Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumIce-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist
"Rapid thawing of the Arctic could trigger a catastrophic "economic timebomb" which would cost trillions of dollars and undermine the global financial system, say a group of economists and polar scientists.
Governments and industry have expected the widespread warming of the Arctic region in the past 20 years to be an economic boon, allowing the exploitation of new gas and oilfields and enabling shipping to travel faster between Europe and Asia. But the release of a single giant "pulse" of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East Siberian sea "could come with a $60tn [£39tn] global price tag", according to the researchers who have for the first time quantified the effects on the global economy.
Even the slow emission of a much smaller proportion of the vast quantities of methane locked up in the Arctic permafrost and offshore waters could trigger catastrophic climate change and "steep" economic losses, they say."
http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2013/jul/24/arctic-thawing-permafrost-climate-change
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Nihil
(13,508 posts)I'm sick of politicians selling out to rich corporations and kicking the can down the road
rather than facing up to a problem. It truly doesn't matter what flavour of politics is being
supported by words, the actions of every single one of them for decades have been for
the benefit of the greedy 0.1% of the population.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)He didn't create the problem, but I'm fine with it falling on his lap.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)the cap-and-trade program shares odds with a snowball in hell, and making the U.S. a leader on Climate Change? We've always had that dubious distinction.
I can't tell whether this is PR of the cynical or naive flavor.
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)When the oceans die, WE die. We, the population that knew decades ago of this very same scenario, but choose to continue with fossil fuel because it was easier. Now we are contaminating drinking water with fracking all for money.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)Homo Sapien Sapien -- an evolutionary dead-end.
aquart
(69,014 posts)This is evolutionary bottleneck.
eShirl
(18,510 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)And I think it underscores how useless it is to monetize every environmental concern, because people filter out money all the time when they don't identify with the context.
To use your analogy, we could try to describe global warming as sex but it would garner no more attention than fish sex or hippopotamus sex... Now our description of the problem is neither interesting nor accurate.
Economics cannot describe physical processes and risks in nature.
livingwagenow
(373 posts)Rain Mcloud
(812 posts)so they really are not concerned what the scientists think will happen.
They have air conditioning and with a rubber stamp congress to supply a never ending stream of tax cuts,they can easily afford black market food prices and a 450 billion dollar a year military to protect them during the food wars.
At last their megalomaniacal ambitions of old testament dominion will come to fruition and they will own everything.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Warmer arctic = easier to exploit fossil fuels.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)are too fucken dumb and/or greedy and self-centered to get the fact the species is wiping itself out all for $$$$$ for some. The human species is far from advanced ... ain't even made pre-school in the big picture.
elias7
(4,039 posts)LiberalLoner
(9,762 posts)phantom power
(25,966 posts)hatrack
(59,607 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Many of us who have been paying attention to the state of the world over the last half century have now begun to realize, with growing horror, that the progressive deterioration we have been tracking shows no signs of resolution In fact, to some of us it looks as though there is no way to resolve this deepening crisis. The end of the track is in sight; the planetary factory is in flames, and all the exit doors appear to be barred.
Proposed technical solutions are utterly inadequate to the scale of the problem. Many ideas like geoengineering will simply make matters worse. There is no political constituency for degrowth none at all. There is precious little political support for even putting a light foot on the brake. This road to hell has been paved with the very best of intentions giving our children a better life stands near the top of the list but here we are nonetheless. The climate is signalling that our future may be a little warmer than we were expecting, once our seven-billion-passenger train passes those gates.
Now that the denouement is in sight, Ive decided to set aside the anger and outrage, the blame and shame, and focus my attention instead on why this outcome seems to have been utterly inevitable and unstoppable.
Why has this happened? I dont buy the traditional broken morality or flawed genetics arguments. After all, our genetics seemed to be perfectly appropriate for a million years, and the elements of morality that some of us see as sub-optimal (the greed and shortsightedness) have been with us to varying degrees since before the days of Australopithecus. I dont think its just a mistake on our part or a bug in the program it appears to be a part of the program of life itself. It looks to me as though much deeper forces have been at work throughout human history, and have shaped this outcome.
The main difficulty I have with all the technical, political, economic and social reform proposals I've seen is that they run counter to some very deep-seated aspects of human behavior and decision-making. Mainly, they assume that human intelligence and analytical ability control our behavior, and from what I've seen, thats simply not true. In fact its untrue to such an extent that I dont even think its a human issue per se.
I have come to think that most of our collective choices and actions are shaped by physical forces so deep that they cant even be called genetic. I havent written anything definitive about this yet, but the conclusion I have come to in the last six months is that a physical principle called the "Maximum Entropy Production Principle, which is closely related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, actually underlies the structure of life itself. Its operation has shaped the energy-seeking, replicative behavior of everything from bacteria to humans. All our intelligence does is makes its operation more effective.
This principle is behind the appearance of life in the first place, has guided the development of genetic replication and natural selection, and has embedded itself in our behavior at the very deepest level. Like all life, our mandate is simple: survive and reproduce so as to form a metastable dissipative structure. All of human behavior and history has been oriented towards executing this mandate as effectively as possible. This survive and reproduce program springs from a universal law of physics, much like gravity. As a result it even precedes genetics as a driver of human behavior. And lest there be any lingering doubt about the connection to our current predicament, the survival imperative is what causes all living organisms to exhibit energy-seeking behavior. Humans just do this better than any other organism in the history of the planet because of our intelligence.
In this context, the evolutionary fitness role of human intelligence is to act as a limit-removal mechanism, to circumvent any obstacles in the way of making make our growth in terms of energy use and reproduction more effective. Its why we are blind to the need for limits both as individuals (in general) and collectively as cultures. We acknowledge limits only when they are so close as to present an immediate existential threat, as they were and are in hunter-gatherer societies. As a result we tend to make hard changes only in response to a crisis, not in advance of it. Basically, the goal of life is to live rather than die, and to do this it must grow rather than shrink. This imperative governs everything we think and do.
As a result, I dont think humanity in general will put any kind of sustainability practices in place until long after they are actually needed (i.e. after population and consumption rates have begun to crash). I dont think it is possible for a group as large as 7 billion people to agree that such proactive measures are necessary. We are as blind to the need for limits as a fish is to water and for similar reasons. After the crisis has incontrovertibly begun well do all kinds of things, but by then we will be hampered by the climate crisis and by severe shortages of both resources and the technology needed to use them.
I have given up speculating on possible outcomes, because they are so inherently unpredictable, at least in detail. But what Im discovering about the way life works at a deep level makes me continually less optimistic. I now think near-term human extinction (say within the next hundred years) has a significantly non-zero probability as a result.
Our civilization is approaching a "Kardashev Type 0/1 boundary" and I dont think it's possible for us to make the jump to Type 1. Like most other people, Kardashev misunderstood the underlying drivers of human behavior, assuming them to be a combination of ingenuity and free will. We indeed have ingenuity, but only in the direction of growth (and damn the entropic consequences). We cant manage preemptive de-growth or even the application of the Precautionary Principle, because as a collective organism humanity doesn't actually have free will (despite what it feels like to us individual humans). Instead we exhibit an emergent behavior that is entirely oriented towards growth.
I see no purpose in wasting further physical, financial or emotional energy on trying to avoid the inevitable. Given our situation and what I think is its root cause, I generally tell people who see the unfolding crisis and want to make changes in their lives simply to follow their hearts and their personal values. It's not exactly advising them to Eat, drink and be merry, but more along the lines of Eat, drink and be mindful.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)to understand why they never showed promise to begin with.
cprise
(8,445 posts)with corrupt operators (even if temporary) to ensure that nuclear power again becomes a glowing spectacle.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)"The Arctic sea ice, which largely melts and reforms each year, is declining at an unprecedented rate. In 2012, it collapsed to under 3.5m sqkm by mid September, just 40% of its usual extent in the 1970s. Because the ice is also losing its thickness, some scientists expect the Arctic ocean to be largely free of summer ice by 2020."
It's looking particularly awful this morning. There's red on three sides of the North Pole.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Here is the original:
"But do most models underestimate the problem? A new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) projects that the Arctic will be ice free in September by around 2054-58. This, however, departs significantly from empirical observations of the rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice which is heading for disappearance within two or three years according to Nature co-author and renowned Arctic expert Prof Peter Wadhams, head of the Polar ocean physics group at Cambridge University.
If Prof Wadhams is correct in his forecast that the summer sea ice could be gone by 2015, then we might be closer to the tipping point than we realise. To get to the bottom of the scientific basis for the Nature paper's scenarios, I interviewed Prof Wadhams. Here's what he had to say:
How long do we have before the Arctic summer sea ice disappears?
Given present trends in extent and thickness, the ice in September will be gone in a very short while, perhaps by 2015. In subsequent years, the ice-free window will widen, to 2-3 months, then 4-5 months etc, and the trends suggest that within 20 years time we may have six ice-free months per year."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/24/arctic-ice-free-methane-economy-catastrophe
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)"This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates".
Wadhams says the implications are "terrible". "The positives are increased possibility of Arctic transport, increased access to Arctic offshore oil and gas resources. The main negative is an acceleration of global warming."
"As the sea ice retreats in summer the ocean warms up (to 7C in 2011) and this warms the seabed too. The continental shelves of the Arctic are composed of offshore permafrost, frozen sediment left over from the last ice age. As the water warms the permafrost melts and releases huge quantities of trapped methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas so this will give a big boost to global warming."
http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
I was wondering why the damn article made no sense because there was no mention of "two years" at all in it, yet the title said two years.
Looks like Peter Wadhams came out with a new paper that predicts the end of the arctic ice "by 2050."
Peter Wadhams' personal opinion is that it will happen in 2 years. ie, his best guess.
The models here are a complete fucking joke, though. It's collapsing. If you can't make a model that can represent the fucking collapse and if it's happening in such a short period of time, speak the fuck up, say your models can't fit the data. OK, sorry, rambling.
CRH
(1,553 posts)and I have found none better researched, nothing more needs to be said. Actions should be limited to buying time and adaption, then awaiting fate. We reap what we sow, and we have not planted well.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The direct evidence supports them, and the whole Global Clusterfuck is unfolding in a way that provides pretty damned convincing indirect support.
I keep saying that this round of global technological civilization has maybe 30 years left to run, for a huge variety of interlocking and mutually amplifying reasons. But that's a difficult message for most people to hear.
CRH
(1,553 posts)Your prediction of 30 years to run of global technological civilization puts it right in line the MIT Limits of Growth study part 1 and revisited. Both had as a major force behind the limits, environmental pollution, of which the effects we are realizing presently in the Arctic.
Don't know if you have come across the hard copy of the latest Wasdell summary of the arctic conditions and 'implications of jet stream behavior and Arctic dynamics', but in true Wasdell fashion he calmly puts all that is happening up there today into context with the resulting challenges ahead for economies, agriculture, and population.
June 2013 release -
http://www.apollo-gaia.org/Arctic%20Dynamics.pdf