PowerSwitch

Ten Billion – a scientist's one-man show on environmental woes – has been an unexpected sell-out hit

Stephen Emmott is an unlikely candidate for a star of a sell-out London theatre hit. He currently uses crutches after recently losing a disc in his spine and until last month he had never trod the boards. Yet the 52-year-old academic has just completed a majestic run at the Royal Court. For the past three weeks, he has filled the seats of the company's Jerwood Theatre Upstairs with audiences, mostly young, flocking to see his solo performances of Ten Billion, a brutal but careful dissection of the likely impact of humanity's swelling numbers on our planet.

So can we do anything to halt the devastation that lies ahead? Emmott asks as he reaches the end of his show. "In truth, I think we are already f****d," is his answer. Then he quotes the response he got when he asked one of his younger colleagues what measures he planned to take to ward off the worst effects of the mayhem that lies ahead. "Teach my son how to use a gun," he was told. Cormac McCarthy would be proud.

LOL, about time environmentalists used more direct language.

For what it's worth I agree that we are truly f****d.

Have to see if I can get to one of his lectures.

If we weren't already f*cked, the news from both poles over the last 2 years means we certainly are now. It seems that after three decades of politically-motivated denial of climate science, the climatologists were wrong after all: they underestimated the threat, because they did not understand the importance of the feedback mechanisms. But it also seems that almost nobody is listening anymore. Action to address climate change was never very high on the real agenda, and now it is has fallen off the bottom, replaced by fears about economic apocalypse and wars in the middle east.

We (the environmental movement) have got to accept that the message has to change. We must be much more direct and blunt and not be worried about scaring people. I also think the strategy has got to change. There no point in trying to tackle these problems by reducing greenhouse emissions, because we know damned well that this isn't going to work. We now have to choose between accepting a lethal-to-civilisation rise in global temperatures (could be 10 degrees by the time the positive feedback mechanisms have done their worst) and major geo-engineering, both to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere and to reduce the amount of energy reaching the surface. This has been taboo in environmentalist circles, and now that taboo must be broken.

+1 UE

Agree completely.

UndercoverElephant wrote:If we weren't already f*cked, the news from both poles over the last 2 years means we certainly are now. It seems that after three decades of politically-motivated denial of climate science, the climatologists were wrong after all: they underestimated the threat, because they did not understand the importance of the feedback mechanisms. But it also seems that almost nobody is listening anymore. Action to address climate change was never very high on the real agenda, and now it is has fallen off the bottom, replaced by fears about economic apocalypse and wars in the middle east.

We (the environmental movement) have got to accept that the message has to change. We must be much more direct and blunt and not be worried about scaring people. I also think the strategy has got to change. There no point in trying to tackle these problems by reducing greenhouse emissions, because we know damned well that this isn't going to work. We now have to choose between accepting a lethal-to-civilisation rise in global temperatures (could be 10 degrees by the time the positive feedback mechanisms have done their worst) and major geo-engineering, both to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere and to reduce the amount of energy reaching the surface. This has been taboo in environmentalist circles, and now that taboo must be broken.

I bet we soon see the beginning of the industrial machine being directly attacked. Direct, militant, agent-provocateur action, in other words.. It probably won't make a damn of difference. But it definitely won't make it any worse either. To be honest, anyone engaged in such action will have my sympathy. Let's face it, the stakes could not be higher.

UndercoverElephant wrote:and to reduce the amount of energy reaching the surface.

Don't push that bit - it's just a continue polluting license and does not address ocean acidification, which will be perfectly devastating.

biffvernon wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:and to reduce the amount of energy reaching the surface.

Don't push that bit - it's just a continue polluting license and does not address ocean acidification, which will be perfectly devastating.

We've got beyond the niceties of being able to choose whether or not to "push that bit." I understand your concerns, but in reality the human race is going to continue to pollute anyway. That is the point I am making - we have been trying for three decades to convince people to stop polluting and we have got precisely nowhere. We have to accept that we are not going to win this battle, and think about where we go from here.

No one can really stop it. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Momentum

We need a worldwide plague. That's just about the only thing that will save the rest of life from the human race and the human race from itself.

Latest NSIDC chart.....

On track for < 4m km^2 and I can only see the melt loss accelerating year on year.

Back in 2007 I thought we'd be ice free by 2015. That's not looking too far out now.

The ice melt is absorbing energy and masking temp rises, when that goes I wouldn't be surprised to see big changes in precipitation\wind patterns.

Then there are the hydrates in places like the Siberian shelf.

F****d.

[/img]

Following on from what UE wrote:

Who on here has a car? Who still travels by air? Who buys most of their stuff new? Who still shops at Tesco/Asda instead of growing some of their own and getting the rest from local/ethical shops? Who lives in a house too big for their needs, that is energy intensive to heat and light? Who keeps pet(s)? Who eats meat?

Most of us on here know about climate change and still persist in doing things which contribute massively to climate change, so there's your answer- if we can't be arsed to make proper, major lifestyle changes then we certainly can't be asking anyone else to.

(Before anyone dives in to have a go I can answer 'no' to all the above).

I think one of the massive failings of the green movement has been the smug middle class greenies who recycle religiously, whilst still doing many of the things listed above. I am really tired of green hypocrisy, I know most of the people involved in Transition, FoE and the Green Party in my city and none of them have made any serious changes to their lifestyle, it's all about buying different products or going on 'eco' holidays or fitting solar panels.

I think ordinary people look at most 'greenies' and can see the inherent hypocrisy, whilst this continues the message of the environmental movement will seem hollow. If most of us are unwilling to change, why should anyone else take it seriously.

I have a cat and a very efficient car which I need for my job. Apart from that, "not guilty!" I have no children (aged 43).

+1 to nexus. Do you consume dairy or leather? Any children?

For me, no to everything but the car (an efficient second-hand one which we barely use and I actually hate using; I especially hate paying tax and insurance - it should all be piled onto petrol) and animals, which we love. Dogs, cats, ducks, geese, quite a few of which simply come to lodge with us, without us seeking them out.

I understand that getting out to the country is hard without a car, I've used country bus services extensively and they are a nightmare. Could you share your car with someone else who doesn't need one very often either?

Good point about kids. I'm guilty on that score, although wouldn't change for the world, but we did limit ourselves to one partly because of over population. I agree that the least selfish path is to not have any kids, hard tho' that is.

One or two is fine, particularly if they turn out like you!

As for cars, every household has a minimum of one; I just thought through all the houses within about a mile radius and this is true. I only know of one person without a car; he hitches into town but I can rarely give him lifts as I cycle. Our nearest neighbour has two big vehicles for himself and his taxiing business, plus another he gets to use as part of another job. The next nearest neighbours have three vehicles between five of them, two of them big. Another house has three cars between three people, one of whom does not drive.