Desktop   Tablet   Phone

Open Future New Zealand

Climate Code Red

Another sad admission that conservation fails to save our planet.

Those of us who have been attempting to engage in restoration, and for recognition of climate change for many years, (for 50 years in my case) wonder is all this effort hasn't been a complete failure.

There seems to be a pattern that I observe in my life, that others who have been at this for a while can also identify. There is every reason to make progress, but the key people involved get cold feet. Nothing happens. Then a new group of key people arrive and we begin again. Forty years later you recognise that the environment is still in decline. Conservation has been a failure; in most of a lifetime very little has been achieved. Worse, is that most people think that it's normal for the world to be like this. "It is what it is," as some people say. There is almost no appetite for change if it involves giving up anything the we 'deserve' because we are honest and hard working and productive members of society.

When Extinction Rebellion block the street and cause problems in a bank, some of us wonder why they are so angry and if that's at all justified? So let me lay out a little of my own history and you be the judge.

---

At this time when I was studying economics. This book rang a bell for me. I then believed that the solution was good legislation and market forces. That would be part of the work I would try to do in my life. I need to conclude now, that the effort has been a failure.

This report was funded by the Club of Rome, and the reaction against it in the USA in particular was strong. Still the findings, seem to have stood the test of time quite well. Much better than anyone expected.

---

The Global 2000 Report to the President of the U.S.A.

The Global 2000 Report (1980) was based on the best data and models available from 14 participating government agencies plus the World Bank. Projections were made using computer models. Even today, Wikipedia cannot agree about the significance of the report. However, it did make President Jimmy Carter very unpopular in important places.

---

Gus Speth, was the chief environmental adviser to President Carter, and later served at the United Nations. In the 1998 he told Naomi Oreskes that the USA was well on the way to making real changes. Then it all fell apart. In 2004 he was Dean of the School of Forestry and Environmental studies at Yale University.

"Red Sky at Morning" was intended to show everyone exactly the steps need to save the environment.

It describes eight transitions the U.S.A needs to accomplish.

    Culture                  Knowledge

    Population            Prices

    Consumption        Governance

    Poverty                 Technology

---

[From Wikipedia] The Review states that climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, presenting a unique challenge for economics. The Review provides prescriptions including environmental taxes to minimise the economic and social disruptions. The Stern Review's main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting. The Review points to the potential impacts of climate change on water resources, food production, health, and the environment. According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more, also indefinitely. Stern believes that 5–6 degrees of temperature increase is "a real possibility."

I recall how pleased I was with this review. It spoke to me because it was written about the environment, but in economic terms that I well understood.

---

This time; approaching retirement and the end of Gus Speth's environmental leadership at Yale, Dean Speth writes after more than 40 years as a most respected insider, both in politics and in science. In 1998 as the presidential term of Ronald Reagan was ending, Speth was optimistic that the USA was about to understand what was happening to the environment and to take some responsibility for that.

In 2004 with "Red Sky at Morning," disappointed with the lack of progress, he laid out exactly what he thought needed to be done. Once again with no effect.

In this book, "The Bridge at the Edge of the World" Dean Speth is clearly quite passionate, I would say angry, because the impact of 40 years effort to inform, educate and develop environmental policy, had been very little. From the title of this book you can tell that he still believes we can get ourselves out of this mess.

---

Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway are historians of science. Academics, who try to be very careful and precise about what they say. Their effort was to document like detectives a paper trail that proved first of all, that companies often had research proving that their products - tobacco - sugar - drugs - pesticide - medicine - were harmful; and that they did not disclose. Instead, they promoted sales knowing that they were doing harm. In the case of the tobacco industry for more than 50 years they called the evidence that smoking was harmful to smokers into doubt, and prevented effective legislation against their products. Isn't this continuing today? Vaping?

"Merchants of Doubt", proved that the small number of companies primarily responsible for climate change were engaged in the same tactics. Deny and delay, buy the services of "scientists", make donations to political causes, fund "good works," whatever it took to make people look the other way.

In 2019, if you ask people what's causing climate change, they are likely to say; "There are too many cows, and we need to eat a plant based diet." Where did that come from? The prime source of climatic forcing is burning fossil fuels. Half of all excess CO² in the atmosphere has been added since 1980, and we blame cows? That makes no sense, it's propaganda, and it's not hard to guess which commercial players are paying for that.

So when Dean Gus Speth asks why the policy changes he worked so hard to achieve, looked likely in 1998, but were unlikely a few years later. By 2008, when "The Bridge at the Edge of the World" was published, climate change denial in the USA, and in Australia was strong, and maybe growing.

"Merchants of Doubt", is hopeful. The book identified the problem. It's normal for commercial interests for their own advantage to cause delay and confusion, as a tactic to enrich themselves at the expense of the environment and the public good. Since that's been proven, now we need to get on with the work we need to do. - Too optimistic; once again a fail.

---

From 1981 until 2013 (32 years), James Hanson was the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

In 1988 Hansen testified to Congress about climate change. He said that it was happening now, that the cause and effect was understood.

He writes "Storms of my Grandchildren" near the end of his career as a public servant, his first book. In the preface, he said that in studying the atmosphere of Venus, he became aware that the atmosphere on Earth was changing, quite rapidly. He decided to leave the Venus program and to look closely at the Earth. Ten years later (June 1988) he told Congress that with 99% confidence he could say "that the earth was being affected by human-made greenhouse gases."

Senator Al Gore got involved immediately ensuring that the presentation to Congress was widely publicised. After that Al Gore himself made the effort to become very well informed. The film "An Inconvenient Truth" was presented in 2006. The problem was that many people, accepting the general argument, thought that insulating homes, changing light bulbs, and planting trees would solve the problem. Hansen says, "Not so. Slowing down emissions does almost no good."

The fossil fuels we are using must be left in the ground. The excess carbon in the atmosphere needs to be stored in the ground too. Switching from coal to gas has no real value, the use of any fossil fuel makes the problem worse.

"Why I Must Speak Out about Climate Change" This talk James Hansen explains how working for a government agency constrained what it was possible to say in public.

Since 2013 Hansen has been active as a critic of USA's climate policy. He believes that with a carbon price that is levied at the source of production should be used. For instance: $10 a tonne of CO², rising $10 a tonne every year, collected at source by government agencies, but paid out to the public as a universal benefit. That would allow people to choose how to use the funds. He says that after 5 or 6 years the fee would more than $50, and be high enough to have an economic effect. People paying more for fuel, but with cash in their pockets, could then actively choose alternatives to fossil fuels.

Recently Hansen says that children marching in the street gives him hope. "They are right. It's not appropriate that we make promises to do something, when in fact we've done and are doing almost nothing. Passing the burden to the next generation isn't an acceptable response."

---

From Australia, this book is partly a response to Australia's do nothing approach.

In 2007, the New Prime Minister of Australia asked for submissions for a review of climate change policy. Spratt and Sutton began to write what they intended to be a short submission.

One of the questions was to what extent global temperatures might rise in the future. They refer to the work of Nicholas Stern and the prospect of temperatures rising 3 degrees or more. Their research told them that this was the wrong question.

The real question is what do we do now and in the near future to make sure the climate returns to climate-safe zone?

The first 130 pages review the science, and the current debate. Sadly ten years later is still the same debate. Politicians, have demonstrated that whatever they say, or sign up to, they have no willingness or ability to act, in any way that will be effective in reducing future global temperatures.

People of the world we have a problem.

"Our planet's health and it's capacity to function on the journey through time is deeply imperiled. We stand on the brink of a climate catastrophe. Spratt and Sutton's solution is to declare a "Climate Emergency" and to act with speed, determination and ingenuity. Our life support systems are at risk ...." This puts into context the group calling themselves "Extinction Rebellion," they say that we've known for a long time that human activities are destroying the ability of the planet Earth, to support life. The evidence is in the now rapid extinction of large "wild" animals, birds and insects, the sixth mass extinction. We cannot expect humanity to be excluded.

They go on to call for governments and institutions and local communities to commit to the task of reducing consumption, and particularly to reducing and eventually stopping the use of fossil fuels.

For myself this is the right track, it's taking the right direction, but sadly I don't see any chance of that happening. So like Gus Speth James Hanson, and Naomi Oreskes, I've come to a conclusion that it's too late to avoid catastrophe. So the question for me is not will there be a catastrophe, but how big will the problem be? Once you accept that, it might be possible to read the next book, "The End of Ice".

---

This is not a book that I've read. It seems to confirm my worst fears, the thoughts I try to put aside, that are very grim indeed. There are promises made but there is simply no commitment to change the real direction of future activities. That's been my experience for 50 years now. We choose to tidy the garden, and we throw the waste into a place named Away. Moving deck chairs on the Titanic, while the band plays on.

Dahr Jamail as a young journalist, was concerned in the USA, about all the misinformation that, the Bush administration chose to accept, as the basis for their invasion of Iraq. It was a pretence. But it was a pretence that the American public, with a little priming from the media, apparently wanted to hear.

Jamail, had a contact in Iraq, and decided to visit for a short time. He became involved, and stayed 7 years. He discovered that when he reported from Fallujah in 2004 for instance, that his work was not published in US media, because it wasn't the story that they believed their readers wanted to hear.

From the Associated Press: "In May 2003, President George W. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner and declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" — just six weeks after the invasion.

That was the story people wanted to hear. A story of American success, that should not be disturbed by reporting the truth. Associated Press again: "But the war dragged on for many years after that and the banner became a symbol of U.S. misjudgment's and mistakes in the long and costly conflict. Bush was heavily criticized for the move."

After Iraq, war weary Dahr Jamail, spent some time climbing and later guiding on Denali, the highest mountain peak in North America (Alaska). In his time there, he became concerned for mountain environments. He went to work for Al Jazeera English, as an environmental reporter, but once again he found they were very conservative about what they would publish. There was a type of censorship, again based on what Al Jazeera thought people wanted to hear.

He began research for the current book. He visited and spoke to many people involved in writing the IPCC reports. Those reports are biased by the needs of the administrators. There is the evidence of the research. There was also the need to tell a story that the politicians and the public will accept.

---

The video, which confirms my worse fears. It's not easy viewing. My own experience after watching is actually a sense of quite peace. The many years I've spent trying to do the right thing, has been ineffective; conservation hasn't worked; it's a failure, but it was still the right thing to be doing.

So let Dahl Jamail have the last word here. "We don't know what's going to happen. We are all morally obliged to do what we can to protect the Earth and to protect future generations. That's our business. Listen to the Earth, where-ever you are. Do what you have to do."

---

---