Climate chaos is inevitable. We can only avert oblivion 13 June 08

Sadly, democratically governments are unable to take the correct and full course of action to combat climate changes. Whilst public opinion is moving in the right direction, it’s seems to be nowhere near the point where the masses will actually vote for restraint and self denial. The impression I get from everyone I speak with is that by the time a majority of the electorate are prepared to vote for action, it will be too late to advoid the dreadful consequences of a 3C or more rise. Of course they will blame governments for not acting sooner!

The cost of sea level rises alone seem to be sufficient to make a business case.

Here in Australia the recent Garnaut Report suggests an emissions trading scheme in place by 2010. Yahoo I hear you say, but knockers say how can we go first and put us in to an economically disadvantaged position. The media has jumped on this angle and is scare mongering the masses. Rediculous… when will the world wake up!

Thanks for your book, I can’t sleep now, but thanks for your book.

In Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jarod Diamond noted that politicians have a 90 day outlook. They only care about issues in the next 90 days – a considerable time to humans, but an eye blink on geological time scales.

At this point, I believe that until we hit 2 or even 3 degrees, global warming deniers are going to still be here and government inaction is going to continue. Then and only then, they will look as ridiculous as those who claim that smoking tobacco does not cause lung cancer.

This reminds me of Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister during the 1930s. He negotiated with Adolf Hitler and signed a piece treaty over German demands for more land. At the time, in 1938, the public was very reluctant to go to war. Only later when Hitler broke the treaty, Chamberlain became something of a scapegoat, and Winston Churchill, the man who had constantly advocated for a second war, a hero. The public will be very reluctant to do anything until they can see the consequences for themselves, then they will panic and look for a scapegoat.

Public perception is the biggest problem. People are reluctant to change their lifestyles and view being “green” as costly (as if been “carbon” is not someday going to be costly!). As Al Gore noted in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, if we do the right thing, we will create jobs and wealth.

The question is, how to convince the public and the world, that this is a problem and the sooner genuine action is taken, the less severe the consequences will someday be.

Pain may cause a reaction, but does not guarantee learning.

“Lessons not learned will be repeated”

Six Degrees put to paper what I have been researching the past two years. I came to the same depressing conclusions intuitively. There is one variable out there that is a solution, albeit a hard one. It would cause almost the instantaneous reduction of fossil fuel consumption across the globe. It would allow peak co2 loads to fall and the warming of climate be less than 3c. In addition to my research on climate change, I follow the CIDRAP website for statistics on communicable, tropical and mesquito born diseases. The medias attention about Avian Flu has died down but scientists are still diligently tracking the outbreaks and ferociously working toward a vaccine to prevent a pandemic that would leave approximately 1/3 of the world’s population alive, and the infrastucture of all nations in such desertion, that commerce by means of fossil fuels will quickly abate. It would force the remaining society to return to local farming practices, but as humans, we are very adaptable. It would prevent billions of people from starving to death, stop the destruction of ecosystems and give most species a chance to survive. Disease is a natural component of the checks and balances set to kept any population of species from overgrowth. It is a much gentler way of dying than starvation, thirst, homelessness and anarchy. Such a simple solution, yet we are horrified at the idea of a pandemic that could save the world for future generations. Haven’t we been selfish enough? When will we love the earth and its inhabitants enough to save it for future generations? And what are we saving these billions of people for? To die agonizing deaths by starvation, thirst, and war? I pray every night for a gentle, peaceful death, and that the world be saved. I doubt it will be if left up to us, but sometimes God can do for us that we can’t do for ourselves. By the way, they are doing clinical trials on the attenuated virus vaccine now, and it is showing promise. Humans are so smart now we will condemn ourselves and the earth to a horrible annihilation.

It is now clear to me what I have suspected for some time – the people who are the most vociferous on the subject of climate change do not love the Earth – they hate people. They are what the late Bernard Levin called S.I.F s – Single Issue Fanatics, and will not be happy until the majority of us pesky humans are eliminated, and the rest are reduced to conditions last experienced in Mediaeval times. Climate change has occured many times in the Earth’s history, and will occur many more times in the future. The idea that human activity is solely responsible for changing the planet’s climate seems frankly risible, given that there were not many S.U.V’s in the Permian!

I have mixed you feelings and I completely agree with you. The changes that we see every day make us worrying. I’d like to present only one interesting fact witch I have heard. You know this situation depends on the level of the life of people. The poor people don’t worry about the nature; they think how to survive in this world. Let’s imagine. They are majority. Who will think?

Frankly speaking I am afraid of predicting the future because my forseeinga are so pessimistic. I know that governments meet to make commitments on climate change, but then backtrack or fail to comply with them. And there are many films about the future of the planet.