310. IPCC – ข่าวร้าย!

310.  IPCC – Bad News!

'Unequivocal' says IPCC: Planet Is Burning, Humans Are Causing It

Global scientific consensus says planet is changing in ways unseen in thousands of years and if something 'substantial' not done, and soon, the results will be unthinkable

- Jon Queally, staff writer

‘ไม่ต้องสงสัย/พูดอ้อมแอ้ม’ IPCC กล่าว: พิภพกำลังเผาไหม้, มนุษย์เป็นต้นเหตุ

วงการวิทยาศาสตร์โลกพูดเป็นเสียงเดียวกัน—พิภพโลกกำลังเปลี่ยนแปลงอย่างที่ไม่เคยเห็นกันมาก่อนในหลายพันปี หากไม่ทำอะไรบางอย่าง “ที่มีแก่นสาร”, แล้ว ในไม่ช้า, ผลที่ตามมาจะคิดกันไม่ถึง

-จอน แควลลีย์

"Unequivocal."

If the public and policymakers want a single adjective to describe the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's new assessment report that's the word.

หากสาธารณชนและนักวางนโยบายต้องการคำคุณศัพท์คำเดียว เพื่อบรรยายสิ่งที่คณะกรรมการระหว่างรัฐบาลเรื่องภูมิอากาศเปลี่ยนแปลง (IPCC) ได้ค้นพบในรายงานการประเมินฉบับใหม่, “ไม่ต้องอ้อมแอ้ม/สงสัย” คือคำๆ นั้น.

Released Friday, the IPCC report states, that "warming in the climate system is unequivocal and since 1950 many changes have been observed throughout the climate system that are unprecedented over decades to millennia."

เผยแพร่ในวันศุกร์, รายงาน IPCC แถลงว่า, “การอุ่นขึ้นในระบบภูมิอากาศ เป็นเรื่องที่ไม่ต้องพูดอ้อมแอ้มกันอีกแล้ว และ ตั้งแต่ ๒๔๙๓ ได้สังเกตเห็นการเปลี่ยนแปลงหลายอย่างที่เกิดขึ้นตลอดทั่วทั้งระบบภูมิอากาศอย่างที่ไม่เคยเกิดขึ้นมาก่อนในหลายทศวรรษถึงหลายศตวรรษ”.

"Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased,” said Qin Dahe, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I, responsible for this first stage of the IPCC's reporting on climate. Whereas this report focuses on the geoscience of climate change, subsequent working groups, whose work will be published in 2014, will focus on other aspects of the science as well as mitigation.

“การประเมินวิทยาศาสตร์ของเราพบว่า ชั้นบรรยากาศและมหาสมุทรได้อุ่นขึ้น, ปริมาณหิมะและน้ำแข็งได้หดหายไป, ค่ามัชฌิมาโลกของระดับทะเลได้เพิ่มสูงขึ้น และ ความเข้มข้นของก๊าซเรือนกระจกก็เพิ่มมากขึ้น”, ฉิน ด้าเหอ, ประธานร่วมของคณะทำงาน IPCC กลุ่ม ๑, ที่รับผิดชอบต่อการรายงานขั้นแรกของ IPCC เรื่องภูมิอากาศ.  ในขณะที่รายงานนี้เน้นที่วิทยาศาสตร์ธรณีของภูมิอากาศเปลี่ยนแปลง, คณะทำงานชุดต่อๆ ไป, จะมีผลงานออกมาและตีพิมพ์ในปี ๒๕๕๗, ซึ่งจะเน้นในด้านอื่นๆ ของวิทยาศาสตร์ตลอดจนวิธีการบรรเทาปัญหา.

Read the full report here.
Headline statements from the IPCC here (pdf).

The report reaffirms that the human influence on the planet's dramatic warming is clear and beyond reproach. According to a press statement accompanying the release of the report:

รายงานตอกย้ำอีกครั้งว่า อิทธิพลของมนุษย์ต่อความอุ่นขึ้นอย่างมโหฬารในพิภพโลก เห็นได้ชัด และ ไกลเกินกว่าจะตำหนิต่อว่ากันแล้ว.

It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. The evidence for this has grown, thanks to more and better observations, an improved understanding of the climate system response and improved climate models.

มันเป็นไปได้อย่างยิ่งที่อิทธิพลมนุษย์ เป็นสาเหตุโดดเด่น ของความอุ่นขึ้นที่สังเกตได้ตั้งแต่กลางศตวรรษที่ ๒๐.  หลักฐานเรื่องนี้ ได้เพิ่มมากขึ้น, ขอบคุณการสังเกตการณ์ที่มากและดีขึ้น, ได้ทำให้เกิดความเข้าใจดีขึ้นในการตอบสนองของระบบภูมิอากาศ และ โมเดลภูมิอากาศที่ปรับปรุงดีขึ้น.

Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of the working group behind the report indicated that in order to prevent the worst case scenarios presented in the report for the century ahead, governments will need to take aggressive action. "Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system," Stocker said. "Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."

โธมัส สต๊อกเคอร์, ประธานร่วมของคณะทำงานเบื้องหลังรายงานฉบับนี้ ชี้ว่า เพื่อหลีกเลี่ยงสถานการณ์ที่แย่ที่สุดดังที่ได้เสนอในรายงาน สำหรับศตวรรษหน้า, รัฐบาลจำเป็นต้องปฏิบัติการเชิงรุก.  “การพ่นก๊าซเรือนกระจกออกมาต่อไป จะยิ่งเพิ่มภาวะโลกร้อน และ เปลี่ยนแปลงองค์ประกอบทั้งหมดของระบบภูมิอากาศ”, สต๊อกเคอร์ กล่าว.  “การจำกัดความเปลี่ยนแปลงของภูมิอากาศ จะต้องมีการลดการปล่อยก๊าซเรือนกระจกอย่างเป็นแก่นสารและยั่งยืน”.

The IPCC document—officially labeled as IPCC Working Group I assessment report (AR5) and titled Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis—was approved by the world scientific body on Friday in Stockholm and is the panel's official statement—made after hundreds of the world's top scientists reviewed thousands of studies—on climate change, ocean and atmospheric temperatures, and global warming.

เอกสาร IPCC—มีป้ายชื่อทางการว่า รายงานการประเมินของคณะทำงาน IPCC กลุ่ม ๑ (AR5) และมีชื่อหัวข้อว่า “ภูมิอากาศเปลี่ยนแปลง ๒๕๕๖: ด้านวิทยาศาสตร์กายภาพ”—ได้รับการอนุมัติจากองคาพยพวิทยาศาสตร์โลก เมื่อวันศุกร์ ในสต๊อกโฮม และเป็นแถลงการณ์ทางการของคณะกรรมการ—หลังจากนักวิทยาศาสตร์ชั้นนำของโลกหลายร้อยคนได้ทบทวนหลายพันบทความการศึกษา ด้านภูมิอากาศเปลี่ยนแปลง, อุณหภูมิมหาสมุทรและชั้นบรรยากาศ, และโลกร้อน.

“As the ocean warms, and glaciers and ice sheets reduce, global mean sea level will continue to rise, but at a faster rate than we have experienced over the past 40 years,” said Dahe.

“ในขณะที่มหาสมุทรอุ่นขึ้น, และธารน้ำแข็งและแผ่นน้ำแข็งลดลง, ระดับมัชฌิมาทะเลโลกจะสูงขึ้นอย่างต่อเนื่อง, แต่ในอัตราเร็วขึ้นกว่าที่เราประสบในช่วง ๔๐ ปีก่อน”, ด้าเหอ กล่าว.

And its other key findings are startling. They include:

และสิ่งที่ค้นพบสำคัญอื่นๆ ก็น่าตกตะลึงด้วย.  เช่น

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.
• การอุ่นขึ้นของระบบภูมิอากาศเป็นเรื่องไม่ต้องสงสัย/พูดอ้อมแอ้ม, และตั้งแต่ทศวรรษ ๒๔๙๓, การเปลี่ยนแปลงหลายๆ อย่างที่สังเกตได้ เป็นสิ่งที่ไม่เคยปรากฏมาก่อนหลายทศวรรษถึงหลายพันปี.  ชั้นบรรยากาศและมหาสมุทรได้อุ่นขึ้น และปริมาณหิมะและน้ำแข็งได้ลดลง, ระดับน้ำทะเลเพิ่มสูงขึ้น, และความเข้มข้นของก๊าซเรือนกระจกเพิ่มมากขึ้น.
• Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).
• ในแต่ละทศวรรษของ ๓๐ ปีที่ผ่านมา ผิวโลกได้อุ่นขึ้นอย่างต่อเนื่องมากกว่าทศวรรษก่อนหน้า ตั้งแต่ ๒๓๙๓.  ในซีกโลกเหนือ, ช่วงปี ๒๕๒๘-๒๕๕๕ น่าจะเป็นช่วง ๓๐ ปีที่อุ่นที่สุดในรอบ ๑๔๐๐ ปีที่ผ่านมา. (เชื่อมั่นปานกลาง)
• Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.
• มหาสมุทรที่อุ่นขึ้น โดดเด่นในฐานะที่เป็นตัวเก็บพลังงานที่เพิ่มขึ้นในระบบภูมิอากาศ, คิดเป็นกว่า ๙๐ เปอร์เซ็นต์ของพลังงานสะสมระหว่าง ๒๕๑๔ และ ๒๕๕๓ (เชื่อมั่นสูง).  เกือบแน่ใจได้ว่า ส่วนบนของมหาสมุทร (๐-๗๐๐ เมตร) อุ่นมากขึ้นจาก ๒๕๑๔ ถึง ๒๕๕๓, มันน่าจะอุ่นขึ้นแล้วในระหว่าง ทศวรรษ ๒๔๑๓ และ ๒๕๑๔.
• Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence).
• ในช่วงสองทศวรรษที่ผ่านมา, กรีนแลนด์และแผ่นน้ำแข็งแอนตาร์คติค ได้สูญเสียมวลไป, ธารน้ำแข็งได้หดตัวอย่างต่อเนื่องทั่วโลก, และน้ำแข็งในทะเลอาร์คติค และ หิมะตกในฤดูใบไม้ผลิในซีกโลกเหนือก็ลดลงอย่างชัดเจน (เชื่อมั่นสูง).
• The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m.
• อัตราการเพิ่มสูงขึ้นของระดับน้ำทะเลตั้งแต่กลางศตวรรษที่ ๑๙ มีค่ามากกว่า อัตรามัชฌิมาในระหว่าง ๒,๐๐๐ ปีก่อน (เชื่อมั่นสูง).  ในช่วง ๒๔๔๔-๒๕๕๓, ระดับมัชฌิมาของน้ำทะเลโลกเพิ่มขึ้น ๐.๑๙ เมตร.
• The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.
• ความเข้มข้นของคาร์บอนไดออกไซด์, มีเธน, และ ไนตรัสออกไซด์ ในชั้นบรรยากาศ ได้เพิ่มถึงระดับที่ไม่เคยปรากฏมาก่อน อย่างน้อยใน ๘ แสนปีก่อน.  ความเข้มข้นของ CO2 ได้เพิ่มขึ้น  40% ตั้งแต่ก่อนยุคอุตสาหกรรม, เบื้องต้น มาจากการปล่อยก๊าซของเชื้อเพลิงซากฟอสซิล และ อันดับสอง จากยอดรวมสุทธิของการเปลี่ยนวิธีการใช้ที่ดิน.  มหาสมุทรได้ดูดซับประมาณ 30% ของก๊าซ CO2 ที่มนุษย์สร้าง, เป็นเหตุให้มหาสมุทรมีความเป็นกรด.
• Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.
• กระแสกัมมันตรังสีรวมเป็นบวก, และได้นำไปสู่การเพิ่มของพลังงานในระบบภูมิอากาศ.  ปัจจัยที่ส่งผลต่อยอดรวมของกระแสกัมมันตรังสี คือ ความเข้มข้นของ CO2 ที่เพิ่มขึ้นในชั้นบรรยากาศตั้งแต่ ๒๒๙๓.
• Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.
• อิทธิพลของมนุษย์ต่อระบบภูมิอากาศชัดเจนอยู่แล้ว.  มีหลักฐานยืนยันจากความเข้มข้นของก๊าซเรือนกระจกที่เพิ่มขึ้นในชั้นบรรยากาศ, กระแสกัมมันตรังสีบวก, ความอุ่นมากขึ้นที่สังเกตได้, และความเข้าใจเรื่องระบบภูมิอากาศ.

“The world’s scientists have spoken," said Sarah-Jayne Clifton, climate justice and energy coordinator for Friends of the Earth International, in reaction to the report. Clifton said the report once again reaffirms "now with absolute certainty" that climate change is caused by humans and "that it poses a severe and immediate threat to our future and that of the planet."

“นักวิทยาศาสตร์โลกได้พูดออกมาแล้ว”, ซาราห์-เจน คลิฟตัน, ผู้ประสานงาน ความยุติธรรมเชิงภูมิอากาศและพลังงาน สำหรับ องค์กรเพื่อนโลกสากล, แสดงปฏิกิริยาต่อรายงาน.  คลิฟตันกล่าวว่า รายงานได้ตอกย้ำใหม่อีกครั้ง “ตอนนี้ ด้วยความแน่นอนเบ็ดเสร็จสมบูรณ์” ว่า ภูมิอากาศเปลี่ยนแปลง เกิดจากน้ำมือมนุษย์ และ “ว่า มันเป็นภัยคุกคามฉกรรจ์ และ ทันทีทันใดต่ออนาคตของเราและของพิภพโลก”.

"Communities around the world are already being devastated by extreme weather. It is untenable for our political leaders to continue their inaction," she said. "The interests of humanity must be prioritized above the profits of dirty energy corporations through an urgent and dramatic transformation of the world’s corporate-controlled, unsustainable energy system."

“ชุมชนต่างๆ ทั่วโลกได้ประสบหายนะแล้วโดยภาวะอากาศสุดโต่ง.  มันจะป้องกันอะไรไม่ได้ เมื่อผู้นำนักการเมืองของเรายังคงไม่ทำอะไรเลยต่อไป”, เธอกล่าว.  “ผลประโยชน์ของมนุษยชาติจะต้องมาเป็นอันดับต้น เหนือกำไรของบรรษัทพลังงานสกปรก ด้วยการพลิกโฉมเร่งด่วนและมโหฬารของระบบพลังงานของโลกที่ไม่ยั่งยืน ที่อยู่ในมือของบรรษัท.”

As details of the report were being digested by the world community, responses to it were trending on Twitter:

รายละเอียดของรายงาน ได้ผ่านการย่อยของประชาคมโลก, สามารถตอบสนองได้ผ่านทางทวิตเตอร์.

Published on Friday, September 27, 2013 by Common Dreams

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/09/27, 9-30-13

Paul Kangas • 3 days ago

Here is my response to global warming.
I am building a solar powered home that generates 5X as much energy as the home uses. That way my home becomes a mini-Utility that feeds energy onto the grid.  If I was in Japan, Tepco would have to pay me $0.53 kwh, which is 4X the going rate for energy in Japan.  That means I would make $30,000. a year from my generation of solar energy.  This is the law in Japan, thanks to Naoto Kan. What will happen if I build this home in Petaluma?

Solar farmers in Germany are paid $60,000. a year from Utilities for feeding solar onto the grid, because the Feed-in Tariff rate is $0.54 kwh.  In this way the Germans have shut down 8 atomic reactors & will eventually close: all nukes, all coal fired power plants, all gas fracking and close all diesel fired power plants.
Nice.

WrenchMonkey Paul Kangas • 3 days ago

Your "solution" is still part of the problem. It still depends upon an extractive, technological, industrial "civilisation" to maintain the luxuries and all the bells and whistles that go with it.

I'll say again, energy production of any sort presumes an industrial "civilisation".

Absent a massive reduction in global population and the sudden disappearance or extirpation of "capitalism" and any sort of extractive, for-profit, consumerist economy, along with the essential psychopaths who control it, there can be no such thing as a sustainable industrial "civilisation".

There is no way to maintain the present human "civilisation" and a viable, liveable planet simultaneously.

Just my opinion.

“We can have electricity and a world devastated by mining, or we can have neither (and don’t give me any nonsense about solar: you’ll need copper for wiring, silicon for photovoltaics, metals and plastics for appliances, which need to be manufactured and then transported to your home, and so on. Even solar electrical energy can never be sustainable because electricity and all its accoutrements require an industrial infrastructure).”
Derrick Jensen, "Endgame", vol. 1

Jaguara WrenchMonkey • 3 days ago

It's still a hell of a lot better than what we have right now.

"Massive reduction in human population" - well the planet may do this for us, or if the Shit hits the fan like the survivalists would say...but failing it being done for us, how do you see this being achieved other than by genocide? Mass sterilizations? No matter how you slice it this sounds like a recipe for atrocities.

At least this guy has a concrete and viable plan that does not rely on 90% of the population magically disappearing and us reverting to the dark ages.

chetdude Jaguara • 3 days ago

Population reduction could be done by an immediate crash program of economic equality, birth control of every kind on demand, empowerment of women and education...while we have the resources to do it.

And powering down to a scale of life that fits our Planet...

Something like Lester Brown's Plan-B...

Estimates are that the population would decrease to a sustainable level within 3 generations...

No genocide or euthanasia required.

But humans are not that smart...

  john smith chetdude • 2 days ago

do you see any country doing this? in EU, nobody can afford kids, so countries are giving huge incentives to have kids. NOT the solution we need. we are still in a race to the bottom. producing enough cannon fo8der for tomorrow's wars for water and oil.. here schools are closing but people are still breeding. it is a recipe for total collapse. but media cant tell the truth. their ads pay for their programs. including big oil, car ads etc. it is a failed outdated recipe for 'news'. but that is what have now...bullshit propaganda news. I underestimated how stupid americans were until today's bullshit news stated of 47 mill who are presumed uninsured over half didnt know what obamacare was despite blanketing news since obama was elected....and these are folks who didnt seem to have too much going on. ironically this is what is going to ruin us; stupid breeders and top 1% siphoning away profits. so we keep getting news like we are getting now: PTSD finally affecting 'society' after we ignore millions of vets fighting to free oil for corporations, failed infrastructure after driving huge SUVS on roads build in 50s for human sized vehicles etc...NONE OF IT is rocket science in every country except in US everything is magical or debatable and incomprehensible.

see more

lindsncal john smith • 2 days ago

Mostly correct except: ".....in EU, nobody can afford kids,..."

which is simply not true. With the social services there, they can afford kids more than probably anywhere else..however, they have chosen not to.

And...."...47 mill who are presumed uninsured over half didnt know what obamacare was despite blanketing news since obama was elected....and these are folks who didnt seem to have too much going on..."
Tell that to those who are working two jobs, taking and picking up their kids from school and barely have enough time to eat, let alone prepare food or spend time on the computer, if they have one, to find out about the new law.

anna miller lindsncal • 21 hours ago

perhaps if people would stop automatically procreating, because of capitalistic programming, they would have time to educate themselves about the world around them.

Jaguara chetdude • 2 days ago

Agreed "But humans aren't that smart"

This type of program is hard enough just to sell in North America...let alone in India or Indochina...and then there is Africa.

Still it is a worthwhile goal, nothing wrong with striving toward it.

donl Jaguara • a day ago

China instigated awhile back a system to stem the tide of more children..they chose females to eliminate..now there are some 300 million young Chinese men looking for a female partner..India due to its caste system is more poor than wealthy..and its poor countries who have the most children..I personally don't think the human race are wise enough to fully understand what's going on ,on this very frail planet!! I say frail because it is just that..is this planet tough enough to withstand the human species? ..in a word..no! The changes are going to come and we're not likely to stop doing what we do!!.. either we adapt to the changes or we perish!...my opinion

J4zonian chetdude • a day ago

Your first statement is right on the mark. We need to do all those things and I've said so myself many times.

But forgetting the fact that it can't possibly happen in 3 generations, and that if it could it would affect overwhelmingly the poorest people in the world, which is the only place significant population growth is still happening. Those are the people who have the least effect on climate catastrophe.

3 generations is 75 years at least. Since we're unlikely to survive as a civilization if we don't reduce greenhouse gases by 90% within the next 20 years at the most (many credible experts say it's closer to 5 years), even if we can somehow magically convince everyone on Earth including the poorest and hardest to reach to go along with this plan, it will fail. It will not avoid climate catastrophe. And how would we even accomplish this bound-to-fail program?

Everything humans do is rife with racism, ethnocentrism, class and religious prejudice and favoritism. You might want to reduce the population of all groups equally but there's absolutely no chance that would happen. The rich and white, the elites in every capital in the world, would make themselves largely exempt in any real way from this law, and those are the people who actually cause almost all the problem.

What makes me think it would be applied with racism? The argument itself, that population is the problem, is racist, refusing to accept the clear fact that the problem is caused almost exclusively by the richest, and they are overwhelmingly white. To blame it on poor people of color can only be a projection, placing the blame for problems we cause on people who are blameless.

see more

chetdude J4zonian • 17 hours ago

I did say "Humans are not that smart."

That's why I'm taking certain steps for me and mine.

Maybe my family can save/support a few others - of all races - with the resources we have and by example...

J4zonian chetdude • 15 hours ago

I get the impulse, chetdude, and hope you keep doing what you're doing. It sounds like you may already know this but for others..... like it or not we are all in this together.

Personal, family and community changes are crucial, and are already changing our direction and the way we live. Inner changes are part of that and are also necessary. But political-economic change must also happen or it's very likely no humans will survive the next century or so. Climate-caused chaos is already spreading all over the world; crops everywhere including the US are beginning to fail; forests are burning... Your children will not escape the horrors to come. Immense suffering is now inevitable because conservatives have delayed action too long, but we can still save the most essential parts of civilization IF we quickly and massively change our energy sources, the way we grow food and manufacture things, and if we reforest the world. We have to instantly slam on the brakes and go from 0 to 80 in the next few years.

Obama, Congress and the conservative courts clearly have no interest in upsetting their corporate owners enough to do what's necessary so we have to do it.

see more

chetdude J4zonian • 7 hours ago

Exactly. And my little extended family is determined to learn how much fun it can be to live a full, sustainable life in balance with our Planet...

Whether we (humans) survive or not is irrelevant to learning how to live a complete life...

My best to you and yours...

David Jewett Jaguara • 3 days ago

"At least this guy has a concrete and viable plan that does not rely on
90% of the population magically disappearing and us reverting to the
dark ages."

Too little, too late. And there will be no magic involved. I'm not going to sugar-coat this. This is an extinction event we have entered. People are going to suffer terribly, and they are going to die terrible deaths. Hunger, starvation, famine, no clean water, unimaginable heat waves, super-storms, pandemics; it's going to be messy, really fucking messy. There will be no "dark ages." Life, ALL life, not just humanity, is on the way out. Meybe it will spring back, the Earth being as resilient as it has been: maybe it won't. I, nor you, nor our children, nor anybody else, will be there to see it.

chetdude David Jewett • 3 days ago

I'm afraid that if humans in the aggregate continue to pander to greed, ignorance and domination, you are correct.

Mother Nature WILL bat last...

mzsuzan chetdude • 2 days ago

And remember Mother Nature always bats clean up!

Jaguara David Jewett • 3 days ago

That is certainly the road we are on, but some of us would like to avoid it. Should have been started 30 years ago, but that is not a reason not to try to act now...even if it does end up being too little too late.

chetdude Jaguara • 2 days ago

That's why I'm acting now...

Paul Kangas Jaguara • 2 days ago

It was started in 1976 when Carter put solar on the White House.
Then Hermann Scheer wrote the Feed in Tariff law that captivated German solar farmers and created 400,000 new solar jobs in Germany.
Germany is now the greenest nation on earth.

glennk David Jewett • 2 days ago

We aren't simple microbes. I prefer to believe we'll probably nuke ourselves into oblivion and go out in a blinding flash and then a radiation shit storm. Like in the Permian a small % of life will survive and repopulate the planet a few million yrs on from now and then the cycle will repeat itself.

David Jewett glennk • a day ago

I too used to think it would be a nuclear armageddon that would be our demise. And a few population centers may be nuked in the future. But I now subscribe to the belief that it will be a slow slog down a road of suffering and malaise.

WrenchMonkey Jaguara • 3 days ago

His "plan" is not viable. It merely delays the inevitable a little longer.

"PREMISE SIX: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time."

"PREMISE NINE: Although there will clearly someday be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population may occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some will be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear Armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by a crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default of our culture. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence—required and caused by the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich—and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps long term shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme."

"Endgame", Derrick Jensen

If you haven't read it, you should. Both volumes. If you have read it and cannot accept its premises then we can simply agree to disagree.

Just my opinion

see more

0utof0rder WrenchMonkey • 3 days ago

I've been looking at Jensen a bit since you've been posting him. I'll say that I already had similar thoughts to many of the things he's saying. I agree modern cities are a failed design. Extractive capitalism is unsustainable. And that the economy as it runs now is unfair both in it's stratification of society and in the lack of real value that it places on the natural world.

But I don't agree with everything Jensen says. For example Premise 14-"Premise Fourteen: From birth on- we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves."

Sorry I don't buy it. I also don't buy your attacks on any industries that are green solely because you say their fault is that they are still "industry". So according to you we're going to run out of sand, (silicone) to make solar panels? Give me a break.

I think a massive change in how the economy functions is definitely needed. And in truth a sustainable economy is going to eventually have to be much much much smaller in scale than what we have today. We cannot keep jet travel and have climate stability. We cannot produce tons of cheap plastic goods in China for temporary consumption in the US. We cannot ship items around the globe on super cargo ships that belch dinosaur sauce out of their smoke stacks. We cannot have an economy based on disposable commodities- because nothing is disposable in an interconnected biosphere. Economy will have to be local, and completely based on renewable resources like renewably managed forestry, green agriculture, wind, solar, geo thermal. If it doesn't come from the sun, or grow, or is handmade with only the manufacturing assistance of those types of elements, then yes it is not renewable. Houses might need to be more adobe and earth in composition as opposed to steel skyscrapers.

So yeah, we are going to have to go backwards a bit and the future for first world nations, I think, will probably resemble more what the third world looks like now. But your obstructionism actually serves the interests of big business and the moneyed interests the most- by asking people to throw up their hands and not even give renewables a chance. Fact is, renewables are going to be the essential transitional technologies to help us wind down this out of control capitalist consumerism so that we can sooner than later arrive at a sustainable destination. And that is why Big Energy does not support renewables (and probably doesn't mind if people like you cite Jensen in order to attack renewables) because it just further helps shield them from the eventual transition that's going to occur.

see more

WrenchMonkey 0utof0rder • 3 days ago

I'm not asking you to "buy" anything. I'm just offering my opinion, not demanding or even asking that you share it.

You may have overlooked this in one of my comments:

Absent a massive reduction in global population and the sudden disappearance or extirpation of "capitalism" and any sort of extractive, for-profit, consumerist economy, along with the essential psychopaths who control it, there can be no such thing as a sustainable industrial "civilisation".

0utof0rder WrenchMonkey • 3 days ago

I didn't overlook it. I agree we need to make incentives to encourage families to have no more than 1 child, so that we can ethically reduce the overpopulation problem that is fueling extractive capitalism. I would say though that the MIC and capitalism views population reduction as against their interests.

Goofar WrenchMonkey • 2 days ago

Are you aware that it is the industrialized, capitalist nations of the world that have achieved zero or negative population growth?

Population biologists have recognized that when a third world country experiences economic development (capitalism), there is demographic transition. The population growth rates of third-world, agricultural countries (where the greatest amount of population growth is occurring today) decrease as third-world countries develop and become industrialized; hence, demographic transition.

Economic development (capitalist countries have the highest rates of economic development; compare the US with the former Soviet Union under Stalin's 5-year plans) allows for education and the emancipation of women. Technological developments (from increased education, the US has produced by far the greatest number of Nobel prize winners) allow for increased agricultural output and farmers don't have to have large families because machines do the work formerly done by children.

WrenchMonkey Goofar • a day ago

Are you aware that around 20% or so of the world's population, people mostly living in the industrialised capitalist nations, consume around 80% of the worlds resources whilst the "overpopulated" third world nations only account for the remaining 20%?

80% of the worlds population must live on $10 a day or less so the 20%, those who are "civilised", can enjoy lives of wasteful consumerism.

Polix9 0utof0rder • 3 days ago

How are a bunch of neo-tribalists in loin-cloths going to wind down the nuclear sites without even electricity? If industrial civilisation crashed tomorrow, as Jensen posits as our only hope, what happens to all the reactors bubbling away? I think Jensen is a man of radical integrity, and civilisation itself may be out chief malady, but I doubt many will be convinced that turning our backs on cities, agriculture and electricity is the way forward.

0utof0rder Polix9 • 3 days ago

I'm saying turn your back on Walmart, industrial agricultural, and global shipping, air travel, and disposable commodity manufacturing. Instead support local economies with sustainable ecological practices. And we don't have to give up electricity. Solar THERMAL collection, wind energy, and wave energy can produce usable mounts of electricity to survive on. And they get even cleaner if we use those same green technologies to manufacture more green energy technology.

Polix9 0utof0rder • 2 days ago

My post should have been directed at wrenchmonkey, who I think does think - like Jensen - that we need to descale completely. My problem with complete relocalisation is that for renewable energy generation to work you really need a smart grid, which is translocal.

Also, I don't think "localisation" was very peachy for most of human history. Ignorance, superstition, tribalism, xenophobia, warring, sexism, slavery, elitism, feudalism, autocracy, warlordism, the whole gamut.

Of course, we may end up with no choice, but let's not pretend localised communities represent a utopian outcome. Must resilience be only local? What about the role of larger units - think for instance of the EU - which while far from ideal create relative peace compared to many societies historically...

cmmj Polix9 • 20 hours ago

"work you really need a smart grid, which is translocal."

Imho, not really. Seems to me we need energy >where and when we need it<. There is no particular mandate to >transport< energy via grid anywhere. It's just the way our particular modern energy history has evolved.

We've managed to miniaturize and make

§  portable a variety of technological devices and tools. Is it not plausible to think one day a single house (or neighborhood block) won't be powered by a safe, portable device the size of a beer cooler (or smaller)? The age of >grid think< is over, imho, and my feeling is we've realized this fact much too late.

braithwa842 Polix9 • 2 days ago

Good questions. No answers.

Shizel Polix9 • 3 days ago

we cannot deny nuclear waste, it our sublime responsibility to guard nuclear sites against civil dissolution. We have to use nuclear power to clean it up. James Hanson wants us to create emissions free power by burning up to 99% of it. It is folly to think we can hide it away for a 100,000 years when we can't even be sure to survive 100 years.

Paul Kangas Polix9 • 2 days ago

We are beating our reactors into solar panels. Help us.
We can even stop Obama's 4 new reactors, if we all hammer together.

Jaguara WrenchMonkey • 3 days ago

A delay is still a step in the right direction, and may buy us a little time which we desperately need to get our burocracies moving. How can you complain about that? It may not be perfect, but is still infinitely better than the current situation.

That second paragraph is a lovely justification for genocide. I wonder if the Nazis claimed that the gas chambers were an attempt to "soften the character of the (inevitable) violence".

The 1% must have read this book and current policies seem to be right in line with its thinking. Collateral casualties from drones and other attacks are all just contributing to the depopulation cause...after all they would just starve later when we take all their food anyway.

Jensens plan calls for abandonment and destruction of civilization itself. How exactly do you accomplish such a thing? I would say this is impossible. Even if somehow accomplished - most likely by mass extermination....Humans are social creatures, and unless wiped out will eventually organize themselves into social groups again, and develop new civilizations.

I also do not accept Jensen's assertion of inevitibility. Buying into it - and then opposing any measure that would be an improvement on the current situation (but not good enough) can make it a self-fullfilling prophecy by its inactivity.

Frankly, I think we should try to do what we can to try to avoid this situation rather than be locked to a concept of 90% loss of life. If we fail, it will still happen, but I would rather go down fighting against it than participating in it...thanks.

At least the OP had a realistic and achievable goal that each of us could move toward, which would represent an improvement and step in the right direction - all you have that I can see is an ideology (with vague goals and no concrete steps for individuals to take)

see more

WrenchMonkey Jaguara • 3 days ago

The "destruction of civilisation" is a oxymoron. "Civilisation" is the destroyer of Life.

"...I would rather go down fighting..."

Don't worry. There will be plenty of fighting to go around.

So, we disagree. That's OK. I'm happy to let it go at that.

Paul Kangas WrenchMonkey • 3 days ago

Obviously Jensen knew nothing about solar energy vanquishing fossil & nuclear energy.

WrenchMonkey Paul Kangas • 2 days ago

If you say so Paul.

David Jewett Paul Kangas • 2 days ago

So, Paul, what great energy is going to power the massive shovels, the huge trucks, etc. that pull (ie., further rape of the planet) all these exotic minerals and metals out of the Earth that are used to make solar cells?? What great energy is going to power the manufacturing process? The trucks taking the solar cell products to market?? What will be used to make the plastics used in solar cell housings?? You see, Paul, "sustainable" is nothing more than a feel good catchphrase and marketing tool. Our culture IS fossil fuel intensive. There is absolutely NOTHING out there that has the bang for a buck that fossil fuel addiction provides.Nothing even comes close.

Nothing.

Paul Kangas David Jewett • 2 days ago

The center of the earth is 7,000F. We can heat every home with a Berm, just 12 Ft. down into the earth.
We are very close to stopping global warming with solar, wind & water.
Germany will be the first 100% solar powered nation on earth.
In May 2014, Germany will achieve 75% of its total energy needs from solar.
Last May they achieved 60%.
While the denialists pray for death,
we engineers will achieve a solar break thru by 2041.

Goofar Paul Kangas • 2 days ago

You can't stop global warming "with solar, wind & water" so long as humans are addicted to the internal combustion engine.

Engineers created the problem in the first place by initiating the industrial revolution.

David Jewett Paul Kangas • a day ago

Brother, I don't think we have that many years left, let alone until 2041. And even if your "solar break thru" happened, how many years until it will be fully implemented.

Oh, you'll still need fossil fuels to power equipment for rare Earth metals extraction, plastics, etc.

I love the egos you technos have. But I ain't holding my breath waiting for you to get your "break thru" together.

Oh, one more question: how do you propose we fix ocean acidification? Fish stock depletion? Radical weather patterns that will all but destroy crop growth patterns? We've already locked in many effects of GW/CC, and feedback loops are kicking in. So, again, I'm not holding my breath.....

J4zonian WrenchMonkey • 15 hours ago

It's unclear how much of current ways we can or want to save, but the direction we need to go is clear. Fossil fuels and nuclear are untenable and failing fast--ecologically, economically, technically, morally. Along with them ways of food and thing production that don't mimic benign nature are out. But we aren't helping ourselves or the biosphere by letting everything collapse or using violent means to bring it down. That will lead to repression and many times the violence in return, globally it will lead to war, including most likely nuclear war, but in any case it will increase carbon emissions and doom us to extinction. It may destabilize Gaia enough to wipe out all life here.

Instead, why don't we go in the direction we know we need to and can? Why not heal people as well and as fast as we can (the increase in responsiveness to nature that renewables imply will help a lot with that) and go one generation at a time? That leaves the decision about how far we go in that direction to those future generations who can make it from a wiser, less urgent situation and more whole perspective.

gwayne WrenchMonkey • 17 hours ago

You're quite correct wr monk. The huge unsustainable population increases that cheap fossil fuels and cultural practices made possible are now only users of precious food and water, polluting almost everything they touch. It has been a lengthy time since we surpassed a sustainable population level that could've been supported without cheap fossil fuels and yes, the majority of our food cultivation requires nitrate fertilizers that create nitrous oxides that are 385 times more potent as a greenhouse gas when compared to CO2and methane that our waste creates is 105 times more potent than CO2. There's little hope that our government and thus our farm program can design and implement a vast reduction in nitrate fertilizer manufacture that creates most of the nitrous oxide through crop rotation using legumes to fix fertility in around 4 years, because the corporate influence upon most agriculture will become a political one that will affect campaign contributions and corporate profits. Because of rampant and mostly unregulated capitalism and the burden of around 6.3 billion mouths to reckon with the resolution of any and all problems are impossible even to imagine any favorable outcome. Currently, lives are expendable and cheap, perhaps equating in essence to those possessing all of the wealth unable to purchase non existant food.

Paul Kangas WrenchMonkey • 3 days ago

We are caught in this energy evolution that requires us to extract ourselves out of this fossil energy trap to build a sustainable civilization.

One way, probably the best way, to move laterally, is to extract silicon & rare earths to make solar panels.
Because sun is everywhere, people with panels, will be less controlled by the for-profit, consumerist economy.

They can harvest at the point of use.
This decentralized form of harvesting & use means there is less control by the psychopathic controllers. And less profit for the 1%.
Solar gives the 99% more control and more jobs.

WrenchMonkey Paul Kangas • 2 days ago

And use what form of energy to build and power the machines to extract the materials, transport them, refine them, use them to manufacture more machines, refrigerators, cars, televisions, computers, air conditioners, cell phones, baby carriages, guns, tanks, stinger missiles, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum?

I agree completely that decentralisation is crucial to our survival as a species.

Beyond that you're imagining a utopian "civilisation" wherein all members are sane, rational and benevolent and share an equal desire to use resources only to the extent that will not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment.

This is self-contradictory since "civilisation", as defined by human history, demands "progress" and "growth" without concern for damage to the natural world that makes our very existence possible.

“Similarly, we can create a series of stories that cause us to believe it makes sense to deforest the planet, vacuum the oceans, impoverish the majority of humans. If the stories are good enough, effective enough at convincing us the stories are more important than physical reality, it will not only make sense to destroy the world, but we will feel good about it, and we will feel good about killing anyone who tries to stop us.”
"Endgame, vol. 1"

Have you looked into the Venus Project Paul? You would probably find it much to your liking, as I once did.

see more

Roberthe WrenchMonkey • 3 days ago

So why don't you permanently log off and lead as an example?

WrenchMonkey Roberthe • 3 days ago

Because I'm too old, too cowardly and not a "leader". What's your excuse?

Roberthe WrenchMonkey • 3 days ago

I was referring to the Internet, nothing else. To borrow from your initial comment "It still depends upon an extractive, technological, industrial "civilisation" to..." That is the beginning of an accurate description of the Internet as well. Since it is not going to function on semaphores there seems to be an inherent contradiction when you use resource sets and technologies similar to Paul's in order to critique him. Your comment is not internally consistent with your avowed position.