Logon
Translate

User login

GTranslate

French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish

Spirit, Evolution & Eco-Community

Universe Spirit Blogs

  • 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.

  • 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

     

  • 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

     

  • Why the Movie Downsizing Should be Seen by Everyone Who Cares About the Environment?

    Alexander Payne the writer and producer of Downsizing, as well as Matt Damon and the other stars, deserve the highest environmental honors. It is obvious they took a lot of professional risks in making this clever film about the dangers of global warming.

    Every environmentalist and sustainability advocate should see this film! What may be the single greatest truth of this film is that it has cleverly brought one of the 11 key tipping points of global warming to the forefront of the world's consciousness. That tipping point is methane release from the melting permafrost and tundra.

    While this is not the most dangerous of the 11 key global warming tipping points, it is among the most likely that will throw humanity into an extinction cycle within the next 30 to 50 years. (See the new book Climageddon at Amazon for more details about the real dangers of global warming tipping points.)

    In this movie, there are many clever plays on the downsizing of human beings to downsize their consumption and overconsumption or resource overshoot. While it was not an initial box office hit, we believe that over the years this movie will do very well in the streaming services and at other video rental outlets. Downsizing was chosen by the National Board of Review as one of the top ten films of 2017, while Hong Chau a co-star earned a nomination for Best Supporting Actress at the 75th Golden Globe Awards.

    For those of you who want more information on this movie the following is from its Wikipedia page and, it does not give away a very clever ending and telling of the methane tipping point surprise.

    Downsizing is a 2017 American science fiction comedy-drama film directed by Alexander Payne, written by Payne and Jim Taylor and starring Matt Damon, Christoph Waltz, Hong Chau, and Kristen Wiig. It tells the story of a couple who decide to undertake a newly-invented procedure to shrink their bodies so they can start a new life in an experimental community. When the wife refuses the procedure at the last minute, the husband has to reassess his life and choices after befriending an impoverished activist.

    Here is the movie trailer.

  • 21 Conservative Images of What Global Warming Sea Level Will Look like in 2100

    Check out the 21 images of what global warming will do to cities around the world in the following link. And, it's not even the real "don't scare the public and markets" sea level rise estimates found in the book Climageddon at Amazon. For all of the 21 images please see https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/disturbing-before-and-after-images-sho...

     

     

  • How to really know If we are making any progress in reducing global warming.

    Would you be surprised to know that we are not making any real progress on reducing the worst current and future consequences of global warming? Here is the proof.

    kc-monthly-0300_hirez.png

    Atmospheric carbon from fossil fuel burning is the main human-caused factor in the escalating global warming emergency we are experiencing now. The current level of carbon in our atmosphere is tracked using what is called the Keeling curve. The Keeling curve measures atmospheric carbon in parts per million (ppm).

    Each year, many measurements are taken at Mauna Loa, Hawaii to determine the parts per million (ppm) of carbon in the atmosphere at that time. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution around 1880, before we began fossil fuel burning, our atmospheric carbon level was at about 270 ppm. 

    Here is the current Keeling curve graph. Today we are at about carbon 408 ppm.

    kc-monthly-0300_hirez.png
    Keeling Curve Monthly CO2 graph, via Show.earth

    As you can see, we are not reducing global warming causing carbon in spite of all that you have heard in the media about what both individuals  and nations are doing. This exponentially rising carbon is also very bad for limiting the 20 worst consequences of global warming. 

    If the total carbon ppm level in our atmosphere is not going down or carbon’s average ppm level per year is not falling or at the very minimum slowing its steep level of increase (as shown above,)  we are in fact not making any significant progress on resolving the escalating global warming emergency. 

    As you can instantly see in the above graph, not only are we not making any global warming reduction progress, worse yet, we are going in the wrong direction faster and faster!

    This carbon ppm global warming measurement system is so accurate that it bears repeating. No matter what you are being told about global warming reduction progress by the media, governments or climate “authorities,” total atmospheric carbon as well as carbon’s average ppm level increase per year is the most dependable measurement of our real progress and the greatest predictor for current and future global warming consequences.
    In Summary
    There are two key ways you will always be able to tell if we are making honest progress in reducing global warming:

    When you start seeing the above Keeling graph levels dropping from the current carbon ppm level (approximately 408 ppm) back to a reasonably safe carbon 350-325 ppm. 

    When we see our average annual increase in carbon ppm levels (currently at about 3+ ppm per year) begin dropping significantly.

    As you can see we are in deep trouble and we are not making progress In reducing global warming in spite of 30+ years of warnings about what is coming. 

    If you are interested in what you can do to effectively help reduce global warming, click here and begin the actions steps of the new Job One Plan.

    This document provided by the research and editorial team at Job One for Humanity. It is derived from the new book Climageddon, The Global Warming Emergency and How to Survive it.

    Please share this blog post on other global warming and climate change related blogs and anywhere else appropriate on the Internet.
     

Pages