Logon
Translate

User login

GTranslate

French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish

Spirit & Eco-Community

Universe Spirit Blogs

  • What major change happened at Universe Spirit and what is going to Happen now?

    It's time for a candid update about both our organization's recent past and our future. It is also best to get the facts from us rather than from someone who is not from within our organization.

    What has happened to Universe Spirit? 

    For many years our organization provided spiritual services, meditations, retreats, sustainability education and worked to expand the ideas of eco-spirituality found in our writings (Spirituality 2.0 and Religion 2.0 fully explained here.)

    One day about 10 years ago I was in a deep meditation and a strong thought and feeling filled my awareness. It contained the clear concept that I and our organization needed to stop our current mission focus on eco-spirituality education and focus on researching the current facts on global warming. This just came to me completely out of the blue.

    I really did not want to carry out this idea because as its executive director, I loved the spiritual work that I was involved in within the Universe Spirit organization.

    For months, I fought this reoccurring idea, but it kept reappearing in my daily meditations and it grew stronger.

    I finally decided to a psychologist who had been a Luthern minister and taught at a seminary. After extensive counseling sessions trying to both reality test and refute the validity of this persistent inspiration or "calling" if you like, I finally came to accept that the Universe and/or it's and mysterious Originating Spirit was directing me toward some new very unwanted mission. This was in spite of the fact that I had never before done any research in this area and most people consider me a hard science guy and this kind of persistent meditative inspirational thoughts were very new to me.

    For the next 9 and 1/2 years, I studied most of the current published research on global warming (some 15,000 pages.) What I discovered was that global warming is far worse then we are being publicly told by anyone! (This anyone includes our governments and surprisingly the biggest names in environmentalism and global warming education.)

    As a result of these near full-time studies, I published a book called Climageddon, The Global Warming Emergency and How to Survive It (which all Universe Spirit mail list subscribers get free as an ebook here.) Additionally, the Universe Spirit organization also created a new website called Job One for Humanity to help educate about the real consequences, tipping points, and extinction-level crisis coming soon for most of humanity unless ---we radically and immediately change our ways! (This new Job One for Humanity website also provides all the critical information on how to survive this emergency and how to get through the soon-coming consequences as well as you can.) 

    Because both I and the Universe Spirit organization shifted our focus towards warning the world about how bad global warming actually is, as opposed to what we are being told, Universe Spirit's ongoing eco-spirituality education and service activities had to be greatly curtailed over the past extended period. 

    That's the past...

    What's important now is what's going to happen at Universe Spirit with your support!

    Slowly we are going to go back to doing more of our eco-spirituality and sustainability work, but our focus is still going to be different based on the new facts we have learned about the global warming emergency.

    This is what we are now planning to do going forward:

    1.) We are going to move our organizational headquarters and key staff as well as those Universe Spirit members or subscribers who want to join in the creation of a sustainable eco-community to the far north of the United States. It will be located in an isolated area that will remain a global warming safe zone for the foreseeable future. This new eco-community will be based on the ideas of Sustainable Prosperity, Spirituality 2.0and the Job One for Humanity Plan.

    We are moving north because the science clearly shows that within 10 to 15 years horrible global warming consequences increasing in scale, severity, and frequency will be hitting most of the areas of the United States as well as other parts of the world below the 45th parallel north. By beginning the process of finding the land for our new sustainable eco-community, we will:

    a.) be well ahead of the escalating global warming crisis curve as crops fail and the Great Migration north begins (within about 10 years,)

    b.) have adequate time to prepare and build a fully-functioning sustainable eco-community grounded in a new eco-spirituality that will help sustain us through the hard times to come and most importantly,

    c.) create a "beacon of light" new eco-community that will become a living example for the rebuilding of a broken world for the time when we finally come out of this global warming eco-crisis. (Please see this online booklet to better understand what we mean by a sustainable "beacon of light" eco-community and why we are not acting from a survivalist mentality, but a wise, sustainability advocate's mentality.)

    If you are one of those rare individuals who understands what's coming because of global warming, and you would like to participate in helping us build this sustainable eco-community in a new global warming safe zone, please let us know and read these pages. We will put you on our new eco-community email update list. (Send your notification email to me personally at Wollersheim@msn.com and copy the organization at manage@universespirit.org We will have our first meeting soon.) And,

    2.)Gradually, our organization will re-begin its spiritual education services and sustainability training work while it forwards the things mentioned in the previous point.

    Just One more thing...

    Our organization is in financial difficulty! When we shifted our emphasis to warning the world about the current global warming emergency, we did not do effective fundraising and frankly, telling people they have to radically alter their normal lives within the next 10 years or possibly migrate (depending upon their current location,) is not a message that anyone wants to hear.

    Because of these 2 previous factors affecting our fundraising success, we may have to close all of our websites down within the next 3 to 6 months.

    We have already economized as much as possible.

    Even though we have let paid staff go and we are functioning almost exclusively with a few volunteers there are still significant costs to keep us functioning online.

    This means that unless we get some quick financial help from the people who value our work and what we want to create for a better future, this, unfortunately, may be one of the last emails you receive from us.

    Yes, we should've let you know sooner! Now we must hope to reach your heart, mind and your generous spirit to help keep our new mission going. So...

    Please make a tax-deductible online donation now. This will take you to the Job One website. Both Job One and Universe Spirit are part of Factnet an IRS recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofit. 

    With your ongoing support, we promise we will move forward with the plans mentioned above and we will keep delivering the truth about the world’s current failed global warming reduction efforts. We will also continue to provide deadline-driven effective actions found in the Job One Plan that will help save and preserve you and your loved ones as the escalating global warming situation deteriorates. 

    Please make a quick and easy online tax-deductible donation here and keep our new mission alive
     

    Lawrence WollersheimYours for humanity, our children, and the earth,

    Lawrence Wollersheim
    Executive Director
    wollersheim@msn.com
    Manage@UniverseSpirit.org    

    www.UniverseSpirit.org
     

    PS: If you don't understand how bad global warming already is or, how bad it's going to get, please take this challenge and let us prove it to you. Get the free ebook Climageddon, The Global Warming Emergency and How to Survive It. It will prove to you using science what is coming --- is exactly what we are saying. (All Universe Spirit mail list subscribers get Climageddon free as an ebook here.)

    Get it now. If we don't get the necessary emergency funding we need, there is no guarantee it will still be available.

     

    This month's mini global warming update is:

    What you are seeing in the California, Greek, Finish, and Canadian wildfires and the heat extremes in Japan, Taiwan, and the Middle East are not the new normal for the climate! 

    What you are seeing is the beginning of chains of global warming consequences which are beginning and will continue to increase exponentially in their severity, frequency, and scale across the globe. This means what you are seeing right now is NOT the new normal and global warming is going to get much, much worse.

    Unfortunately, you will only hear this information from less than a handful of global warming educational organizations daring to speak what people do not want to hear.

    What you will also not hear is that the first wave of climate researchers and ultra-wealthy individuals who know about (or have been advised on what's coming,) have already chosen to migrate or prepare to migrate near or above the 45th parallel to minimize the coming global warming consequences. Even several of our staff at Job One have begun the process of finding new places to live in the far north.

    You're probably now asking if it's this bad, what can you do about the global warming emergency right now? That can be found in the newly upgradedJob One for Humanity Plan.

  • Are our comfortable delusions destroying our future and the future of humanity?

    (This article is from our partner organization Association for the Tree of Life. It discusses the coming global warming chaos as well as other factors leading to the end of humanity before 2100 and as we contend 70 to 90% of humanity dying within the next 30 to 50 years.)

    It’s time to accept that we are not going to dislodge the entrenched interests holding back effective action on looming climate chaos by any means tried so far. Believing that 97% of credible scientists is consensus enough is 103% short for effective response. (Even 200% may not be enough.) Undeniability and incontrovertibility are the only criteria that will work to break through the Hydra-Headed Delusion Dragon clutching all of us.

    Click Here to read whole article.

  • Liberal philanthropy is dooming the planet to climate disaster, documents reveal

    We need a people’s movement to mobilze for ecological regeneration and systemic transformation

    One of the world’s biggest philanthropic initiatives to address climate change is set-up to fail catastrophically, according to a strategy document setting out the initiative’s five-year plan.

    The strategy document, published by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation in January, represents the third renewal of the Climate Works initiative originally founded in 2008. The initiative was executed through the Climate Works Foundation in coordination with other big philanthropic foundations, the Packard and McKnight Foundations.

    The Hewlett Foundation strategy document, titled Climate Initiative Strategy 2018–2023, reflects on the strategic thinking behind the process that led to the announcement last December that the foundation would commit $600 million to address climate change over the next five years — a 20 percent increase from previous funding.

    Click here for the rest of the article.

  • Calculating Your Current and Future Global Warming Risks and Threat Levels

    Click here for effective ways to envision and evaluate your personal risks, threat levels, and the true urgency of the escalating global warming emergency on your life. It will help prepare and protect you from what is coming. 

  • Startling research on how people respond to the possibility of the end of civilization and the extinction of humanity

    Research done by Melanie Randle and Richard Eckersley (1) in the U.S., UK, Canada, and Australia investigated the perceived probability of threats to humanity and our different responses to them (nihilism,(2)fundamentalism,(3)and activism (4)). 

    Overall:

    1. A majority (54%) rated the risk of our way of life ending within the next 100 years at 50% or greater.
    2. A quarter (24%) rated the risk of humans being wiped out at 50% or greater.
    3. The remaining study participants rated the risk of humans being wiped out within the next 100 years from 0 to less than 50%.

    Across countries, age groups, gender, and education levels, the responses were relatively uniform. 

    Here's what they also discovered:

    1. Almost 80% agreed “we need to transform our worldview and way of life if we are to create a better future for the world” (activism).
    2. About 50% agreed that “the world’s future looks grim, so we have to focus on looking after ourselves and those we love” (nihilism). 
    3. Over 33% believed that “we are facing a final conflict between good and evil in the world” (fundamentalism). 

    Keeping these findings in mind about how people see the future when faced with the end of civilization and the extinction of humanity, it is paramount to examine your possible personal options below in responding to the global warming emergency that can lead to the same result.

    The above leads us to our current global warming emergency that within as little as the next 30-50 years will lead to the extinction to as much as 70 to 90% of humanity.

    Your options for what to do about the global warming emergency 

    The A-F options below are those most commonly chosen after someone understands the true gravity of our escalating global warming emergency. You may choose more than one of these responses in some combination.

    The denial strategies and options:

    1. Deny it and do nothing because it's overwhelming. Denial is an understandable and legitimate psychological defense mechanism when the reality is too much for that particular mind to bear. From experience at the Job One for Humanity organization, it was seen that many people struggle with the disheartening and difficult information of this book. For some individuals, complete denial is initially necessary to continue to survive with some semblance of psychological and emotional equilibrium. (At some later date, as their psychological and emotional equilibrium becomes stronger regarding this emergency, some of these individuals will choose to begin working on parts of the plan found in Part 2 of this book.)
    2. Deny it and do nothing because you believe the inaccurate or incomplete media coverage and advertisements deceptively forwarded by the fossil fuel industry. These types of media pronouncements generate doubt and confusion regarding the global warming science or the seriousness of the global warming emergency. At some point, when the real and personal costs of escalating global warming finally hit close to home, or individuals in this mindset are exposed to more global warming science, many of these individuals will leave the denier category and may also join efforts to resolve the emergency.
    3. Deny it and intentionally do nothing because you are profiting from the fossil fuel-related industries. These organizations and individuals will flat out deny almost everything in this book. These organizations and individuals almost always have a direct or indirect vested interest in the continued profitability of the fossil fuel-related industries or are being secretly or openly paid by the fossil fuel-related industries to create doubt and misinformation about areas of settled climate science. These “merchants of doubt” and misinformation are using many of the same tactics that were effectively used by the tobacco industry to delay laws regulating tobacco product use for almost 50 years.

    To one degree or another, the denial strategies listed above are like the proverbial ostrich sticking its head in the sand, hoping that by not seeing a threat it will be spared. Denial strategies do not work for the ostrich and they will not work for us. The escalating global warming emergency will eventually impose its painful consequences upon any and all worlds of carefully constructed partial or complete denial. 

    Reality always seems to have the uncanny ability to impose itself and overcome through sheer force and consequence any attempt to deny it. Denial almost always adds additional pain and suffering on top of the original delayed or denied consequences. Or in other words:

    "Resistance is what you add to pain to make it last longer and hurt more." —Errol Strider (Resistance is a key form of denial.)

    The acceptance strategies and options:

    1. Accept the facts of the coming Climageddon, but do nothing about it. This option is taken when individuals feel they have no real influence or control that could significantly improve the situation, or they are so preoccupied with other more pressing personal problems they have no time or bandwidth left for any other life problems. These individuals simply go about living their lives trying to have as much peace and enjoyment as is possible by simply focusing on their daily problems and ignoring the situations they believe they cannot effectively influence or control.
    2. Accept the facts of the coming Climageddonand do nothing more than preparing one’s loved ones, business, community, or nation for what is coming. These individuals strongly believe that the hope of resolving the escalating global warming emergency is so slim that it would be wiser for them to take whatever time and resources they have and dedicate all of them to preparing the appropriate emergency reserves and migration plans while also still trying to enjoy their lives every day as best they can for as long as they can. At some level, these individuals also believe they do not have the influence or control to make a real difference anyway.
    3. Accept the facts of the coming Climageddonand work for the best possible outcome for resolving the global warming emergency. There are many mature adults who understand that difficult conversations, facts and situations are just another part of navigating the challenges of life. They understand that if they do not have all the accurate facts, they cannot properly do whatever is necessary to make the best out of any difficult situation. These individuals are strong enough emotionally and psychologically to bear the weight of disheartening truths like those found in this book. They are also the same individuals who will quickly seek out and use the best plans and strategies available. They will not deceive themselves as to the costs, pain, or suffering that resolving any difficult situation entails. While these individuals work for the best, they are also wise enough to prepare for the worst. However, they will not make personal emergency preparation their main priority. They will focus the majority of their attention and resources on resolving the escalating emergency using the best possible strategies.

    Before you decide which strategy and option you will use, please do not forget that there may be still some time and hope left to avert climate catastrophe even though the process will be extremely costly, difficult, and painful. There is also much we do not know about the global warming systems and subsystems that could provide some positive wild cards in our favor. 

    If you have chosen the denial strategies and options

    If you're one of those individuals who:

    1. is a denier or is overwhelmed by all this bad news, or 
    2. believes that things are truly hopeless, or 
    3. believes that you don't have to worry about what you can't control and you can just enjoy the present, or 
    4. is preparing for what is coming by protecting only yourself and loved ones  without acting to help slow, lessen, and resolve the situation,

    then there are two more important ideas to carefully consider:

    1. By doing nothing, you shorten the critical time frame needed for more people, technology, and infrastructure to be successfully moved to the far north or far south so that more of the population can live a bit longer.
    2. Your inaction and/or your seeking personal comfort or escape from your moral, ethical, and spiritual obligation (if you are of a spiritual nature) to act is in fact, by omission, a form of contributing to the end of civilization and humanity as we know it.

    If you are still a denier of the global warming emergency, your denial will also slow or prevent your own necessary preparation and protection because you believe there is no problem. Once our governments are overwhelmed by global warming’s continuous disasters, reality will rear its harsh and ugly head. Because of denial and your lack of preparation, you and those closest to you will receive the likely reward of suffering more and longer. 

    On the other hand, if you're one of those brave and mature individuals who want to slow and lessen escalating global warming and then eventually work to end it (option F above), please click here to get started with the needed solutions in the Job One for Humanity Plan.

    Still not convinced Climageddon is already happening? Watch The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See, Version 2. (5)(10 minutes.) 

    The following was taken from the new book and global warming encyclopedia called Climageddon. Click here to learn more about this book.

    In case you're curious here are some survey results on the key problems facing the world:

    End Notes:

    (1) Melanie J. Randle and Richard Eckersley, "Public perceptions of future threats to humanity and different societal responses: a cross-national study." Futures, 72 (2015): 4-16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.06.004

    (2) Wikipedia contributors, "Nihilism," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nihilism&oldid=757224924(accessed December 29, 2016).

    (3) Wikipedia contributors, "Fundamentalism," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundamentalism&oldid=758581120(accessed January 6, 2017).

    (4) Wikipedia contributors, "Activism," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Activism&oldid=750786662(accessed November 21, 2016).

    (5) The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See." YouTube video. 9:33, posted by "wonderingmind42," June 8, 2007. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

  • The Global Warming Dilemma Environmental Organizations Will Not Publicly Discuss

    Which do you prefer: partial economic collapse now, or total economic collapse later, with the bonus collapse of civilization. The great global warming dilemma that almost all environmental organizations are hiding from you!

    Tim Garrett, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Utah, has researched the physics of atmospheric thermodynamic change (changing air temperatures) over the history of human civilization. His unsettling research indicates the only workable way left in which to avoid irreversible global warming and its unthinkable consequences will involve allowing our fossil fuel-driven global economy to collapse.

    It appears from his research that the laws of physics predict that we will have to go into an immediate economic recession or depression to save the future from irreversible global warming and ourselves from extinction. Most of us are not economists, physicists, or climatologists, so this lesson may seem a little difficult to understand. The following summary of Garrett’s research should help:

    1. The core finding of his research is that maintaining onlyour current levels of economic production and wealth requires continual energy sustenance and supply. Like a living organism, civilization requires energy to not only growbut also to continue to sustain and maintain its current size or wealth.

    2. In today’s terms, this also means that additional economic production (wealth) equals more carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. Less carbon emissions from less fossil fuel burning equal less economic production (wealth).

    3. The fixed and direct link between energy sustenance and the additional production of more wealth means that the existence of a financially measurable economy cannot be decoupled from a continuing rise in its energy consumption.

    4. This means contrary to current popular global warming prediction theories, neither population size nor the population’s standard of living has to be included in the computer modeling for predictions on what will happen in the future with a growing or shrinking economy and the amount of carbon dioxide that will go into the atmosphere affecting global warming. Global warming is linked closely to the increased or decreased carbon levels of increased or decreased GDP.

    5. Global atmospheric carbon dioxide emission rates also cannot be unlinked from economic production (wealth) through new or predicted gains in energy efficiency. Greater energy efficiency does not invalidate Garrett’s research demonstrating that greater production (wealth) always equals greater atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions. 

    6. According to Garrett’s research, even a 50% reduction in total fossil fuel use over the next 50 years will not be enough to keep us below carbon 425-450 ppmv. [See footnote 96.] (425-450 ppmv is of itself a very unsafe level.) Even with this 50% reduction, we will still hit 600 ppmv by the year 2100 (or sooner) and enter Phase 4 of the Climageddon Scenario, leading eventually to Phase 5 extinction. (See this pageto understand what 450-500 ppmv or 600 ppmv will mean to your future.)

    7. Keeping carbon emissions at or below the already unsafe level of carbon 450 ppmv will not be achieved by any conservation, increased energy efficiency, or other gradual fossil fuel reduction tactics currently being implemented. To maintain our current standard of living with our growing population without further exacerbating global warming, a new, non-carbon polluting nuclear power plant would have to be built every day. Because this is not currently happening and, in fact, may be impossible (even if it was a desirable solution), the only remaining solution to radically reducing fossil fuel use is economic collapse.

    8. For atmospheric CO2 concentrations to remain below 450 ppmv, Garrett’s research suggests there will have to be some combination of an unrealistically rapid rate of energy decarbonization (reduction of fossil fuel use) and its consequent and near-immediate reductions in global wealth. Effectively, it appears that civilization may be in a double-bind dilemma. If civilization does not collapse quickly this century, then CO2 levels will likely end up exceeding 1000 ppmv. At the same time, if CO2 levels exceed 1000 ppmv, [See footnote 97.] then civilization will gradually tend toward total collapse. (For more about Garrett’s research on the physics of long-run global economic growth issues, click here. Please note, other research summarized in the new book Climageddon indicates that civilization will begin collapsing in what is called the Climageddon Scenario long before 1000 ppmv is reached.b [See footnote 98.]) 

    9. Garrett also does not envision that we will ever be able to reduce carbon emissions fast enough. In his paper “No Way Out,” [See footnote 99.] he says that “reducing carbon emissions may be a bit like asking an adult to once again become a child. Over millennia, we have collectively built an enormous global infrastructure designed to consume massive amounts of energy. Without destroying this infrastructure, energy will continue to be consumed. Without energy, the circulations and transactions defining the global economy stop. And because so much of this infrastructure is tied to fossil fuel consumption, our economy is wedded to carbon emissions.”

    10. Although it is counter-intuitive, Garrett also states energy consumption rates can rise about twice as fast with rapid decarbonization (fossil fuel use reductions,) as with no decarbonization. The reason is that decarbonization aids society's health by limiting global warming. Better health means greater energy consumption, which then leads to a partial offset of any environmental gains that came from decarbonizing in the first place. (Going green is a form of global decarbonization.)

    11. Garrett also turned his new prediction model on the IPCC’s global warming predictions and discovered two major errors. He demonstrated that the IPCC’s current global warming prediction scenarios substantially underestimate how much carbon dioxide levels will rise for a given level of future economic prosperity and wealth. The two reasons for the IPCC errors are that global carbon dioxide emission rates cannot be unlinked from economic production and wealth creation through any efficiency gains the IPCC uses, and our continuous future global warming can be expected to act as a significant inflationary drag on the real growth of wealth. Because neither of these two essential economic factors was properly accounted for within previous IPCC prediction scenarios, the IPCC has once again, substantially underestimated the relationship of projected future increased prosperity to increased carbon dioxide levels. By forwarding this rosy false belief that economic prosperity can be maintained while dramatically reducing fossil fuel use, it seems the IPCC was trying to “have its cake and eat it too.” These serious miscalculations by the IPCC mean their predictions are even more unreliable than has been disclosed in Chapter 7 of the new Climageddon book. This also means most of the world has no idea how bad the current global warming emergency really is or that to solve it, we will have to go through a massive global economic downturn. 

    Garrett does give us some hope in his research for a possible solution when he mentions that if civilization’s ability to adapt to rising global warming and its consequences is extremely low, “...then only a combination of rapid civilization collapse and high decarbonization comes close to achieving a 450 ppmv goal.” [See footnote 100.] (Here rapid civilization collapse refers directly to the rapid reduction of all fossil fuel use.)

    Garrett’s unsettling research can also suggest that the only remaining possible way that we may be able to maintain or go below the carbon 450 ppmvtarget [See footnote 101.] to avoid irreversible global warming and keep our economy going fairly well is:

    • sudden and drastic global fossil fuel use reductions, and simultaneously all,
    • nations immediately and fully switching to non-carbon-dioxide-emitting green power generation sources. (Neither of which is currently happening and according to the new MIT research, we will not be able to scale up green energy generation in anywhere close to the timeframe needed.)

    It appears Garrett may not believe we currently have either the technical ability and/or the political will to enact the painful solution to replace our fossil fuel energy consumption in time to the consequences of irreversible global warming. He states that “as the current climate system is tied directly to its unchangeable past, any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in carbon dioxide emission rates is highly unlikely.” 

    This creates a real dilemma. If we can't scale up a full global green energy generation replacement in time, while we are also making all of the required global fossil fuel reductions, the steep crash of the global economy will financially destroy us. If we continue as we are now, and civilization does not collapse quickly (within this century), carbon dioxide levels will likely exceed carbon 600-1,000 ppmv and condemn us to the last phases of the Climageddon Scenario

    Assuming Tim Garrett’s research is correct about how the gross world product (GWP) and civilization’s accumulated wealth is intrinsically linked to the total carbon levels present in the atmosphere, without building a nuclear reactor every day, or fully scaling up global green energy generation to replace all global fossil fuel reductions, our only remaining solution is to let the economy crash in stages now, or completely collapse later, bringing most of civilization down with it. 

    Ethically, this is a simple choice, but in reality, it is a logistic nightmare. How do we educate the people of the world that to save the future and future generations, they must now expect less, have less, and be less economically comfortable? 

    In a world that has already conditioned us to demand and expect more, the message that we must all make painful sacrifices for the survival of future generations and civilization will be a very hard sell. This educational task might be nearly impossible because it requires a degree of personal maturity to delay immediate self-gratification for a collective reward in the future. It is completely unrealistic to think most people will voluntarily make the required and painful sacrifices without enforcement by the governments of the world.  

    Very few individuals, corporations, or nations are ready to hear this tough message, much less act upon the drastic fossil fuel reductions we now need to make. But this is exactly what we all need to hear, begin discussing, and start preparing for and doing to survive. Although many new jobs and businesses will be created by transferring to green energy generation, these new sources of revenue will not protect the economy from the loss of old fossil fuel industry-related jobs and businesses. As we ride out the coming economic hardships, and as we transition from reliance on fossil fuel energy generation to green energy generation, we will have to somehow learn to accept these harsh financial realities. 

    There is both bad news and good news in Garrett’s research. The bad news is that if we don't radically reduce fossil fuel use that currently sustains a viable rising economy, at an exponentially rapid rate, our atmospheric carbon ppm concentrations will continue to rise and we will continue moving toward the later phases of the Climageddon Scenario. The good news is that we can secure a prosperous economy and a safe future if we persuade our politicians to realize there will be no possible long-term economic prosperity without immediate and radical fossil fuel reductions and a full transition to global green energy generation for our energy needs. 

    In summary, Garrett's research points toward the unbearable idea that the short-term collapse of our economy may become a required action if we are going to save ourselves from global warming catastrophe. If you still don't believe this is valid and you are scientifically minded, take a look at Garrett’s paper called “No Way Out. [See footnote 102.] (Be sure to go to the end of his study after the references and also look at his many prediction graphs.)

    We are caught in a terrible transitional energy, economy and survival dilemma. Because there is no quick global green energy generation transitional fix, we must drastically cut fossil fuel use now and we will suffer financial hardship. If we don't drastically cut fossil fuel use now, we will still suffer far greater than just financial hardship in the near future. 

    If the economy is going to have to go into a steep recession or depression no matter what to save us, it is wiser to get the needed painful changes out of the way as quickly as possible and save the future. 

    Please note this article and footnotes below are from the new book Climageddonwhich discusses the Garrett Global warming dilemma at length.

    96Note: ppmv is different from carbon parts per million (ppm and CE carbon equivalent, CO2e). The distinction is that ppmv is used to describe all trace gases found in the atmosphere such as sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and other pollutants by volume.

    97Tim Garrett, interview by Alex Smith, Radio Ecoshock, October 19, 2011, transcript. http://www.ecoshock.org/downloads/climate2010/ES_Garrett_101119_LoFi.mp3

    98Tim Garrett. "The physics of long-run global economic growth." Utah.edu.2014. http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics.html

    99Tim Garrett. "No way out? The double-bind in seeking global prosperity alongside mitigated climate change."arXiv. January 9 2012. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.0428v3.pdf

    100Tim Garrett. "No way out? The double-bind in seeking global prosperity alongside mitigated climate change." arXiv. January 9 2012. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.0428v3.pdf

    101Note: ppmv is different from carbon parts per million ppm and CE carbon equivalent, CO2e. The distinction is that ppmv is used to describe all trace gases found in the atmosphere such as sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and other pollutants by volume.

    102Tim Garrett. "No way out? The double-bind in seeking global prosperity alongside mitigated climate change." arXiv. January 9 2012. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.0428v3.pdf

    Other Observations

    1. We are currently not making anything even close to the required radical cuts in fossil fuel useto reduce the carbon going into our atmosphere to prevent massiveglobal temperature increases, horrendous climate calamities, and far sooner than imagined extinction. In a newer 2017 research paper in Science lead-authored by Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, concluded that global carbon emissions would have to be cut in half by 2020, then cut in half again by 2030, and then cut in half again each decade out to 2050 to keep us safe. This means that In order for us to keep global temperature anywhere even close to levels where most of humanity can survive, fossil fuel emissions need to be slashed by about 75 percent by 2030, and by nearly 95 percent by 2050 to stay within a safe climate zone. 
    2. To grasp how difficult these cuts will be,imagine that in the next three years you personally will have to cut all of your home, auto, and business uses of fossil fuels by 50%, then cut another 50% from that point within the next 10 years and then cut another 50% in each of the following decades. Citizens of the world who did not fully understand both the urgency and importance of why they needed to make these radical, immediate and painful sacrifices would literally throw out any politician or even overthrow governments who tried to enforce these kinds of radical energy and fossil fuel usage cuts to their current comfortable or subsistence lifestyles and livelihoods. 
    3. It is highly improbable we will ever make the critically needed cuts to our fossil fuel use. There are several reasons for this. One is that each year we delay making these needed radical fossil fuel usage cuts means that any future cuts will need to be even more extreme, which makes them even less likely to be done because of the even worse hardship they will impose globally. Secondly, because of Professor Garrett's Global Warming Dilemmawhich you have read in the article above. 

    There is still hope and things you can do to help create a better world.

    Click here to learn about the Job One Plan for how to prepare for, adapt to and slow and lessen the global warming emergency.

    http://www.joboneforhumanity.org/the_global_warming_dilemma_environmenta... 

  • Why you will want to give every Millennial you know this new book on global warming?

    There is a spellbinding new book on global warming called On Vestige Way by David Spielberg that just arrived at Amazon. It is an emotion-packed novel about how global warming effects the future and fate of the world’s Millennials, generation Z, corporations and the political alliances we take for granted. 

    It is so hard to put down you will be missing work and sleep wondering what happens next to the story’s heroes and heroines struggling with the very real future challenges the younger generations will face most of all. Not only is it exceptionally well-written with compelling characters and elegant descriptions that seamlessly take you in and through every fast-changing scene, quite surprisingly, it also follows real global warming science more honestly than you will find almost anywhere else except in the newest global warming science books such as Climageddon.

    On Vestige Wayis such a good adventure read that I don't want to give away any of the major details of the story, but somebody's definitely going to make it into a blockbuster movie. It has both a James Bond wild adventure quality wrapped around a developing life-critical mystery that is impossible not to want to resolve once you start the book. 

    As I was personally reading it, I simply could not believe that the author had not read the Climageddon book and predictions, because the science of this novel followed so closely with that book it just could not have been simple coincidence. After speaking with the author who has a doctoral degree in physics and has been involved with the sciences for years, I discovered that he came to his global warming story conclusions from his own independent study of the newest science and hard to find global warming consequence and timetable projections.

    Do not hesitate! Get this book for every millennial and young person you know. 

    Get it for anyone you know who doesn’t like to struggle through global warming science as in books like Climageddon and, who would rather be entertained and educated without ever even knowing that they are being educated.

    On Vestige Way by David Spielberg is a five-star mystery and adventure novel. And somehow, a five-star global warming science book without ever trying to be anything but a compelling fantastic novel. How cool is that for the often attention-distracted Millennials and generation Z?

    This book review was done by Lawrence Wollersheim the executive director of JobOneforhumanity.org a nonprofit global warming education organization.

     

  • Four ways your faith can help you survive and thrive the coming global warming catastrophes.

    We have done many posts on the global warming emergency and how bad it is. We thought it's time to post some realistic yet positive perspectives on this escalating crisis that we all face. 

    Please enjoy these new entries.

    There are many benefits for people of faith as we endure the unavoidable coming global warming catastrophes. Your spiritual faith will help you to endure the hardships and sacrifice as the global warming process escalates until it is finally resolved. There is also a large personal spiritual growth benefit in the evolutionary process itself whenever you overcome significant obstacles and challenges. You grow in both character and in spirit.

    Additionally, helping to re-stabilize our climate will give you a powerful opportunity to live your deepest faith in relation to what many refer to as the Great Mystery of Ultimate Reality (God, Buddha, Allah, etc.) You can also demonstrate that ending global warming and being a good steward for the Earth is fully compatible with your best understanding of the Great Mystery and its intentions to sustain life on the planet (as believed in many faiths). As this happens, you will be demonstrating the power and influence of your faith and the world's religions.

    The best and biggest silver lining here is that when most individuals of faith and most of the great religious groups of this world collectively demand we do what is necessary to slow and less escalating global warming, an unimaginably great moral leverage will be in place to help ensure we are eventually successful.

    Your strong personal faith shared with others will also help demonstrate that humanity is completely capable of lessening, slowing, and eventually resolving the global warming challenge if:

    1. we clearly understand the global warming emergency is currently and what caused it. (Click here for a temporarily free copy of a new ebook on the global warming emergency that will provide the latest research.) 
    2. we are realistic about what is effective and what is not in the time we have left, 
    3. we do the “first-things-first” on critical path actions, 
    4. we cooperate together as a unified and coordinated force.

    Together, faith and spirit communities can help extend the existence, stability, and quality of life for the present generation, as well as for future generations.

    “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” 

                — Aldo Leopold, American author, ecologist, and environmentalist

  • We're screwed. MIT says it will take 400 years to get green energy generation to replace fossil fuel energy generation.

    I recently asked a group gathered to hear me speak what percentage of the world’s energy is provided by these six renewable sources: solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tidal, and ocean energy.

    Then came the guesses: To my left, 25 percent; straight ahead, 30 percent; on my right, 20 percent and 15 percent; a pessimist sitting to the far right, 7 percent.

    The group was astonished when I related the actual figure: 1.5 percent. The figure comes from the Paris-based International Energy Agency, a consortium of 30 countries that monitors energy developments worldwide. The audience that evening had been under the gravely mistaken impression that human society was much further along in its transition to renewable energy. Even the pessimist in the audience was off by more than a factor of four.

    I hadn’t included hydroelectricity in my list, I told the group, which would add another 2.5 percent to the renewable energy category. But hydro, I explained, would be growing only very slowly since most of the world’s best dam sites have been taken.

    The category “Biofuels and waste,” which makes up 9.7 percent of the world total, includes small slivers of what we Americans call biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel), I said, but mostly represents the deforestation of the planet through the use of wood for daily fuel in many poor countries, hardly a sustainable practice that warrants vast expansion. (This percentage has been roughly the same since 1973 though the absolute consumption has more than doubled as population has climbed sharply.) The burden for renewable energy expansion, I concluded, would therefore remain on the six categories I mentioned at the outset of my presentation.

    As if to underline this worrisome state of affairs, the MIT Technology Review just days later published a piece with a rather longish title: “At this rate, it’s going to take nearly 400 years to transform the energy system.”

    In my presentation I had explained to my listeners that renewable energy is not currently displacing fossil fuel capacity, but rather supplementing it. In fact, I related, the U.S. government’s own Department of Energy with no sense of alarm whatsoever projects that world fossil fuel consumption will actually rise through 2050. This would represent a climate catastrophe, I told my audience, and cannot be allowed to happen.

    And yet, the MIT piece affirms that this is our destination on our current trajectory. The author writes that “even after decades of warnings, policy debates, and clean-energy campaigns—the world has barely even begun to confront the problem.”

    All this merely serves to elicit the question: What would it take to do what scientists think we need to do to reduce greenhouse gases?

    The MIT piece suggests that a total mobilization of society akin to what happened in World War II would have to occur and be maintained for decades to accomplish the energy transition we need to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    Few people alive today were alive back then. A somewhat larger group has parents who lived through World War II and so have some inkling of what such a mobilization would involve. It’s hard enough to imagine this group agreeing that their household consumption should be curtailed significantly for decades (through taxes, higher prices and perhaps even rationing) to make way for huge societal investments in vast new wind and solar deployments; electricity storage for all that renewable electricity; mass transit; deep energy retrofits for buildings; energy-efficient vehicles; and even revised diets that are less meat-intensive and thereby less energy-intensive. Even harder to image is the much larger group with a more tenuous or nonexistent connection to the World War II experience embracing such a path.

    The trouble with waiting, of course, is that climate change does not wait for us, and also that it shows up with multi-decadal lags. The effects of greenhouse gases emitted decades ago are only now registering on the world’s thermometers. That means that when climate conditions finally become so destructive as to move the public and the politicians to do something big enough to make a difference, it will likely be too late to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    One scientist cited by the MIT piece believes that a rise of more than 2 degrees C in global temperature is all but inevitable and that human society would be “lucky” to avoid a rise of 4 degrees by 2100.

    But since each increment of temperature rise will inflict more damage, the scientist says, we would be wise to seek to limit temperature rise as much as we are able (even though the odds are now overwhelmingly against staying below a 2 degree rise). No longer are we faced with prevention so much as mitigation and management. That’s still something, and it provides a way forward that doesn’t rely on an increasingly unrealistic goal.

    By Kurt Cobb 

    Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and environment. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique, Oilprice.com, OilVoice, TalkMarkets, Investing.com, Business Insider and many other places. He is the author of an oil-themed novel entitled Prelude and has a widely followed.

    Original article at http://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-03-18/troubling-realities-energy-transition/ 

    For more information on the near intractable global warming dilemma we are in, see this page.

  • We're screwed. MIT says it will take 400 years to get green energy generation to replace fossil fuel energy generation.

    I recently asked a group gathered to hear me speak what percentage of the world’s energy is provided by these six renewable sources: solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tidal, and ocean energy.

    Then came the guesses: To my left, 25 percent; straight ahead, 30 percent; on my right, 20 percent and 15 percent; a pessimist sitting to the far right, 7 percent.

    The group was astonished when I related the actual figure: 1.5 percent. The figure comes from the Paris-based International Energy Agency, a consortium of 30 countries that monitors energy developments worldwide. The audience that evening had been under the gravely mistaken impression that human society was much further along in its transition to renewable energy. Even the pessimist in the audience was off by more than a factor of four.

    I hadn’t included hydroelectricity in my list, I told the group, which would add another 2.5 percent to the renewable energy category. But hydro, I explained, would be growing only very slowly since most of the world’s best dam sites have been taken.

    The category “Biofuels and waste,” which makes up 9.7 percent of the world total, includes small slivers of what we Americans call biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel), I said, but mostly represents the deforestation of the planet through the use of wood for daily fuel in many poor countries, hardly a sustainable practice that warrants vast expansion. (This percentage has been roughly the same since 1973 though the absolute consumption has more than doubled as population has climbed sharply.) The burden for renewable energy expansion, I concluded, would therefore remain on the six categories I mentioned at the outset of my presentation.

    As if to underline this worrisome state of affairs, the MIT Technology Review just days later published a piece with a rather longish title: “At this rate, it’s going to take nearly 400 years to transform the energy system.”

    In my presentation I had explained to my listeners that renewable energy is not currently displacing fossil fuel capacity, but rather supplementing it. In fact, I related, the U.S. government’s own Department of Energy with no sense of alarm whatsoever projects that world fossil fuel consumption will actually rise through 2050. This would represent a climate catastrophe, I told my audience, and cannot be allowed to happen.

    And yet, the MIT piece affirms that this is our destination on our current trajectory. The author writes that “even after decades of warnings, policy debates, and clean-energy campaigns—the world has barely even begun to confront the problem.”

    All this merely serves to elicit the question: What would it take to do what scientists think we need to do to reduce greenhouse gases?

    The MIT piece suggests that a total mobilization of society akin to what happened in World War II would have to occur and be maintained for decades to accomplish the energy transition we need to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    Few people alive today were alive back then. A somewhat larger group has parents who lived through World War II and so have some inkling of what such a mobilization would involve. It’s hard enough to imagine this group agreeing that their household consumption should be curtailed significantly for decades (through taxes, higher prices and perhaps even rationing) to make way for huge societal investments in vast new wind and solar deployments; electricity storage for all that renewable electricity; mass transit; deep energy retrofits for buildings; energy-efficient vehicles; and even revised diets that are less meat-intensive and thereby less energy-intensive. Even harder to image is the much larger group with a more tenuous or nonexistent connection to the World War II experience embracing such a path.

    The trouble with waiting, of course, is that climate change does not wait for us, and also that it shows up with multi-decadal lags. The effects of greenhouse gases emitted decades ago are only now registering on the world’s thermometers. That means that when climate conditions finally become so destructive as to move the public and the politicians to do something big enough to make a difference, it will likely be too late to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    One scientist cited by the MIT piece believes that a rise of more than 2 degrees C in global temperature is all but inevitable and that human society would be “lucky” to avoid a rise of 4 degrees by 2100.

    But since each increment of temperature rise will inflict more damage, the scientist says, we would be wise to seek to limit temperature rise as much as we are able (even though the odds are now overwhelmingly against staying below a 2 degree rise). No longer are we faced with prevention so much as mitigation and management. That’s still something, and it provides a way forward that doesn’t rely on an increasingly unrealistic goal.

    By Kurt Cobb 

    Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and environment. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique, Oilprice.com, OilVoice, TalkMarkets, Investing.com, Business Insider and many other places. He is the author of an oil-themed novel entitled Prelude and has a widely followed.

    Original article at http://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-03-18/troubling-realities-energy-transition/ 

    For more information on the near intractable global warming dilemma we are in, see this page.

Pages