. I grow what food I can in the climate zone I'm in. I've marched since the Civil Rights/Vietnam war years. And my main project now is to write a proposal for a new governmental blueprint that allows for more democracy with much greater control of the federal government by We The People. Sigdur and his ilk I initially agrue with to expose their "troll nature" and then ignore. I don't have time for them, nor do I have time for uncivil people like yourself.
Thanks for this column. Was it published in The Nation? Malthus was right: Earth has a carrying capacity for humans and an exploitation capacity by humans.
It's laughable that civiliztion is based on unending growth on a finite planet.
Lovelock's advice to humanity is to stop all use of fossil fuels immediately.
That Obama is bailing out auto manufacturers and escalating the killing in Afghanistan puts him off to a bad start. Wars are lost with bad commanders and the atmosphere is an uncompromising adversary.
Meanwhile, Oregon with about 70% normal precipitation worrries that "doing something" about global warming would cost an extra $1935 per year per household by 2020 but then Oregon's corporate business roundtable is headed by Jim Sims, the past director of communications for Cheney's energy task force.
Tom asks why the Propaganda System isn't "connecting the dots." The answer is simple: It's been told not to.
Greenhouse gas emission amounts are directly linked to the amount of economic activity, given how the global economy is engineered. Any reasonable attempt to mitigate the growth of Global Warming calls for at least an 80% reduction in such emissions ASAP--yesterday being the most preferred. Given the linkage between emissions and economic activity, an 80% reduction in one will likely result in an 80% reduction in the other--a result that is unacceptible to the global elite--which is why we heard Bush say that any attempt to lessen emissions is bad for the US economy. Thus the reason why there is no connecting of dots. Implied in the need to reduce emissions by 80% is the need to reduce human populations by the same amount--starting in those countries emitting the most CO2--the English speaking countries mostly.
In light of the direct connection between emissions and economic activity, why are we calling for an economic stimulus, when all that will do is increase the amount of emissions and make attempts to mitigate Global Warming even harder? Implied is the fact that a very deep global economic depression will be very good for the planet's health; and that for its health to continue to improve, the global depression must be made permanent until population reduces to a point enabling some form of economic recovery. I submit it is this very unwelcome truth that very few people are able to admit and will go great lengths to avoid, a la Sig and other ostriches.
Clearly, the global economy will not reduce its emissions enough in the short term to mitigate the more disasterous effects Global Warming will cause. It will be those effects that ultimately forces the global economy to reduce its emissions as the devastation wrought by Global Warming will destroy the global economy by century's end, if not before. That is the stark reality of the situation.
When will people stop confusing regional weather patterns with global climate?
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/herweijer/Herweijer_Seager_IJC.pdf
"Multi-year droughts are a devastating, complex and staggeringly expensive natural hazard. In North America, the most severe multi-year droughts of the last 150 years were the ‘CivilWar’ drought (1856–1865), the 1870s and
1890s droughts, the infamous Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s, the late 1940s–mid 1950s southwestern drought and the present-day drought that has gripped the West
since 1998 (Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998; Cole et al., 2002; Fye et al., 2003; Herweijer et al., 2006; Seager et al., 2005a). In the southern part of South America, in a semi-arid area that encompasses the Andean foothills,
the Sierra Cordoba and the Pampas in Argentina, along with Uruguay and southern Brazil, extended dry spells have also been noted in the 1930s and 1950s (Mechoso
and Iribarren, 1992; Scian and Donnari, 1997; Robertson and Mechoso, 1998; Compagnucci et al., 2002), and inferred from tree-ring data in the 1860s and 1870s (Villalba et al., 1998).
In addition, widespread drought conditions have been documented over much of central and eastern northern Europe during the 1860s (Hulme and Jones, 1994), 1890s, 1930s and the late 1940s/early 1950s (Briffa et al., 1994) and over the European part of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) during the 1890s and 1930s (Meshcherskaya and Blazhevich, 1997). Hoerling and Kumar (2003) noted that the most recent drought (which began in 1998) stretched from North America to Asia, but the in-phase relationship of global historical droughts with North American drought has, until now, been overlooked."
You know, that as devestating as the climate will be from now on just as it has been in varying degrees and at varying times and places, it just seems so quaint that there is an even bigger bear coming up on us that will take every ones attention away from this idea that climate will be what brings us down. Quite frankly, I believe that this financial disaster has all the potentialities to take care of things and it is tied in more closely with a thing called overshoot that along with the climate that most likely in a just about 2 or 3 more decades it will decide the fate of a whole lot of people.
It is not just a ressession that will not be fading away by xmas time, and it is not just a bit of warming that is actually part of the climate change that would be expected at this stage of an ice age, but with a little added help of human's determinism to ravage our societies, environment and eco-systems for the benefit of a few, but it may just be one of those unique times when more than 1 or 2 things vector into a short time frame to wreak havoc to the world.
Go google overshoot.
tuocha
Google "use of punctuation in long sentences".
Hi all. Interesting comments.
Duped by the Oil Co's you say? Ohhhhh....I don't think so.
Oh....I forgot, NASA is an oil co shrill.
Look up Greenland's ice core data on the NASA site. You will see temps rise rapidly, in a 30 year time frame. Just as they seem to cool in that length of time as well.
Read what Prof Levin, MIT, says about co2 caused global warming.
Conservation is the only answer. As more and more is discovered about the effect of the solar wind/ the sun spot cycle, the PDO, the ADO, (that is enough for now)......the more question there is about c02 as other drivers are emerging.
We warmed in our last warming spike till 1998. Since then we have been in a cooling trend. That is weather. A few decades do not make "climate".
California has been pumping in water for over 50 years. The avail of water to be pumped has finally reached its maximum. This fact should surprise no one as the Central Valley is a desert, only greened with water from the Colo River etc.
And.......no, I won't go hungry. Where I live, when we cool the precip goes down. When we are in a warm cycle, the precip goes up.
No dumbass you are simply wrong here is what the peer reviewed journal Science has to say on the matter:
"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
See also:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/071213-warmest-years.html
I hope the fossil fuel industry is at least paying you to spread disinformation Sigurdur if you are doing their dirty work of lying about proven science for free you are just pathetic.
Sigurdur,
I am not going to argue with another jackass about global warming, but at least get your facts strait. The 10 warmest years ever recorded (ie since 1850) are ranked as follows:
1. 1998
2. 2005
3. 2003
4. 2002
5. 2004
6. 2006
7. 2007
8. 2001
9. 1997
10. 2008
You and your ilk latch onto something, like new discoveries about sunspots and whatnot, and lose sight of the whole picture. There is no one single factor that is responsible for climate, be it sunspots, solar wind, CO2 emissions, you name it. So, please stop making a fool of yourself.
And conservation? Sure. But why would YOU endorse conservation if there is no global warming? Conservation is the answer to what?
Shh......MiMiCcS. A bit of fact might upset some here.
"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
NOTE the word......likely???
Go ahead.....read Prof Levin's comments. He has retired now, but he was the Head of the Meteorology Dept when he was a contributer to the 2001 IPCC report.
And to all the deniers.....the trend since 1998 has been one of cooling. Sorry folks, but that is just fact.
And you had better examine where.......co2 emmisions actually come from. What part of total co2 comes from man. And that is why the word.......LIKELY......comes into play.
The sun WILL come up tomorrow.....and it will likely warm up during the day. However, I can date 8 days in the past 30 where the temp dropped all day.
Please learn to read........and understand. And please read the whole IPCC report. NOt the short cover letter, but the whole durn thing.
from the EPA's web site.
Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have historically varied as a result of many natural processes (e.g. volcanic activity, changes in temperature, etc). However, since the Industrial Revolution humans have added a significant amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and other activities. Because greenhouse gases absorb and emit heat, increasing their concentrations in the atmosphere will tend to have a warming effect. But the rate and amount of temperature increase is not known with absolute certainty. Changes in the atmospheric concentration of the major greenhouse gases are described below:
ABSTRACT:
Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of many aspects of abrupt climate changes, and particularly of those associated with the Younger Dryas event, as reviewed here. Well-preserved annual layers can be counted confidently, with only ~1% errors for the age of the end of the Younger Dryas ~11,500 years before present. Ice-flow corrections allow reconstruction of snow accumulation rates over tens of thousands of years with little additional uncertainty. Glaciochemical and particulate data record atmospheric-loading changes with little uncertainty introduced by changes in snow accumulation. Confident paleothermometry is provided by site-specific calibrations using ice-isotopic ratios, borehole temperatures, and gas-isotopic ratios. Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local, regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these paleoclimatic changes.
To read or view the full study, please visit the Science Direct website.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html
I don't know when NOAA became a shrill of the oil co's, but if you have documented evidence of such, I would sure like to know about it.
I am thinking we need to build more suburban areas and golf courses in desert areas like LAS VEGAS . I MEAN WHATS BETTER THAN WATERING A LAWN IN THE MIDDLE OF A DESERT!
The elites are licking their lips. They love the idea of uprooting and relocating whole civilizational infrastructures to mitigate the global warming THEY created. Millions of tons of old concrete "left behind" in favor of millions of tons of new concrete on THE NEW FRONTIER! Demolition and construction jobs for all! Teach the kids to be thrilled and thankful. Media, get to work!
All of Sigdur's fossil fuel industry funded b.s. is decisively refuted by links to peer reviewed research here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
See also:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
See also:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp
See also for a timeline of progress of our overall understanding of the climate issue:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/etc/cron.html
And here is a list of climate deniers and their funding sources by big oil:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/04/put-tiger-your-think-tank-part-ii
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
Stop spreading lies and disinformation on behalf of big oil Sigdur. You are as bad as those who shilled on behalf of the tobacco industry denying lung cancer. Holocaust denial comes to mind too. :(
Good Evening.
I can spell it out more clearly if you so desire.
1998 was the warmest year in recent time. 8,000-6,000 BP we were warmer than we are now. That is fact based on NOAA's Greenland Ice cores. Read the abstract etc of that study.
Are there many climate drivers. There sure are. Co2 is one of them, but only one of many. Do we understand all the drivers? No we do not.
Have we been declining in temps since 1998? Yes we have. Climate year 2008 is .4C lower than 1998. In fact, the decline of over .4C in 10 years is a very rapid decline in global temps.
Why should we conserve resources? That is the correct thing to do. The earth has finite resources, and it is only common sense to conserve them. Most of us have children, and we would like to leave them a planet that can substain their lives as it has ours.
I don't understand how educated people keep thinking weather is climate. Climate spans 100's of years, weather a few decades. The oceans have cooled dramatically, the temps have gone down dramatically, but that off itself is only weather and not climate.