P.D. Allen's Blog, page 33
July 10, 2012
Trust the Path
Quantum Meditation #1571
July 9, 2012
Global Climate Change Is Now
Global Climate Change Is Now
(Part I)
by Dale Allen Pfeiffer
download a pdf of this article (black type on white background)
(Originally published April 13, 2004 0800 PST by From the Wilderness) – In October of 2003, the Pentagon published a report on abrupt climate change.1 Its authors were by Peter Schwartz, a CIA consultant and former head of planning at the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.2 Their task was to assess the likelihood of abrupt climate change within the next twenty years. They were then supposed to develop a scenario of the possible consequences should abrupt climate change occur starting in 2004. Finally, they were to make recommendations to the President based on their study: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security.
A few copies were printed and circulated around the Pentagon, which heavily censored the report and is now downplaying its significance.3 It remained effectively buried and all but forgotten until copies were leaked to the media, first to Fortune Magazine,4 and then to The Observer.5 The Pentagon has rightfully pointed out that this is a speculative report; they are not expecting abrupt climate change to begin in the year 2004. Schwartz and Randall are exploring a risk scenario, such as the Pentagon and the CIA draw up all the time – what would happen if the Russians launched a nuclear attack this year; what would happen if California suffered the big one, etc. But the real importance of the report lies in the statement of probability and in the authors’ recommendations to the President and the National Security Council.
While no statistical analysis of probability is given in the report as it has been released (any such statistical analysis would most likely be classified), the authors state that “the plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher than most of the scientific community and perhaps all of the political community is prepared for.”6 They say that instead of asking whether this could happen, we should be asking when this will happen. They conclude: “It is quite plausible that within a decade the evidence of an imminent abrupt climate shift may become clear and reliable.”7
From such a shift, the report claims, utterly appalling ecological consequences would follow. Europe and Eastern North America would plunge into a mini-ice age, with weather patterns resembling present day Siberia. Violent storms could wreak havoc around the globe. Coastal areas such as The Netherlands, New York, and the West coast of North America could become uninhabitable, while most island nations could be completely submerged. Lowlands like Bangladesh could be permanently swamped. While flooding would become the rule along coastlines, mega-droughts could destroy the world’s breadbaskets. The dust bowl could return to America’s Midwest. Famine and drought would result in a major drop in the planet’s ability to sustain the present human population. Access to water could become a major battleground – hundreds of millions could die as a result of famine and resource wars. More than 400 million people in subtropical regions will be put at grave risk. There would be mass migrations of climate refugees, particularly to southern Europe and North America. Nuclear arms proliferation in conjunction with resource wars could very well lead to nuclear wars.8 And none of this takes into account the effects of global peak oil and the North American natural gas cliff. Not pretty.
At the end of their report, Schwartz and Randall advise that climate change “should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern.”9 And while “alternative fuels, greenhouse gas emission controls, and conservation efforts are worthwhile endeavors,” we’re urged to “prepare for the inevitable effects of abrupt climate change — which will likely come regardless of human activity.”10
As stated, the Pentagon is playing down this report and has opted not to send the authors’ recommendations on to the White House.
Urgent for humanity or not, this report is a major embarrassment to President Bush and his corporate handlers, who remain content to deny the reality of global climate change and the validity of the overwhelming case for it. A phalanx of corporate-sponsored disinformationists earns their keep by deriding the report, wearing the mantle of scientific authority while selling their intellectual souls. And the mass media within the US have done their part by virtually ignoring the story.
But outside the well-funded mental playworld of Bush and his junk-science hirelings, what is the global scientific consensus on abrupt climate change? How real is global climate change, and what evidence do we have for it? How could global warming result in a miniature ice age in Europe and Eastern North America? What are the differences among “accelerating climate change,” “abrupt climate change,” and “runaway global warming”? And how will Peak Oil and the North American natural gas cliff affect global climate change? This article tries to answer those questions, with some surprising results.
Global Warming is a Reality
In 2001, no fewer than sixteen major academies of science from throughout the world issued a statement which reads, in part:
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.
…we support the IPCC’s conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8ºC above 1990 levels by 2100.
It is now evident that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change. Business as usual is no longer a viable option. … We urge everyone – individuals, businesses and governments – to take prompt action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The balance of the scientific evidence demands effective steps now to avert damaging changes to the earth’s climate.11
In their statement, the scientific academies refer to a four-volume report released by the IPCC in 2001, titled Climate Change 2001.12 The first volume focuses on the scientific case – a giant, multifaceted, multidisciplinary edifice of peer-reviewed empirical research and argumentation converging on a shared set of conclusions. For instance:
Globally, it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record, since 1861 (see Figure 1a).
New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years.
Satellite data show that there are very likely to have been decreases of about 10% in the extent of snow cover since the late 1960s, and ground-based observations show that there is very likely to have been a reduction of about two weeks in the annual duration of lake and river ice cover in the mid- and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, over the 20th century.
There has been a widespread retreat of mountain glaciers in non-polar regions during the 20th century.
Northern Hemisphere spring and summer sea-ice extent has decreased by about 10 to 15% since the 1950s. It is likely that there has been about a 40% decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness during late summer to early autumn in recent decades and a considerably slower decline in winter sea-ice thickness.13
Variations in the Earth’s surface temperature over the last 140 years and the last millennium. Taken from Climate Change 2001. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
Arctic Sea Ice 1979 — Arctic Sea Ice 2003
Taken from Recent Warming of the Arctic May Affect Worldwide Weather.
NASA, 10/23/2003. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html
One of the most dramatic findings of the report concerns the shrinkage of what had been permanent ice shelves inside the Arctic circle. Satellite studies conducted by NASA have shown more recently that Arctic perennial sea ice has been decreasing at an average rate of 9% per decade.14 The above satellite photos demonstrate just how dramatic this retreat is. But its implications go far beyond the transformation of the world’s northern landscape. The inexorable melting of sea ice could disrupt oceanic currents which help to regulate and moderate the global climate, leading to abrupt global climate change. These currents are absolutely crucial to the familiar functioning of the biosphere and all its ecosystems, including agriculture. But a major shift in the convection currents of the world’s oceans (the Gulf Stream is the most famous) would make the Earth quite a different world from the one to which civilization has adapted. That will be the subject of this article’s sequel.
Decreasing snow and ice cover leads to further warming of the Earth’s surface. Whereas black objects absorb incoming electromagnetic energy, the bright white snow and ice at the poles is an excellent reflector — so light and heat from the sun bounce off the surface of our planet and back into space (an effect known as albedo). As global warming melts the polar snow and ice cover, the Earth’s albedo diminishes, allowing even more of the sun’s energy to be absorbed and retained by the Earth. This, in turn, can lead to a further decrease in snow and ice cover, resulting in a positive feedback loop which further increases the effect of global warming.
Returning to the IPCC report, other major observations include a rise in global average sea level over the 20th century, and an increase in global average ocean heat content measured since the 1950s. Average rainfall has decreased in the mid-and higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere during the 20th century, at the same time that rainfall is likely to have risen over equatorial land masses. Mid- and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere have seen an increase in severe weather, as well as an increase in cloud cover. Since the 1950s, there has been a reduction in the frequency of extremely low temperatures, and a smaller increase in the frequency of extremely high temperatures. Episodes of El Niño-Southern Oscillation phenomenon are becoming more frequent, more persistent, and more intense. And in some regions, particularly in Africa and Asia, the frequency and intensity of droughts is increasing.15
The IPCC goes on to quantify the effect of human-induced climate change. They note that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 31% since 1750. The report states that 75% of anthropogenic [human-induced] carbon dioxide emissions over the past 50 years is due to fossil fuel burning, with most of the remainder due to land-use change and deforestation. Atmospheric concentration of methane has increased by 151% since 1750, and atmospheric concentration of nitrous oxide has increased by 17% since 1750.
Long records of past changes in atmospheric composition
provide the context for the influence of anthropogenic emissions.
(a) shows changes in the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) over the past 1000 years. The ice core and firn data for several sites in Antarctica and Greenland (shown by different symbols) are supplemented with the data from direct atmospheric samples over the past few decades (shown by the line for CO2 and incorporated in the curve representing the global average of CH4). The estimated positive radiative forcing of the climate system from these gases is indicated on the right-hand scale. Since these gases have atmospheric lifetimes of a decade or more, they are well mixed, and their concentrations reflect emissions from sources throughout the globe. All three records show effects of the large and increasing growth in anthropogenic emissions during the Industrial Era.
(b) illustrates the influence of industrial emissions on atmospheric sulphate concentrations, which produce negative radiative forcing. Shown is the time history of the concentrations of sulphate, not in the atmosphere but in ice cores in Greenland (shown by lines; from which the episodic effects of volcanic eruptions have been removed). Such data indicate the local deposition of sulphate aerosols at the site, reflecting sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions at mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. This record, albeit more regional than that of the globally-mixed greenhouse gases, demonstrates the large growth in anthropogenic SO2 emissions during the Industrial Era. The pluses denote the relevant regional estimated SO2 emissions (right-hand scale).
[Based upon (a) Chapter 3, Figure 3.2b (CO2); Chapter 4, Figure 4.1a and b (CH4) and Chapter 4, Figure 4.2 (N2O) and (b) Chapter 5, Figure 5.4a]
Graphs and caption taken from Climate Change 2001. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
Understanding the science of climate change involves learning a few key terms. Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system.16 It’s an index of the factor’s importance as a potential climate change mechanism. It is expressed in Watts (a unit of power, or energy-per-second) per square meter (a unit of area on the Earth’s surface): Wm -2. According to Climate Change 2001, radiative forcing due to increases in greenhouse gases from 1750 to 2000 is estimated to be 2.43 Wm -2 overall: 1.46 Wm-2 from carbon dioxide, 0.48 Wm -2 from methane, 0.34 Wm -2 from halocarbons (chlorofluorocarbons and similar gases), and 0.15 Wm -2 from nitrous oxide. Overall mean radiative forcing is expected to increase further over the next century even if emissions of greenhouse gases decrease, due to the lifetime of present gases in the atmosphere.
The report points out that newer and stronger evidence has made it plain that most of the warming observable over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Ice core records from Iceland and Antarctica are widely considered to have cinched the case for industrially caused global warming. These ice cores have provided us with a climate record stretching back over 1,000 years. Along with new and more accurate models of climate variability, the extended climate record indicates that the current warming trend is unusual and unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. Improved models of climate response to natural and anthropogenic forcing consistently find evidence of an anthropogenic signature in the climate record of the past 50 years.
Contrary to the politically convenient science preferred by the White House and the petroleum executives who live there, simulation of climate response to natural forcings alone – the much-vaunted variations in solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions – do not explain the warming in the second half of the 20th century. Natural forcings are a contributing factor, but the current generation of computational models can now correct for them effectively (in other words, the new models take into account uncertainty in the magnitude of modeled response to external forcing due to uncertainty in climate sensitivity). Models are becoming sufficiently sophisticated that they now accurately model climate observations made over the last 140 years. These models demonstrate that the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing greenhouse gases alone is sufficient to account for observed warming.17
Stepping away from the IPCC report, we can find an abundance of evidence supporting global climate change from scientific institutions throughout the world. Seasons and weather patterns are changing; glaciers are retreating; the continental ice sheets of Antarctica are beginning to break up; permafrost in the upper latitudes of North America and Siberia is thawing; the Inuit people of the far north are finding that their traditional lifestyles are endangered by shortened winters and ice flows which are breaking up sooner; islands of Polynesia and elsewhere are being submerged by rising water levels; tundra flora is receding; and subtropical flora and fauna are moving into temperate latitudes.
In December 2003, the World Health Organization announced that global warming is killing an average of 150,000 people per year.18 Global warming is contributing to increases in malaria and other insect-borne diseases, malnutrition and pollution-related diseases, and extreme weather events such as the deadly 2003 summer heat wave in Europe. A recent issue of the journal Nature contained a report signed by numerous prominent scientists warning that as much as one quarter of the animal species on the planet will be threatened with extinction in the next 50 years due to global climate change.19
The economic toll is already considerable; global climate change is now costing the world economy billions of dollars annually. The UN estimates this cost at over $60 billion for 2003 alone, a year of climate change induced disasters such as the killer heat wave in Europe and the massive flooding in China.20 And a group of insurers led by Munich Re has reported to the UN that global climate change could cost the world over $300 billion per year by 2050.21
Meanwhile, a report issued by the German Advisory Council on Global Change has stated that measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions must be at least four times stronger than the Kyoto Protocol if they are to prevent melting of the polar ice caps.22 The Council warns that there is only room for another 1.4ºC of global warming before dangerous climactic changes become probable. The global mean temperature has already risen 0.6ºC since the beginning of the industrial era, so this places the danger threshold at an average global increase of 2ºC, which the Council warns will be exceeded within this century if we do not pursue stringent climate protection policies. Although the Kyoto Protocol is not sufficient to prevent disaster, it would be a first step.
Yet the Kyoto Protocol now appears to be dead in the water. The Russians have followed the US lead in walking away from the protocol because they believe its measures would damage economic growth.23 Between the American culture of fossil fuel addiction and the capture of Congress by corporate money, Kyoto never had a chance in the US Senate. For the moment, then, the struggle to slow and reverse these disastrous climatic trends must proceed from inside the collective insanity of our global economic system.
Yet the risks are much greater than even the sources quoted here have allowed, as will become apparent when we discuss the possibilities of abrupt climate change and runaway climate change, and when we look at how the global oil peak and the North American natural gas cliff could affect global climate change.
Endnotes
1 An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security, Schwartz, Peter, and Randall, Doug. October, 2003. http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4591&method=full
2 Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us, Townsend, Mark, and Harris, Paul. The Observer, 2/22/2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html
3 Pentagon downplays report on climate change that it commissioned. AFP, 2/24/2004. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=afp/us_environment_climate
4 Climate Collapse; The Pentagon’s Weather Nightmare, Stipp, David. Fortune Magazine, 1/26/2004.
5 Op. Cit. See note 2.
6 Op. Cit. See note 1.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 The Science of Climate Change. 5/17/2001. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/statfiles/document-138.pdf
12 Climate Change 2001, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2001. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
13 Ibid
14 Recent Warming of the Arctic May Affect Worldwide Climate, Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA, 10/23/2003. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html
15 Op. Cit.
16 “Radiative forcing is defined as a change in average net radiation at the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere (known as the tropopause). A positive radiative forcing tends on average to warm the surface; there is a net heat flow from troposphere to stratosphere. A negative forcing on average tends to cool the surface; there is a net heat flow from stratosphere to troposphere.” See ‘Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994, Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Appendix A, The Chemistry and Physics of Global Warming: An Overview.’ http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/pubs_html/attf94_v2/appd_a.html
17 Ibid.
18 Global warming kills 150,000 people a year, warms UN, Kirby, Terry. The Independent, 12/12/2003. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=472452
19 Extinction Risk from Climate Change, Thomas, Chris D., et al. Nature, Vol. 427, 1/8/2004. http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/extinctions.pdf
20 Climate change ‘cost $60b’ in 2003. CNN, 12/11/2003. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/12/11/un.climate/
21 Impact of climate change to cost the world $US 300 billion a year. United Nations Environmental Programme, 2/3/2004. http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=192&ArticleID=2758
22 Climate Protection Strategies for the 21 st Century; Kyoto and Beyond. German Advisory Council on Global Change. WBGU, 2003. http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2003_engl.html
23 Russia: Kyoto pact harms economy, Reuters. CNN, 12/2/2003. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/02/russia.kyodo.reut/
The Guiding Hand
Quantum Meditation #1570
July 8, 2012
July 7, 2012
July 6, 2012
Imminent Peril, Part 2
Dale Allen Pfeiffer
Download a pdf version (black lettering on a white background)
Introduction
In the first half of this article, we reviewed the unprecedented warnings issued during the past twenty years by the world scientific community. And we summarized the results of the first global assessment studies, along with a glance at the latest assessments. We learned that virtually all of the planet’s major ecosystems have been stressed to the brink of collapse. And we were warned that we have only one generation in which to deal with these impending crises.
Why are these issues not foremost in the minds of every human being living right now? Why are we not engaged in a global dialogue to seek a solution to these problems? Next, we will turn our attention to the answer to these questions.
Mindset
The prevalent economic system is predicated on never-ending growth, where prosperity requires continuous growth in production and consumption. However, this growth must take place on a planet with limited resources and carrying capacity. Economists are blind to these limits. They illogically argue that as known reserves of vital resources grow short, the increasing value of the resource in question will spur the discovery of additional reserves and render previously uneconomical reserves economical. When cornered, economists point towards scientific and technological innovations which they are sure will come to our rescue. They ignore the scientists and engineers who warn that we cannot expect such breakthroughs alone to solve our problems. The engineers and scientists argue that we need basic changes in our lifestyle. We need to wean ourselves from over-consumption, emphasizing sustainability instead.
Continuing over-consumption also plays upon the intransigent nature of human behavior. Human beings are predisposed toward developing habits and comfortable patterns of behavior. That which is new is alien and suspect. Change is resisted until it becomes necessary, or until the benefits of change become obvious. Even when change is clearly beneficial, many will resist, becoming reactionary instead.
The situation is further obfuscated by the media, which has tended to either ignore the scientific warnings or downplay the warnings and divert public awareness to more innocuous matters. There is a documented bias in the media towards positions favored by their owners and sponsors.1 Whether this media bias is deliberate or systemic, the effect is a public which is uninformed or—worse—misinformed.
The problem of disinformation is largely intentional. There is a powerful disinformation industry, the purpose of which is to produce conflicting studies attacking the veracity of scientific work which may prove harmful to moneyed interests. Many scientists are employed for no other purpose than to contradict the work of legitimate scientists. This tactic was first pioneered by the tobacco industry2, but has since developed into a major industry of its own devoted to retaining the status quo in favor of major corporations. Yearly, corporations funnel millions of dollars into junk science, either directly or through conservative think-tanks and foundations.3, 4
Practitioners of junk science are closely linked to the PR and advertising industries. Modern advertising developed out of research into brainwashing and psychological manipulation. Edward L. Bernays, the father of the PR industry, applied the work of Freud and other psychoanalysts to the task of swaying public opinion.5 In the last few decades, military researchers have developed computer programs which utilize artificial intelligence to mimic basic personality types. These programs can then be used to determine how to manipulate people into doing and thinking as desired.6 These techniques are all employed by the PR industries, as well as the major political parties and the military establishment.7
The moneyed elite have a vested interest in maintaining things the way they are. This is not because they are intrinsically evil people, but because they actually believe they are acting for the good of all. Many believe that the less affluent classes are inferior. They believe that the masses are incapable of making their own informed decisions and must be told what to do. But most simply cannot face their own culpability. They are removed from the chain of causality between their actions and their inevitable effects. They are no more inclined to accept the responsibility for their actions than are meat eaters inclined to accept responsibility for the slaughter of the animals whose meat they purchase in the supermarket.
Returning to the reactionaries, perhaps the worst of this breed are the Christian Zionists. They are Christian fundamentalists who are actively seeking to bring about their own vision of Armageddon. According to these fanatics, once Israel reclaims all of its former territory, a massive religious war will be provoked with Jews and Christians on one side and Muslims and other unbelievers on the other side. At this point, the true believers will ascend into heaven while the antichrist and the four horsemen of the apocalypse ravage the earth. Finally, Christ will return to vanquish the antichrist and proclaim a new kingdom of God, all people will be converted to fundamentalist Christianity, and the true believers will return to govern over the kingdom of Christ.8
Christian Zionists are not a fringe group. They are numerous, well-organized, and influential. During the Reagan years, Christian Zionists were invited to present their interpretation of the Book of Revelation at the Pentagon. Among the most notable Christian Zionists are Pat Robertson and George W. Bush. In spring of 2002, after Bush demanded that the Israelis pull back their tanks from West Bank refugee camps, Jerry Falwell led born again Christians to flood the White House with phone calls, emails, and letters telling Bush to back off. Bush retracted his demand and the tanks rolled on.9
Christian reactionaries are a powerful group, and they stand opposed to the resolution of the environmental threats listed in this book.
Coup and Empire
In the year 2000, the moneyed interests backing the George W. Bush presidential bid pulled out every stop in order to install their candidate in the White House. They over-spent every other candidate from both parties. In Florida, George’s brother Jeb rigged the voter lists in an effort to disenfranchise minorities and others who vote predominately democratic. As the election came down to only a few thousand votes and Al Gore appeared likely to win in a recount, the U.S. Supreme Court—dominated by Reagan and Bush Sr. appointees—ordered that the recount cease, handing the presidency to George W. Bush. In their decision, the Supreme Court—which is supposed to set precedent in matters of constitutional law—stated that this was a one time decision which could not be used as a precedent.10
In the months following his installation, Bush made very clear that he had no interest in resolving environmental and social problems. His administration was packed with oil, pharmaceutical and defense industry executives. Practically the first action of his administration was to back out of the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming. In the months ahead, he also backed out of a biological weapons treaty and sought to weaken or overturn a variety of environmental laws and legislation on everything from water and air quality to opening the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration. He refused to do anything about the California energy crisis, even when it became apparent that the situation had been largely contrived by corporations such as Enron. Instead of launching an investigation, he and Vice-president Dick Cheney had Enron President Ken Lay and other industry insiders submit a wish list which then served as the basis for the presidential Energy Plan.
I do not wish to imply that the situation would have been much better had Al Gore been sworn into office. Though Al Gore has gone to great lengths to present himself as an environmentalist, his record as Vice-president is full of compromise and watered down legislative efforts. Witness his performance at the first Kyoto conference, where he lobbied to weaken the resulting treaty on global warming. In context of the scientific warnings issued over the past decade, Al Gore would appear to be the spokesman for big business with a conscience, seeking a compromise which will not penalize the ability of corporations to generate profit by exploiting the earth’s resources, nor hamper economic growth or the right of the affluent to over-consume. Cast in this light, George W. Bush would appear to be the candidate of big business without a conscience.
By fall of 2001, the Bush administration had earned the animosity of most of the international community, and his popularity at home had plunged to record lows. The Democrat controlled Congress was successfully fighting many of his proposals. His administration was dead in the water; it appeared unlikely that any of his goals would come to fruition. Had things gone on this way, in all likelihood George W. Bush would soon be facing impeachment.
Whether or not the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the 9-11 terrorist attacks (and there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that they did), the Bush administration, and business interests tied to the Bush administration, was the big winner in this catastrophe and the subsequent Anthrax letters. Bush himself was heard to quip in the days following the attacks, “I hit the trifecta!”11 As a result of the terrorist attacks, Bush’s popularity surged to unheard of heights. He announced a never-ending war and ramrodded legislation through Congress which would negate civil liberties guaranteed by the constitution. Whatever their connection to the attacks and the attackers may be, the Bush administration has capitalized on the attacks to push ahead a fascistic and imperialist agenda both at home and abroad.
Within a month after the attacks, Bush launched a war against one of the poorest countries in the world, though a country in a commanding position with regard to the potentially energy-rich Central Asian region. This gave him command of a vital strategic position at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Military units poured into the surrounding countries, as did exploration teams from the various oil majors. Yet, as the oil prospects were toned down, so was the military presence.12 The US had already turned its attention to the Middle East.
The US has not turned its attention to Saudi Arabia, which was the country of origin for Osama bin Laden and most of the attackers, and the country from which Al Qaeda receives much of its financial backing. Nor has the US turned its attention to Pakistan, which has very strong ties to both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Instead, the US has turned its attention to the one Middle Eastern country without ties to Al Qaeda; a country which is, in fact, reviled by Al Qaeda for its secular government. Yet a country which holds 11% of the world’s proven oil reserves: Iraq.13
Clearly, the United States is not fighting a war on terrorism. It is fighting a war of imperial conquest aimed at dominating the world through control of its energy resources. Witness the Bush administration’s lack of interest in capturing Osama bin Laden. Witness the Bush administration’s insistence on a war with Iraq on the flimsiest of claims that he might have been seeking weapons of mass destruction. Witness that Bush did nothing about North Korea, even though they admit that they are actively seeking weapons of mass destruction and will use them preemptively. Witness the Bush administration’s efforts to destabilize Venezuela and support a coup in that country, though the only offense of democratically elected President Chavez was to use a portion of oil profits to help alleviate poverty within his country. Witness the Bush administration’s inclination to label as international terrorists one faction of a long-standing civil war in Colombia, while sending military aid and military advisors to that country in an effort to beef up the policing of oil pipelines which the rebels damaged.
What’s to Come
The Bush administration was not interested in a war on terrorism. The elite interests behind the Bush administration sought to ensure their continued dominance in a world of shrinking energy resources and looming environmental catastrophes. Comparing US policy over the past decade to the four strategies analyzed in GEO-314, it would appear that the US has been pursuing a Markets First strategy, while giving a nod to the Policy First strategy. However, since George W. Bush moved into the White House—and certainly since 9-11—the US has given up any pretense of a Policy First strategy and is currently moving away from a Markets First strategy to a Security First strategy. The Sustainability First strategy has never received any serious consideration.
If the US continues to pursue its current strategy, then this country will become a police state in every sense of the word. The privileged classes will complete their flight to guarded and gated communities, while the rest of the population will be left to contend with a collapsed economy, energy impoverishment and starvation. Civil liberties will be dismissed and the constitution retired. Anger and dissent will be met with overwhelming repression. A massive military organization will take command of the world’s resources while forcing the world population to accept a harsh military justice.
As burgeoning personal debt comes crashing down on the citizens of the US, it is likely that new laws will force them into debt servitude. Indeed, as energy production diminishes some form of slavery will have to be instituted in order for the elite to retain their accustomed lifestyles. As rates of imprisonment skyrocket, prisons will be transformed to work camps where the remaining industries will have access to abundant free labor. As for the masses, both within the US and throughout the world, they will be faced with unparalleled levels of starvation and suffering.
Or, if some alliance is formed in opposition, the Christian Zionists might just get their conflagration. It is doubtful, however, that it will be the apocalypse they are seeking.
2012 Update
The geopolitical climate has not changed much in the last several year. Obama has stayed the course on every major initiative from the Bush administration. Under his watch, the rights of US citizens has continued to erode, and this country has moved ever closer to a police state. Likewise, he has continued with the resource wars overseas, extending them to other countries, while maintaining what amounts to a media blackout at home.
As for the planet, the rates of resource depletion and pollution have increased. Very little has been done to mitigate the problem, or to prepare for the imminent decline in energy production.
In the summer of 2012, as most of the country scalds and burns, there is still a large segment of the US population that does not believe in global warming. And, as more and more citizens are crushed under the wheels of the health care industry, many US citizens consider socialized medicine a plot to destroy their way of life. The reactionary Tea Party has arisen to become a major political force, promoting nothing so much as hatred and narrow-mindedness.
The march of the blind and the deluded into their own destruction seems to have increased its pace.
Other Options
It doesn’t have to be this way. We still have the time and resources to build a better world for all of us. Compromise is not the answer, nor is a cosmetic change in the prevailing economic system. It is doubtful that regulation of market-based capitalism is viable over the long-term. Experience has shown that eventually capitalism will find some way of nullifying any imposed restrictions, and then the maximization of profit will regain preeminence over environmental and social considerations.
A sustainable society must be focused on the small-scale, based on strong local communities, most likely functioning on principles of direct democracy. Local communities require localized and self-contained economies. Such economies would not be measured by growth and profit, but by sustainability and quality of life. Local transportation would return to the basics: foot, bicycles and horses. Intercommunity transport would likely consist of high-speed monorails. Intercontinental transportation would return to the high seas. Housing would be restructured for energy efficiency, possibly in conjunction with the recycling of industrial waste heat. Communities would be supported by a local agricultural base, utilizing organic and permiculture techniques. There are already working models for sustainable communities, and the movement toward sustainability is growing.
In conclusion, we cannot depend on our political leaders or our business leaders to walk us safely through this minefield. We need to educate ourselves and we need to organize. We must take back the reins into our own hands, and we need to move fast.
Endnotes
1 Manufacturing Consent, Herman, Edward & Chomsky, Noam. Pantheon Books, 1988.
2 Tobacco Industry Efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer’s Second Hand Smoke Study, Ong, Lisa & Glantz, Stanton. Lancet, 2000; 355: 125359. http://www.electric-words.com/junk/glantz/glantz.html
3 Who Determines what is Junk Science? The Corporate Corruption of Science, Fist, Stewart, editor.http://www.electric-words.com/junk/junkindex.html
4Trust Us, We’re Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles on Your Future, Rampton, Sheldon & Stauber, John. Tarcher/Penguin.
5 The Father of Spin,: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations, Tye, Larry. Owl Books, 2002. See a detailed review of this book: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.html
6 Profiling and Personality Simulation, Livergood, Norman D. http://www.hermes-press.com/program1.htm & Brainwashing America, Livergood, Norman D. http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm
7 Toxic Sludge is Good for You!: Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry, Stauber, John C & Rampton, Shelton. Common Courage Press, 1995.
8 Armageddon Lobby. http://www.againstbombing.com/ArmageddonUpdates.htm
9 Ibid.
10 The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, Palast, Greg. Plume, 2002, 2003.
11 Remarks by the President in Texans for Rick Perry Reception.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020614-8.html
12 Much Ado about Nothing—Wither the Caspian Riches, Pfeiffer, Dale Allen. From the Wilderness, 2002.http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120502_caspian.html
13 US Intentions, Pfeiffer, Dale Allen. From the Wilderness, 2003.http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/030703_us_intentions.html
14 Global Environmental Outlook-3. United Nations Environment Programme, May 22 2002.http://www.grida.no/geo/geo3/
Lost in the Painting
Quantum Meditation #1567
July 5, 2012
Imminent Peril, Part 1
Dale Allen Pfeiffer
Scientists are warning that we have only one or two generations to avoid global catastrophe. Why aren’t we heeding their warnings, and what can be done?
Download a pdf of this report (black print on a white background)
Introduction
Current world events are being played out against a setting of resource depletion and other environmental problems which are not recognized by most people, nor even acknowledged by many of the world’s decision makers. In fact, there is a concerted effort by many corporations and economists to dismiss these problems as nonexistent. Corporations choose to dismiss these problems because they do not want to admit their own culpability, and because the solution to these problems will prevent them from carrying out business as usual. Economists refuse to face these problems because to do so they must admit that their pet economic models are deeply flawed, and because these problems point up the unsustainable madness of capitalism with its market mechanisms. Yet the scientific community reached a consensus over the last decade and has attempted to sound the warning bell.
Royal Society of London & US National Academy of Sciences, 1992
The first warning was issued over a decade ago, in 1992, when the Royal Society of London (RS) and the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a joint statement entitled Population Growth, Resource Consumption, and a Sustainable World.1 This joint statement was unprecedented. For its part, the Royal Society has a history of being reticent about making statements of a controversial nature.
In this statement, the RS and the NAS point out that environmental changes affecting this planet may irreversibly damage the earth’s capacity to sustain life. Furthermore, humanity’s own efforts to achieve satisfactory living standards are threatened by environmental deterioration. The report warns that, while science and technological advances can prove invaluable in resolving these problems, still… “it is not prudent to rely on science and technology alone to solve problems created by rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption, and harmful human practices.”2 The scientists maintain that changes in human patterns of behavior and resource consumption are necessary, along with stabilization and even reduction of human population.
The statement concludes: “The future of our planet is in the balance. Sustainable development can be achieved, but only if irreversible degradation of the environment can be halted in time. The next 30 years may be crucial.”3
World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, 1993
Also in 1992, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, which was signed by over 1,700 scientists from around the world, including the majority of the Nobel laureates in the sciences.4 The language in this document is a little less cautious than the statement by the RS and NAS. The Warning to Humanity spells out quite plainly the peril we face, and the necessity and urgency of resolving these problems; it also helps to point in the direction of a possible solution.
Humanity is warned that we must make fundamental changes if we are to avert the collision towards which our present course is steering us. The scientists point to the various vital environmental systems which are all suffering from critical stress: the atmosphere, fresh water resources, the oceans, the soils, the forests and living species. They point out that much of this damage is either permanent or irreversible on a scale of centuries. The warning states that:
Our massive tampering with the world’s interdependent web of life—coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change—could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand.
Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threat.5
They emphasize that we are quickly approaching many of the earth’s limits. They state that current economic practices in both the developed and the developing world cannot continue without doing irrevocable damage to the planet’s vital systems. The statement places a limit of only a few decades before we have lost any opportunity to resolve the threats now facing us. And they iterate:
We the undersigned, senior members of the world’s scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.6
The document admonishes the developed countries for being the greatest polluters in the world, and exhorts them to reduce over-consumption. It also points out that the developed nations have an obligation to provide aid to the developing nations. This is incumbent upon the affluent nations because much of their wealth has accrued through the extortion of resources and labor from the developing nations. The developing nations cannot make the changes necessary without the financial resources and technical skills which can only be supplied by the developed nations. We must realize that we are all in this together, and we will only resolve these problems if we refuse to leave any group of people behind. Failure will trap us in “…spirals of environmental decline, poverty and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.”7
The success of this endeavor, the document points out, will require a major reduction in violence and war. The trillions of dollars devoted annually to the preparation and conduct of war should be diverted to these new challenges, where they will be badly needed.
The Warning to Humanity concludes that we need a new ethic for humanity, an ethic of compassion and responsibility toward all of humanity and toward the earth.
Statement of the New Delhi Conference, 1993
The 1992 joint statement of the RS and the NAS, along with an international conference organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of the Sciences, led to a 1993 conference of the world’s scientific academies in New Delhi. The New Delhi conference was the first large-scale collaboration undertaken by the world’s scientific academies. The conference sought to examine the complex and interrelated problems of population growth, resource consumption, socioeconomic development and environmental pollution. This conference resulted in another statement, signed by 58 of the world’s scientific academies.8
The conference concluded that many environmental problems, such as degraded agricultural viability and diminishing availability of drinking water should be viewed as warnings that the earth is finite and that natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits. If the entire world consumed fossil fuels and other resources at the same rate as the developed world, resource depletion and environmental pollution would already have reached a critical point. Yet they recognized that development is a legitimate expectation of less developed countries. Developed countries need to become more efficient at resource use and environmental protection, and must seek to curb wasteful consumption.
Population growth was the major focus of this conference, and as such was the main focus of the resulting statement. It was the consensus of the world’s scientific academies that continued population growth poses a great risk to humanity. And they concluded that it would be foolish to rely on science and technology alone to solve the problems caused by rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption and poverty. To avert a global crisis, it is necessary to make a transition to economies that provide increased human welfare with less consumption of energy and materials.
Finally, they warned that, “Humanity is approaching a crisis point with respect to interlocking issues of population, environment and development. With each year’s delay the problems become more acute.”9 Studies were undertaken in order to better understand the threats facing humanity and the planet, and an informal network of the science academies of the world, the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), was formed to facilitate further collaboration.
The next few years saw intensified efforts on the part of the world scientific community to gather information and achieve a better understanding of the interlocking problems threatening the world. And the scientific community also endeavored to inform decision makers of the threat to humanity.
The UN undertook a series of conferences on issues of long-term global significance. There was a conference on the environment and development (Rio, 1992), a conference on population growth (Cairo, 1993), a conference on social concerns such as poverty (Copenhagen, 1994), a conference on the plight of women and importance of women’s rights (Beijing, 1995), and a conference on the problems associated with burgeoning urban populations and decaying cities (Istanbul, 1996).
1997, the year of the Kyoto conference on global warming, saw renewed announcements from the RS and NAS, and from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Joint National Academy of Scientists and Royal Society Resolution: Towards Sustainable Consumption (1997)
In this document the RS and the NAS reiterate their earlier warnings while placing more emphasis on resource consumption. This document reflects the growing understanding that the problems faced by this planet are not simply a result of overpopulation, but are more specifically an effect of over-consumption. Furthermore, this resolution recognizes a dilemma in that the poorer countries of the world require increased resource consumption in order to pull their people up out of devastating poverty.
As the document points out, consumption rates of developed countries are grossly out of line with the percentage of world population contained in these countries. The report cites examples to make its case that the rate of resource consumption is more of a problem than is simple population:
The population of Bangladesh is increasing by about 2.4 million per year, while that of Britain is increasing by about 100,000 per year. Yet, because carbon dioxide emissions per person in Britain are 50 times higher than in Bangladesh , the 100,000 people in Britain cause more than double the carbon dioxide emissions of the 2.4 million people in Bangladesh .
Since 1950, the richest 20% of the world’s population has increased its per capita consumption of meat and timber two-fold, its car ownership four-fold and its use of plastics five-fold. The poorest 20% has increased its consumption hardly at all.10
The document also points out that, as of 1997, US per capita use of petroleum is seven times the world average.
These two prestigious scientific associations declare that developed countries must curb their consumption in order for the rest of the world to climb out of debilitating poverty. Furthermore, they state that developed countries must cut their rates of consumption if global use of resources is to become sustainable.
The resolution calls for research and action in determining rates of consumption which are sustainable for various different resources, research into sustainable energy sources and energy efficiency, development of environmental technologies, research into determining environmental costs and incorporating them into economies, improvement of energy- and land-efficiency in food production, and the management, protection and regeneration of natural systems. The resolution ends by stating that societies must examine their values and form goals which can be met through sustainable consumption.11
World Scientists’ Call for Action (1997)
Signed by more than 1,500 scientists from 63 countries, including 110 Nobel laureates and 60 US National Medal of Science winners, the World Scientists’ Call for Action was set forth by the Union of Concerned Scientists at the 1997 Kyoto Climate Summit.12 Looking back on the four years since the World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, the Call notes that there has been very little progress in addressing the issues raised in that earlier document. It notes that, in fact, the situation has continued to deteriorate. And it states that world leaders are much to blame for this, because of their failure to rise to the challenge. The Call for Action does, however, point to the Kyoto Climate Summit as a possible signal that world leaders have recognized their responsibility for stewardship of the earth. It was their hope that the Kyoto Climate Treaty would serve as a precedent for addressing other grave environmental threats. They state that the only responsible choice is to act now.
The Call to Action concludes:
We, the signers of this declaration, urge all government leaders to demonstrate a new commitment to protecting the global environment for future generations. The important first step is to join in completing a strong and meaningful Climate Treaty at Kyoto . We encourage scientists and citizens around the world to hold their leaders accountable for addressing the global warming threat. Leaders must take this first step to protect future generations from dire prospects that would result from failure to meet our responsibilities toward them.13
Unfortunately for future generations, the United States refused to sign the Kyoto Agreement until concessions were made which virtually negated the agreement and rendered it unenforceable. It should be noted that Al Gore, the environmental vice-president, was in command of the US delegation to the Kyoto conference. Yet even this watered down agreement was not enough for US decision makers. In 2001, George W. Bush reneged on the Kyoto Treaty, thereby demonstrating that the word of US policy makers is worthless.
A Statement of the World’s Scientific Academies: May 2000
In the year 2000, the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) met again in New Delhi to review the research undertaken following the 1993 conference. This meeting led to another joint statement, Transition to Sustainability in the 21st Century: The Contribution of Science & Technology.14 As suggested by the title, this statement was not so much a warning as a statement of how science and technology can help solve the problems.
The generally accepted solution is captured in one word: sustainability. The goal is a lifestyle that is sustainable; that is, levels of consumption that do not exceed the carrying capacity of the planet. The scientific academies perceive three key issues which must be tackled to achieve this goal:
Meeting the needs of a larger world population. 17% or one-sixth of the world’s population is severely impoverished or starving, and this proportion is increasing. World income disparities are also widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Poverty, starvation and inequity are incompatible with sustainability. The challenge here is to reduce disparities and provide everyone with basic human requirements such as a home, food and medicine. The scientific academies seek to meet this challenge by building the capacity for people to meet their own requirements. This will be done by providing access to knowledge and resources. (It is quite likely that the scientific academies were naïve in addressing this challenge without recognizing the greed of those who benefit from this disparity.)
Preserving and maintaining the environment and the natural resource base. Sustainability is only possible if we can safeguard the welfare of biological species and their ecosystems. To do this we must improve our understanding of complex ecological processes. Likewise, we need a better understanding of how resources are deposited and how these resources can be sustainably utilized. Furthermore, this knowledge must be made readily available—not just to decision makers, but to everyone.
Moving toward sustainable human consumption patterns. In this document, the IAP recognizes that unsustainable consumption is the basic cause behind the threats we face today. Conspicuous consumption leads to resource depletion and environmental damage. The forces that drive consumption include economic output, distribution of wealth and income, technological choices, social values, institutional structures, and public policies.15 In all of these areas, we need to temper our decisions and our actions with a responsible and conscientious stewardship of the earth. Science and technology can contribute to these goals by providing information necessary to make responsible decisions. Science can also aid by increasing the efficiency of various technologies and reducing damaging impacts.
The IAP does warn that science and technology alone cannot solve the problems threatening us, nor achieve the goal of sustainability. Economic, social and political efforts are necessary as well. To succeed, we must forge a new relationship with the natural world.
Reinforcing remarks in the 1997 Union of Concerned Scientists’ declaration, the IAP states:
Military programs, even in periods of peace, have consumed resources that could otherwise be devoted to meeting such needs as food, housing, and education. During the decades ahead, conflicts could arise from competition for resources such as food, water, and information. A better understanding of how these events can be mitigated, or made less probable, is essential for a successful transition to sustainability.16
The IAP statement concludes:
To preserve human well-being over the long term, people need to move toward new ways of meeting human needs, adopting consumption and production patterns that maintain the Earth’s life support systems and safeguard the resources needed by future generations. Yet if current trends in population growth, consumption of energy and materials, and environmental degradation persist, many human needs will not be met and the numbers of hungry and poor will increase.
Such a dismal forecast need not come to pass. Scientific, technological, and health capabilities—if supported by the necessary worldwide political will and international cooperation, and mobilized by appropriate social and economic policies—can produce substantial progress over the next two decades toward a sustainable human future.17
Assessments from the Turn of the Millennium
The first three years of the new millennium saw the release of preliminary results from several global studies looking at the health of major ecosystems and assessments of the various problems threatening the quality of life on this planet. All of these studies agree that the situation is grave, and that little time remains in which to turn the situation around. Here we will review three of the most prominent studies issued since the turn of the century.
Guide to World Resources, 2000-2001
This study is the first global assessment of the state of the world’s ecosystems ever undertaken. The report, Guide to World Resources, 2000-2001: People & ecosystems; The Fraying Web of Life18 was a joint venture of the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environmental Programme, the World Bank and the World Resources Institute. The project took over two years to complete and contained the input of 197 scientists. The model developed for this study is known as the Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE). It is a pilot study because it points out where further study is needed to fill existing gaps in our knowledge about the world’s ecosystems.
PAGE drew its assessment from information already available on a global scale about the condition of the planet’s ecosystems. The study concentrated on five major classes of ecosystems: agro ecosystems, coastal areas, forests, freshwater systems, and grasslands. PAGE assessed the condition of these ecosystems based on resource output (both quantity and quality) and the biological basis for production (soil quality, water quality, biodiversity, etc.). PAGE also took into account all the ecosystem goods and services that people rely on but do not buy in the marketplace. Scorecards were developed to judge ecosystem health, with each ecosystem graded on the following criteria—where applicable: food/fiber production, water quality, water quantity, biodiversity, carbon storage, recreation, shoreline protection, and wood fuel production. Here, then, is the resulting report card on the status of the planet.
Agro ecosystems
Food Production: Decreasing, Water Quality: Decreasing, Water Quantity: Decreasing, Biodiversity: Decreasing,Carbon Storage: Mixed.
Agro ecosystems cover more than one-quarter of global land area, but almost three-quarters of this land has poor soil fertility. Two-thirds of agricultural land has been degraded in the past fifty years due to erosion, salinization, compaction, nutrient depletion, biological degradation or pollution. Forty percent of agricultural land has been strongly degraded.
Coastal Ecosystems
Food Production: Decreasing, Water Quality: Mixed, Biodiversity: Decreasing, Recreation: not enough data,Shoreline Protection: Decreasing.
Population increase and conversion for development, agriculture, and aquaculture are reducing mangroves, coastal wetlands, seagrass areas, and coral reefs at an alarming rate. Almost seventy percent of the world’s major fisheries are fully fished or over-fished, and fishing fleets have the capacity to catch many more fish than the maximum sustainable yield.
Forest Ecosystems
Fiber Production: Increasing, Water Quality: Decreasing, Water Quantity: Decreasing, Biodiversity: Decreasing,Carbon Storage: Decreasing, Wood Fuel Production: not enough data.
Logging and conversion have shrunk the world’s forests by as much as half. Thirty percent of the world’s original forests have been converted to agriculture. Thirty percent of the world’s major watersheds have lost more than three-quarters of their forest cover. Sixty percent of the remaining forest cover has been fragmented due to agriculture, logging and road construction. Tropical deforestation probably exceeds 130,000 km2; per year. Nine percent of the world’s tree species are at risk of extinction.
Freshwater Ecosystems
Food Production: Mixed, Water Quality: Decreasing, Water Quantity: Decreasing, Biodiversity: Decreasing.
Algal blooms and eutrophication19 are becoming more frequent on most inland water systems. Currently almost forty percent of the world’s population experience serious water shortages. Large dams have increased sevenfold since the 1950’s and now impound fourteen percent of the world’s runoff. Almost sixty percent of the world’s largest 237 rivers are strongly or moderately fragmented by dams, diversions, or canals. Half the world’s wetlands are estimated to have been lost in the 20th century. Fish are being hauled out at or above the maximum yield for these systems. Twenty percent of the planet’s freshwater fish species are extinct or endangered.
Grasslands Ecosystems
Food Production: Decreasing, Biodiversity: Decreasing, Carbon Storage: Decreasing, Recreation: Decreasing.
Though grasslands cover forty percent of the Earth’s land surface, fifty-five percent of all grasslands are considered fragile drylands, and one-fifth of these are now degraded by human activity. Grasslands are being gobbled up by agriculture and urbanization. In the North American prairies, conversion is already nearly one-hundred percent.20
The report concludes that even the most remote ecosystems on the planet are affected by human influences. The world’s major ecosystems are all in decline and in all nations people are experiencing the effects of ecosystem decline. And the situation will only get worse if we continue our current patterns of usage. We are drawing on the world resources now more intensely than ever, and we are degrading the planet’s ecosystems at an accelerating pace. The planet’s capacity to provide goods and resources is declining, while demand for goods and resources is climbing. Human activities are impacting the biosphere and even altering the earth’s basic chemical cycles (water, carbon, and nitrogen) upon which all life depends.
However, the damage has not yet reached critical proportions. The earth can recover, if we act now to curb our demands and manage our resources in a sustainable manner. But time is growing short, and if we fail to act responsibly, then we will pay the price, as will our children and our children’s children.
Global Environmental Outlook-3 (2002)
The Global Environmental Outlook (GEO) was undertaken following a United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) decision in the mid-1990s which requested a comprehensive global state of the environment report. The first report (GEO-1) was issued in 1997 and the second (GEO-2) was issued in 1999. The third report, GEO-321 provides an assessment of environmental trends over the 30 years since Earth Day 1972, identifies four divides which separate the world and threaten sustainable development, and then outlines four disparate strategies and projects the effects of each strategy 30 years into the future.
The four divides roughly represent the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. It is well recognized that the impoverished see no options but to draw down their local resource base in an unsustainable effort to stay alive. Likewise, the poor cannot afford proper waste disposal or remediation. Furthermore, due to their lack of personal resources, the poor suffer a more direct impact from environmental disasters.
The affluent, on the other hand, are in a much better position for weathering environmental catastrophes. Likewise, the affluent have no pressing need to draw down local resources below sustainable levels. And they have better access to science and technology with which to inform policy decisions and develop more efficient lifestyles. However, affluence does not necessarily equate to responsible behavior. The market principles which govern developed nations are ruled by unbounded growth, which leads to excessive consumption. The affluent are drawing down the resources of the entire world. They extort resources from developing countries while forcing their burgeoning wastes upon the poor.
The four gaps are:
• The Environmental Divide—This is a gap between regions characterized by a stable or improving environment (North America, Europe), and regions characterized by continued environmental degradation (most of the developing countries).
• The Policy Divide—This gap separates regions which have strong policy development and implementation, and regions which do not. This is not so clear cut as the other divides; for instance, the US vacillates between strong and weak policy positions.
• The Vulnerability Gap—This gap is widening both within countries and across regions. This is the divide between the disadvantaged, who are at greater risk from environmental change, and the affluent, who are at less risk.
• The Lifestyle Divide—This divide is characterized by the excessive consumption of the affluent and the extreme poverty at the other end of the spectrum. The most affluent one-fifth of the world population are responsible for 90 percent of personal consumption, while the poorest one-fifth of the world population live on less than US1$ per day.22
Before examining the four scenarios projected over the next 30 years, first we must be aware of the delayed reaction time between policy changes and environmental impact. The direction of environmental change to occur over the next 30 years has—for the most part—already been decided by past and current actions. For instance, CFC emissions have been reduced significantly in the last decade; however, due to CFC/atmospheric chemistry, ozone depletion is still increasing. It is not expected to level off for at least another decade and will not decrease significantly until the middle of the century. Similarly, many environmental policy changes enacted over the next 30 years may not bear fruit until long afterwards.
Bearing in mind these caveats, let’s introduce the four policy strategies considered in Global Environmental Outlook-3.
Markets First: Trust is placed in market mechanisms to economically resolve all problems. Globalization and neoliberal policies will raise the standard of living for everyone. Communities will be wealthy enough to insure or remediate social and environmental problems. Governmental powers to regulate society, the economy and the environment will be severely limited.
Policy First: Government regulation in an attempt to reach specific social and environmental goals. Environmental and social costs are factored into policy measures. Efforts are made to balance the momentum of economic development at any cost.
Security First: This is a scenario of increasing inequality and conflict. The impoverished rise up periodically in waves of violent protest. The elite seek protection in gated and guarded communities. Governments devolve into strong military and police states to serve and protect isolated rich and powerful communities.
Sustainability First: A new paradigm evolves based on sustainability, equitable values and cooperation. There is a major change in the way people interact with each other and with the world around them. There is a much fuller application of democratic principles in local communities, between governments and in the management of corporations. Personal goals and basic needs are balanced with environmental health and the continued prosperity of future generations.
Applying each of these policy strategies to the global situation over the next 30 years, the hundreds of analysts contributing to GEO-3 came up with the following projections.
Overall, the Markets First and Security First scenarios will likely prove untenable. Both of these scenarios will probably result in environmental and social melt-downs which could lead to the complete collapse of modern civilization. The Policy First scenario could prove to be a more viable option, though over-regulation has the potential to derail the market economy entirely. Sustainability First would not only produce notable improvements in the health of the environment and pronounced decreases in poverty, it could also result in safe and hospitable communities where families can flourish and children will be nurtured.
State of the World 2003
Much of what is said in State of the World 2003, issued by the Worldwatch Institute23 is a repeat of data mentioned above in previous reports. The Worldwatch Institute is a highly respected organization founded in 1974 for the purpose of helping the world move toward an environmentally sustainable and socially just society. The Institute offers data and fact-based analysis on critical global issues and is consulted by governments, scientists, businesses and citizen groups.
The 2003 State of the World report reiterates the warnings covered earlier in this chapter. This publication warns that the more time which passes without remedial action, the greater the degree of misery and biological impoverishment that humanity will have to suffer. Most importantly, the report states that we have only one, or at most two, generations to resolve the situation.
Global Environmental Outlook-5 (2012)
The various global studies have released several reports since this article was written in 2003. While these studies strive to be more positive, focusing on efforts to alleviate catastrophic change and reach towards sustainability, none of them can ignore the fact that the situation has not improved. Of the various goals set for cutting CO2 emissions, forest cutting, resource depletion, soil degradation and resource deletion, none have been met. In fact, the rampage seems to be accelerating.
We quote here from the Geo-5 report:
As human pressures within the Earth System increase, several critical thresholds are approaching or have been exceeded, beyond which abrupt and non-linear changes to the life-support functions of the planet could occur. This has significant implications for human well-being now and in the future. For example: climate variability and extreme weather influence food security; crossing of thresholds leads to significant health impacts, as shown by the increase in malaria in response to rising temperatures; increased frequency and severity of climatic events affect both natural assets and human security; and accelerating changes such as of temperature and sea level rise affect the social cohesion of indigenous communities: in Alaska, for example, permafrost thawing and increased flooding are forcing villages to relocate.
Traditional expert-driven, top-down approaches to problem solving are not flexible enough to address complex, non-linear changes in the Earth System effectively. After more than 20 years of tackling problems of unsustainable development as more or less isolated issues, an integrated Earth Systems approach is needed for informed and effective decision-making.24
Geo-5 and the various other studies point to community initiatives as shining the greatest ray of hope for resolving all of these problems, as opposed to governmental action and regulation, or market-based business-driven initiatives.
The studies point out that human activity is driving many of the planet’s essential biological functions beyond critical thresholds. Among the systems suffering from human activity are:
Atmosphere–biosphere
Altered atmospheric concentrations of sulphur dioxide affect terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems through acid rain, with impacts including significant losses of fish stocks and other sensitive aquatic species, and effects on biodiversity and forestry.
The biosphere in polar regions has been contaminated by the long-range transport of industrial pollutants from other continents.
Geosphere–hydrosphere
The rate at which global groundwater stocks are decreasing because of abstractions more than doubled between 1960 and 2000. Depletion of groundwater aquifers can lead to land subsidence and saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies. Furthermore, due to human activities such as agriculture, nutrient mobilization in watersheds around the world, including of phosphorous and nitrogen, has increased significantly since 1960.
Atmosphere–geosphere
As much as 90 per cent of near-surface permafrost may thaw and disappear by 2100, releasing CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.
The frequency of both extremely heavy and extremely light or absent precipitation (drought) has increased over much of the world’s land area. Long-term trends show a tendency towards drier conditions in the Sahel and northern India.
Biosphere–hydrosphere
Dam building and the control of rivers and their floodplains affect ecosystems and biodiversity.
Water pollutants from waste disposal of industrial effluents, sewage, rubbish, agricultural run-off and atmospheric pollution (acid rain) present a major threat to inland wetlands and their biodiversity.
Atmosphere–hydrosphere
A substantial portion of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is absorbed by the oceans annually. This reacts with the water to create carbonic acid, thereby making the ocean more acidic. The mean surface ocean pH has already decreased from 8.2 to 8.1 and is projected to fall to 7.7 by 2100.
Certain long-lived chemicals such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals reach the marine environment and are transported globally, causing toxic effects in humans and wildlife.
Geosphere–biosphere
Oil spills continue to pose a threat to aquatic and marine ecosystems.24
As the various studies point out, we have the ability to turn this situation around, but our window of opportunity could close at any moment. And once that happens, there will be no turning back.
Energy Depletion—The Warning Being Whispered
All of the warnings and reports mentioned above fail to take note of one impending crisis which will severely affect all of these other problems, and which will impact our world in only a few short years. This is the issue of energy depletion. These reports are not to be blamed for this failure; the issue of energy depletion is hidden by false and misleading data from the energy industry and governmental regulatory agencies. And the issue is further obfuscated by economists and other well-wishers who refuse to face the problem because it would mean that their pet economic models are flawed and worthless. Yet the threat of energy depletion is already beginning to have an impact on all of our lifestyles.
Beginning in the early 1990s, petroleum geologists and other energy specialists began sounding the alarm about energy depletion. Most of the early warnings were issued by retired petroleum geologists who were now able to speak freely about the approaching threat. They were either ignored or shouted down by critics using flawed data. Yet the energy depletion argument has slowly gained support as more authorities reach the same conclusions, and as their analysis of data has been perfected.
There is an unstated consensus that oil depletion will become an inescapable reality by 2010. And evidence is mounting that world oil production peaked in the year 2000 and has leveled off since then. By implication, rising energy demand will soon exceed oil production, and the result will be rising prices and limited capacity.
The end of the oil age could signal the collapse of technological civilization. There are those who believe that we are preparing to enter a period of social dis-integration which would make the Dark Ages seem idyllic. There are warnings that once hydrocarbons fail, we will never again be able to achieve an industrial level of civilization. And hydrocarbon depletion will affect every other problem mentioned in this report, mostly for the worse.
To Be Continued…
So you haven’t heard about any of these scientific warnings or global assessment reports? Don’t feel alone; in the United States very few people have heard more than a passing comment on these issues. These reports have been buried under the sensational news of terrorist threats, school shootings and a flood of advertising exhorting us to buy, buy, buy our way to a better world.
In the second half of this series, we will look at some of the reasons why these warnings have been underreported. And we will address the questions of why we are not doing anything about these impending crises and in what direction are our leaders taking us. Finally, we will look briefly at alternatives.
Endnotes
1 Population Growth, Resource Management and a Sustainable World. Joint Statement of the Royal Society of London and the US National Academy of Sciences, 1992. Archived at http://www.dieoff.com/page7.htm
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity. Union of Concerned Scientists, 11/18/1992.http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/page.cfm?pageID=1009
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Joint Statement by 58 of the World’s Scientific Academies. US National Academy of Sciences, 10/27/1993.http://www4.nas.edu/iap/iaphome.nsf/weblinks/SAIN-4XVKHY?OpenDocument
9 Ibid.
10 Joint National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society Resolution: Towards Sustainable Consumption. US National Academy of Sciences, 1997.http://www4.nas.edu/NAS/nashome.nsf/Multi+Database+Search/65F4E52642745F1485256709006FBD91?OpenDocument
11 Ibid.
12 World Scientists’ Call for Action. Union of Concerned Scientists, December, 1997.http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/page.cfm?pageID=1007
13 Ibid.
14 Transition to Sustainability in the 21st Century: The Contribution of Science & Technology. InterAcademy Panel, May 2000. http://www4.nas.edu/iap/iaphome.nsf/weblinks/SAIN-4XVLCT?OpenDocument
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Guide to World Resources, 2000-2001: People & ecosystems; The Fraying Web of Life. World Resources Institute, April 2000. http://wri.igc.org/wri/wrr2000/
19 Eutrophication: A process whereby a body of water is choked by the presence of too many nutrients.
20 Ibid.
21 Global Environmental Outlook-3. United Nations Environment Programme, May 22 2002.http://www.grida.no/geo/geo3/
22 Ibid.
23 State of the World 2003. Worldwatch Institute, June 2003. http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/sow/2003/
24 Geo Environmental Outlook-5, United Nations Environment Programme, June 6, 2012. http://www.unep.org/geo/geo5.asp
July 4, 2012
Under Shattered Skies
Murderer’s Sky, the first volume of the trilogy, Under Shattered Skies will be released on the 15th of July.
Leading up to that day, we are posting a number of articles relating to the world in which this story takes place, along with excerpts from the book and other goodies.
Stay tuned and check out the Under Shattered Skies page regularly.
