Source of China's Yellow River drying up 12 October 05

Back in 1945 we used to have a lot of snow already in the beginning of October in Helsinki. Even in 1968-69 I used to start cross country skiing 30 km north of the Bay of Finland in the middle of October. The last few years snow enough to be able to ski, fell only in January. Today everything is green or yellow in our town. Temperatures during the day as high as 16-17 C degrees.

During the 80-ties and 90-ties many new animals have come to our country; song swans are abundant in the south (during the 50-ties there were a few couples in the Åand achipelago only). Phalacrocorax carbo (we call it “Skarw”) a bird totally alien is now found in the thousands in our achipalagoes. Deer thrive since the last 10 years although they have to be fed to survive the winter in the southern parts of Finland. We have I believe, more rain than during normal summers. In my place at the coast, we hade 38 mm of rain in just 3 hours in July 2004! I enjoyed reading High Tide very much. Will recommend. Cheers Carl-Johan Krogius

I just returned from Sweden and my relatives state many of the same things that you do. 30 years ago if I visited Sweden in late Sept. early Oct. it was cold, sometimes very cold. And all the leaves were yellow. I spent the last two weeks there wearing only a T-shirt and hardly ever put a coat on. 17-19 degrees was typical with an odd 20-21 degrees. The real change though was at night. It stayed warm at night and was maybe 15 degrees at dawn. And yes, animals and plants are changing in Scandinavia. Also here in Northern Minnesota near the Canadian border, we have shifted seasons by around 5-6 weeks since I was a child. Then we had frost in late Aug early Sept, now it is Oct 10 and we have had only one very mild frost and the leaves are just turning. 30 years ago all leaves were gone before the end of Sept. Lake Superior the largest fresh water lake in the world has almost no ice formation any more. 30 years ago it froze solid by Jan. It is evidence we see and live every day, those of us who are old enough to remember our climate of 50 years ago know something is happening and fast! Thanks for your experience there in Finland!

I thought all I had to do was tell people about this problem. At the time it was thought to be a serious problem, mainly creeping up slowly in the future. Now it’s an horrendous extinction-level-event that is clearly upon us, perhaps the worst situation to ever face humanity (aside from facing the possibility of blowing ourselves and the world up 8 times over with our nuclear weapons). Even the scientists cannot keep up with it. But unlike the nuclear threat (which could more easily be controlled by world leaders not pushing the button), much of GW is a done deal, and we can only hope to reduce the terrible impact. And when you get to this level of extremely bad harm in the future, then each & every tiny increment we can reduce it is of tremendous help. And each & every increment we enhance it is of tremendous harm.

And still the world is sluggish moving on this.

My heart is sick.

I thought all I had to do was tell people about this problem

This presumes, Lynn, that folk are mostly acting on rational or Enlightenment principles, have the sensory capacity to apprehend the multiscalar phenomena, have the resources and time at hand to change their behaviors, and have the will to change their behavior for uncertain benefits in the future.

The world is sluggish because societies turn slowly, and there is no impetus to turn.

Best,

D

Dano, what an excellent pithy statement. In my discussions with all and sundry on GW/CC I’m struck by the range of responses many of which seek to deny what is happening. In addition to the science and politics we need to have an understanding of psychology.

A catastrophic event may change perceptions but it will have to one which both affects many in the rich world and is incontrovertibly linked with GW/CC.

However having attended the End of Oil conference here in London the other day I suspect we may have an issue which can help. GW/CC means we have to establish alternative forms of energy ASAP. So does the End of Oil. Higher oil prices, supply chain problems and breakdowns and resource wars are with us already. This trend will continue. There will be increasing pressure to reconsider energy usage and sources both at corporate and individual level.

I think we need to get used to referring to the End of Oil and GW/CC in the same breath. It might help the selling/framing problem as well.

Embryonic thoughts – comments welcome.

Douglas Coker

which can turn the world (or parts of it) around fairly fast.

I remember living in the Sunset Dt of San Francisco from the mid-late 60s—I worked in SF for a couple of years before going to college over in Berkeley. It seemed to happen almost overnight. I remember seeing some fellows on the bus carrying cattails (marsh plant) with them. The looked “normal,” no long hair at that point. We got in a great conversation about H. D. Thoreau, then they got off in Haight-Ashbury (a transitional, multi-racial neighborhood then, lots of leather-jacket types, a bit tough & scary), a few stops away from my Sunset stop. I didn’t know it then, but these were the first hippies I saw. Then I started seeing long-haired men & women, mainly in H-A, then elsewhere. Then they were all over (& I in my hospital white uniform couldn’t have looked more different). Then the bus had to reroute around H-A because of the tremendous crowds.

It was like the pied-piper had called, and all across the nation things were changing.

I had a distaste for the drug & free-sex aspects, but I always liked much of the hippy thinking – which seemed closer to Christianity than mainstream culture (which I felt was totally hypocritical – AND still is, despite many Americans going around saying “Lord, Lord”).

So, let’s have an anti-GW, hippy movement – one last hurrah before the now rapidly aging hippies get filed away in nursing homes…..

Thanks Doug.

I think about this a lot, as some of my work entails making scientific findings actionable for policy-makers. Western society is set up such that it must deal with capitalism (either as an economic choice or as a trading partner).

In this scheme, the individual (the source for action) must have an economic incentive to act, as Western societies are generally distanced from nature – as such, feedbacks from nature are not received by sensory input. Economic feedbacks have replaced feedback from nature.

Couple this with the realization that we don’t pay full costs for things (externalities) and whole sections of the consumption-waste process are invisible to the individual. Some (incl. me) work toward monetizing ecosystem services, in order to clarify what is being destroyed. Some work toward taxing effluent or carbon or waste or whatever, in order to clarify the magnitude of our actions. Some wish to bring a number of disciplines together to holistically approach the system. Others wish to muddy these waters in order to continue with the status quo and maintain profits.

That is the ship and the waters in which it plies. Who will take hold of the wheel and steer?

Best,

D

I absolutely concur with your comments, Dano (although I personally dislike talking about “capitalism” as I think it bring’s all kinds of 19th Century baggage with it.)

I think there are a lot of choices that society and people can make; and a lot depends on our ideas to understand what those choices are.

As you indicate, I think we need to develop are the notion of natural capital (see interesting capital). It’s essential that we value nature in a very different way that we have, to a large extent, hitherto.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1589591,00.html

Also, actions have to be made real to individuals in the choices that are made everyday & longer-term (purchases, investments in renewables, jobs/careers, moral decisions etc. etc.).

Regards,

Peter

Many researchers and others would reply to this by saying it is much too early to draw any conclusions. 30 years is a too short period when analysing global climate change. A debate programme was recently shown on Swedish television where two opposite strands of climate researchers debated whether there really is a climate change and whether it is caused by our carbon dioxid emissions or by natural causes. You know – the same old debate.

But does it matter? Are we willing to take the risk of neglecting these possible signs, just because they can’t be confirmed? Do they really think we have time to stop the development when we finally have this ‘evidence’?

But you all know this already…

Thanks, by the way, for an interesting ‘debating hall’!

/Hanna – new reader