Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| As Climate Change Rushes Forward Unchecked, We are Fiddling While Rome Burns |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2015-11-17
Open Letter on the Subject of Climate Change/Global Warming to All Who Have Heard and Believed the Predictions About Severe Climate Change But Done Little or Nothing to Avert These Changes. For Too Long We Have Done Nothing Global Warming / Climate Change (GWCC) was “announced” in 1960 (55 years ago). Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. The level is 315 ppm in 1960. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.Some very few of us heard this early announcement. We very few did nothing to reverse GWCC. In effect, we very few fiddled while Rome burned. A more widely heard announcement occurred in 1970 (45 years ago) on the First Earth Day. Environmental movement attains strong influence, spreads concern about global degradation.Many more of us heard the warning announcements in 1970. But, again, we many more did nothing to reverse GWCC. In effect, we many more fiddled while Rome burned. If We Are Going to Reduce GHG Emissions to Near Zero When Do We Start? Climate scientists told all the world that mankind was causing GWCC by our continued burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) and by other of our activities that flood the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (GHGs). They told us that if we did not cut our production of GHGs to zero, or nearly to zero (a cut in the USA by 90% is pretty close to zero!) [1] and quickly, we would cause the earth to be so vastly transformed that life as we know it today on earth would either be monumentally disrupted or even ended within a short period, perhaps 100 years. They told us that the daily accumulation of GHGs might not make changes perceptible today but would by their very accumulation set in train irreversible changes over the long-term. If CO2 emission continues up to the year 2100, then the warming in the year 2100 would only be about 60% of the “committed warming” from the CO2 concentration in 2100. This calculation seems rather callous, almost sneaky, given the inevitability of warming once the CO2 is released. I suspect that many in the community are not aware of this sneaky implication of restricting our attention to a relatively short time horizon.How much CO2 emission is too much? Today, everyone not hiding in a closet knows about GWCC. A recent warning of the dangers of GWCC is here. Today, atmospheric CO2 stands at 398.29 ppm. (co2now.org) Without more ambitious policies, the Baseline projects that atmospheric concentration of GHG would reach almost 685 parts per million (ppm) CO 2 - equivalents by 2050. This is well over the concentration level of 450 ppm required to have at least a 50% chance of stabilising the climate at 2 degrees (2°C) global average temperature increase, the goal set in 2010 at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Cancún. Under the Baseline projection, global average temperature is likely to exceed this goal by 2050, and by 3° to 6° C higher than pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. (CO2 - Why 450 ppm is Dangerous and 350 ppm is Safe.). Climate scientists told the industrialized world that it had a stark choice. One option was to reduce emission of GHGs to close to zero and do it fairly quickly. This would be a very disruptive change to our industrialized activities, world-wide—disruptive from the perspective of life as usual. The other option was to reduce GHG emissions to near zero later (or not at all). This would be far less immediately disruptive to our industrial way of life, allowing a few years—maybe a generation—of “life as usual”, but would condemn humankind (and much of the rest of life on earth) to what might (in the best case) be far more disruptive climate-change-caused changes and might (in the worst case) be civilization-ending changes later. As far as I can see, the “powers that be”—and all the rest of us—have either not believed what we were told or not dared (or not wanted) to “rock the boat” in the ways required to prevent calamity. We Are All Miscreants By today, we have all heard these warning announcements. And again, we have done nothing to reverse GWCC. This is why I have called myself and all of you “Fellow Miscreants”. Rome is burning. We must stop fiddling. Governments Are Doing Worse than Nothing For many years, and surely today, it has been clear that our ruling elites—governments and great corporations—have neither the intention nor the capacity of acting in an effective way to forestall GWCC. I write in mid-November, 2015, and the Paris Climate Talks are scheduled to begin in two weeks. I see no reason to expect much progress from these talks. Of course, I hope I’m wrong. If the world is to avoid climate catastrophe, it will have to forego burning almost 90% of proven coal reserves, plus one-third of oil and half of natural-gas reserves. But instead of implementing policies aimed at realizing that objective, governments continue not only to subsidize the fossil-fuel industry, but also to use scarce public resources to find new reserves. That has to change – and fast. Assuming that the governments persist in inactivity, then it is up to us to show them the way, to force their hands, to replace them, to overthrow them, to do whatever it takes. What is not satisfactory is for us to continue to do nothing. What Gets in the Way of Action ? My present impression is that almost every element of modern “civilized” or “Western” or “industrialized” life gets in the way of taking action. •Specialization Gets in the Way As individuals, we generally feel personally powerless. Most of us are neither climate scientists (who are “closer” to understanding the causes and effects of GWCC) nor social or industrial engineers (who might participate in designing the steps to counter GWCC). We are, most of us, “just plain folks”. We are not, most of us, “specialists” in any aspect of GWCC. Worse yet, we are most of us “specialists” in something else who believe we must confine our efforts to doing what we specialize in and must shun public action in other fields. It is not a question of “What, me worry?” Of course we worry! Then what is it? It is a lifetime of being accustomed to let work of any kind be done by specialists. We forget that no-one yet has “specialized” in solving the problem of GWCC. If we don’t do it it isn’t going to be done. What Prevents Governments from Acting? But surely dealing with GWCC is the province of our leaders (politicians and industrial corporate elites). So we should inquire what prevents them from acting. I’d say that several factors prevent them from acting. • Nationalism Gets in the Way Nationalism includes a tendency to put one’s own nation first in importance before other nations. Nationalism persuades wealthy nations not to spend vast sums of money to help poorer nations do what it would take to “get off” fossil fuels. Nationalism also persuades wealthy nations (which have the means to act to reduce GHG-emissions) not to do so if other industrialized nations will not also do so and at the same time. No nation wants to be first to cut GHGs because they see doing so as putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage w.r.t. competitiveness. And so, as in so many other matters, competition induces a “race to the bottom”—in this case a race toward paralysis, here a paralysis which leads ultimately to death. And, indeed, even within the USA itself, our unwillingness to “go first” (an unwillingness not entirely shared by several European nations) has had the result that spending to replace GHG-emitting processes (such as electric generation) with “green” processes has been imperceptible. In short, because of nationalism, wealthy nations often prefer to suffer whatever GWCC may bring later to suffering what they perceive as competitive disadvantages today. I hear echoes of “Millions for defense, not a cent for tribute.” I hear echoes of “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face” (letting your own overreaction or under-reaction lead to self-harm.) The USA has just spend $1T ($1,000,000,000.00) for a useless and dreadfully destructive war in Iraq fought—it seems to many—to preserve the USA’s domination of Gulf oil exporting; but will not spend $1T (or much at all!) to prevent the death of civilization from GWCC. Apparently we will spend to control others but not to control ourselves. We, friends, need to discover the means to overcome the inhibitions to action to curb GWCC which arise from nationalism. • Capitalism and Ownership and Greed and Caution Get in the Way Great corporations are unable, on the whole, to agree to take any step (and of course to agree to be first to take any step) which will be vastly costly and undermine their profitability. Fossil-fuel-producing corporations have not been notably forward about calling attention to GWCC or willing to change their business models or to just go out of business altogether. Electric generation companies have not been quick to clean-up their emissions or to abandon fossil-fuels in favor of wind-power, solar-power, etc. No corporation sees itself as able to “be first”. And if electric generation companies will not switch to “renewables”, why don’t the federal government and state governments step in and do it themselves? Well, the reason is “capitalism”. For some reason even doing things to combat GWCC are seen as illicit for governments to do, lying (it is said ever so persuasively) in the realm of “free enterprise” (despite the near absolute reluctance of “free enterprise” to do anything about it). People who profit from ownership of lands from which fossil-fuels are extracted don’t want to see those profits stop. They resist action to curb GWCC. People who own buildings will not be quick to replace heating/cooling systems which are powered by fossil-fuels with systems which are powered by “green” energy sources. Replacing fossil-fuel powered home and building heating systems with electrical systems would be very costly and people are not doing it. (And, of course, electricity today is not only very expensive in many places but is hardly “green” today.) Today, in many places, every building could direct its electric utility to purchase electric power from “green” sources. If we all did so, then within a few years much fossil-fuel based electric generation could be replaced by “green” energy production. But by and large, we don’t do that. It is or seems too expensive. We are too cautious. We are, as individuals and small businesses, to “greedy” to use our own small contributions to correct the overall system. And it is not only “we” who are too cautious. Our cities and states also do not do so. The federal government of the USA, for instance, does not demand that all the electric power it uses be generated by “green” processes! Think of the revolutionary effect of that buying power! But it doesn’t happen. (Nor have the vast changes to infrastructure that will be needed to replace fossil-fuels used for heating and cooling buildings, running industrial processes, and running surface and air and water transportation been much talked about—to say nothing of being begun as a practical matter.) We need to overcome the inhibitions to action to curb GWCC which arise from capitalism and ownership and greed and caution. • Ideology Gets in the Way When the Koch brothers use their vast wealth to purchase anti-science and anti-action propaganda, some will say that this is, once again, the old problem of ownership-capitalism-greed getting in the way—and that may indeed be the whole truth of the matter. But it is also possible that the Kochs are acting from an ideology (for instance an ideological opposition to science, or opposition to the idea that what people have been doing for 100 years is harmful, an opposition to any interference whatever with “free enterprise”, etc.). And it is certainly possible that the readiness of the people who so eagerly accept the Koch-purchased protests against climate science springs from such ideologies, whatever the Kochs themselves may believe. Belief that capitalism and “free markets” are the solution to all things is preached as if it were an ideology and may well be embraced by some people as an ideology. Such “true believers” would in effect believe in “capitalism and free markets today, tomorrow, and forever, though the skies should fall.” A dangerous ideology if it turns out that elements of capitalism and/or free markets need to be revised or done away with for an effective fight against GWCC to be waged. Belief, especially among the very rich, that oligarchy/plutocracy (the method of governance by which all or most power resides in the hands of a very few very rich people) is the solution to all problems is exercised in practice as if it were an ideology. The clutching hands of the oligarchs/plutarchs are, so far, clutching as if under control of the belief that “oligarchy/plutocracy must be preserved today, tomorrow, and forever, ‘til Hell freezes over” (or, as GWCC proceeds, until the earth becomes too hot to support life). Since there is little sign that the oligarchs/plutarchs have done anything to reverse GWCC and since they seem to have done much to delay action to mitigate it, this ideology (if such it be) or traditional power-play (if such it be) must be fought. Democracy has many, even desperate, flaws—but rearranging deck-chairs on the apparently sinking ship of oligarchy/plutocracy cannot be better. Til today, despite GWCC, our system of governance in the USA has not seen fit to eliminate the tax-breaks and other subsidies we pay to fossil-fuel producers. Worse yet, it has not taken anything like these subsidies and applied them to promotion of renewable-energy installations. This is a clear case of the action of oligarchy/plutocracy and may, in addition, be a side-effect of the very nasty give-away-of-sovereignty effects of investment-protection treaties (misleadingly called “free trade” agreements) such as NAFTA. Writing about the TPP’s version of Investor-State Dispute Settlement system, Columbia University analysts conclude: Overall, the US claims to have made a number of improvements to the ISDS system and investment protection standards included in the TPP. While reforms would of course be welcome, the changes that have been made to the TPP do not address the underlying fundamental concerns about ISDS and strong investment protections; in some cases, the changes represent just small tweaks around the margins, while in other cases, the provisions represent a step backwards. At their core, ISDS and investor protections in treaties establish a privileged and powerful mechanism for foreign investors to bring claims against governments that fundamentally affect how domestic law is developed, interpreted and applied, and sideline the roles of domestic individuals and institutions in shaping and applying public norms. For this reason, the TPP should drop ISDS altogether, or replace it with a new and truly reformed mechanism that addresses the myriad concerns that are still lurking in the TPP. (The TPP’s Investment Chapter: Back to ideologies: there is also a possibility that some religious folks may believe that life-as-we-live-it-today is part of God’s plan and should not be disturbed, that GWCC is either a false threat or is also part of God’s plan. The general inactivity to mitigate GWCC suggests, though I’ve never heard it said, that such an ideology operates within the world’s populations. (This would be odd, because no-one imagines that we got where we are today without a great deal of human effort and manipulation. so getting out off our difficulties should be achieved the same way.) Lastly, it must be said that those who live comfortably in this often very uncomfortable world are so tied to their comforts (their comforts of the moment, be it stressed!) that, like a small child who will not give up his comfort-blanket, such people are simply unwilling to contemplate and thus to agitate in favor of changes to our industrial way of life which may (or which will surely) make life considerably less comfortable—even though they have been told and in fact believe that their failure to make such changes will bring on the destruction of civilization, but not for 25 or 50 or 100 years. Apres Moi Le Deluge This is the psychological mechanism of “apres moi le deluge”. This is the choice of deliberate humanicide done to preserve today’s comforts. This is akin to the shut-down of sympathy of people who live inside gated communities for those who live outside the gates, except that the shut-down of sympathy is for all future generations including those living already as children. This attitude may never be defended as an idea, as an ideology, but it may be the very hardest attitude to shake. Akin to greed. To summarize this point, when Americans and others fail to act on GWCC, it may well be because they see acting as destructive (or excessively disturbing) of something ideologically valuable—as destruction of capitalism or destruction of our “way of life” or destruction of the oligarchic mechanism of governance which the very rich have so carefully crafted in recent decades—and are ideologically prevented from taking or even inquiring about steps which are necessary to prevent the vast destruction of humankind and the rest of living creation which is the promise of unchecked GWCC. The Spoiled Child Syndrome I’m neither rich nor powerful, but I do love my comforts and am mighty loathe to abandon them. Still, I cannot bring myself to condemn all future generations to death and destruction just so I can continue my comfortable life. But what can we say of the billionaire class, particularly those who use their money to “buy” political action? These folks have gotten so used to the “system” (which I call oligarchy or plutocracy) of buying whatever political action they want, that they fall into over-use of the system and forget to consider carefully whether they should be pursuing whatever they want. They forget to ask whether they want something that is harmful to themselves, their children, or humanity more generally. The plutocrat who continues to “buy” political resistance to action against GWCC is following his desire (like any spoiled child using his tantrum to get what he wants) but has not asked himself whether he should wish to use his power this way. If asked whether he wants to bring on the end-of-things-human, he’d probably say “No”, but his actions say “Yes”. The Worst Syndrome: Who Cares About People? All This Climate Change Business is Really Too Much of a Distraction From What Really Matters, Isn’t It? Our political elites and corporate oligarchs may, though, after all, have a far simpler reason for refusing to get caught up in the enormous problem of GWCC. It’s simply too much of a distraction from what—to them—constitutes real life. “Who cares about human beings or the future?” one imagines them asking, “the destruction of people by war and the imposition of rotten government via imposed dictatorships has been a central part of serious governance for a long time. Governance is not about people or about the future—it is about current profits.” Well, perhaps that is the real story. Sad if true. Calling for revolution, if true. Here’s a telling comment from an essay of Naomi Klein: One further thought. I write these words from Stockholm, where I have been doing a series of climate-related public events. When I arrived, the press was having a field day with a tweet sent by Sweden’s environment minister, Åsa Romson. Shortly after news broke of the attacks in Paris, she tweeted her outrage and sadness at the loss of life. Then she tweeted that she thought it would be bad news for the climate summit, a thought that occurred to everyone I know who is in any way connected to this environmental moment. Yet she was pilloried for her supposed insensitivity – how could she be thinking about climate change at a time of such carnage? Must There Be Revolution? I am not a revolutionary, a bomb-thrower. The inaction of our governors and the corporate oligarchs strongly suggests that there must, nevertheless, be revolution. But consider this: there will be revolution of one kind or another, necessarily, inevitably. If we manage in timely fashion to get enough change to combat GWCC, that change will be revolutionary—whether we do it peacefully or otherwise. But if we fail to make such changes in timely fashion, the disastrous changes brought about by GWCC will be revolutionary. Thus, there is no escape from revolution of one kind or another. There is still time for us to choose between different kinds of revolution. The Challenge We, who have been so inactive, must get busy and become active. We must overcome our own ideological and attitudinal reservations to climate-action. We must describe the threat of GWCC to those who don’t yet understand it. And that description must be understandable, vivid, and persuasive. We must spend time and spend effort and spend money on all this. And we must bring to the fore those people who are thinking about what needs to be done. And. most of all, we must end the long quiet which too many of us have too long preserved. We must replace that quiet with a better music. A Better Music All this independent fiddling while Rome burns is rather discordant, don’t you think? Don’t we owe it to future generations to make better music together? ----------- [1] Global greenhouse gas emissions will need to be at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050—that means cuts by industrialized countries such as the U.S. of more than 90 percent—and on a path to zero emissions. See: How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions |
Comments:
| Rustin McIntosh 2015-11-24 | |
| This is a good discussion of people's values and principals in the context of climate change. The example of the reaction to Paris terrorism and climate action is a good one: immediate vs. long-term. I did not spot mention of the green-washing that is going on: many corporations, governments and institutions HAVE made major commitments to curbing GHG emissions, and then seriously cooked the books to make it look like they have done a lot more than they really have. There also is little mention of the good things that happen with many things people can to to reduce GHG emissions. For example, riding a bicycle for transportation saves $, is clean and quiet, cuts back on imports of oil from a bunch of nations that hate America's guts, and if you do this you will know physical fitness and have the body of a high-school varsity athlete. Its funny how reluctant people are to do this in a nation so obsessed with vanity and having an attractive appearance. This paper points out many forms of denial and their possible sources, but I did not see a statement that saving energy is patriotic. This could be made in contrast to borrowing trillions from China for defense spending. The same sort of denial prevents people from admitting that the military-industrial complex is and has been a big-time welfare state. Another thing this paper could mention is the connections between soil management, water cycles and agricultural practices with atmospheric carbon concentrations. This is relatively new science, but there have been some very exciting discoveries on this front, and soil carbon management is likely to be a huge part of any solution to the climate change problem. |
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |