New Universal Climate Agreement

[Little John]

Well, yes, you don't have to literally run for the hills. That's a metaphor. You could just get on with day to day life as cheerily as you can on the, possibly correct, assumption, that something mundane like being run over by a bus of dying of old age gets you first. It's how most folk seem to behave.

That's not what UE is getting at. What he is saying is that these kinds of international meetings are counterproductive because they allow us to continue to believe we can carry on with BAU, albeit with some modifications. I for one do not believe we can. So, to carry on with the delusion is counter productive because it allows us to not have to face the hard choices that truly confront us.

[biffvernon]

I don't believe we can carry on with BAU either and I don't think many who are actively involved in the UNCCC process think so either. I've just done a MOOC run by the World Bank. Not exactly the most obvious institution of radical change, but through the course I got no impression at all that anyone thought BAU was an option. The whole point of the course was to demonstrate to as wide an audience as possible that BAU is not an option.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, yes, you don't have to literally run for the hills. That's a metaphor. You could just get on with day to day life as cheerily as you can on the, possibly correct, assumption, that something mundane like being run over by a bus of dying of old age gets you first. It's how most folk seem to behave.

That's not what UE is getting at. What he is saying is that these kinds of international meetings are counterproductive because they allow us to continue to believe we can carry on with BAU, albeit with some modifications. I for one do not believe we can. So, to carry on with the delusion is counter productive because it allows us to not have to face the hard choices that truly confront us.

Yep...

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't believe we can carry on with BAU either and I don't think many who are actively involved in the UNCCC process think so either. I've just done a MOOC run by the World Bank. Not exactly the most obvious institution of radical change, but through the course I got no impression at all that anyone thought BAU was an option. The whole point of the course was to demonstrate to as wide an audience as possible that BAU is not an option.

Yeah, but they're still aiming for BAU 2.0 when what is actually required is something radically different. That is why the population problem needs to be highlighted again and again, to stop any attempt to sweep it under the carpet. At some point within the lifetime of people already alive today, it is going to become very obvious that 7+ billion people are not going to survive the process of radical re-adjustment that the human race is currently crashing into. It's no use talking about "educating people" or trying to raise the standard of living of the poorest 5 billion people on Earth and hope they're only going to have 2 children, because even if you succeeded, which is impossible, then we would still be heading for a catastrophe.

The entire context of the debate has to change. Unpleasant truths like the one above need to be acknowledged, and radical changes in behaviour and policy must follow (e.g. NO assistance to poor parts of the world designed to keep people alive in the event of famines, on the grounds that these are now understood to be counter-productive: the population of Ethiopa, for example, MUST FALL).

[PS_RalphW]

I strongly suspect that most people will first become aware that the world is running short of food for the then current population when they find that they cannot afford to buy their next meal. However, they will be too hungry to take in the global implications.

The collapse will not be televised. Look at how little coverage is given to the desperate conditions in many countries , in Africa, SE Asia, central America, and probably other places already off the google news filters that I have not heard about. Australia is sending boat people to concentration camps. North African migrants trying to cross the Med are dieing in large numbers.

We don't talk about them.

[UndercoverElephant]

I strongly suspect that most people will first become aware that the world is running short of food for the then current population when they find that they cannot afford to buy their next meal. However, they will be too hungry to take in the global implications.

I suspect you are right.

The collapse will not be televised. Look at how little coverage is given to the desperate conditions in many countries , in Africa, SE Asia, central America, and probably other places already off the google news filters that I have not heard about. Australia is sending boat people to concentration camps. North African migrants trying to cross the Med are dieing in large numbers.

We don't talk about them.

We don't talk about them very much, anyway. And when we do talk about them, we leave out the most important parts of the story, such as the real reasons why these things are happening and why we can't now stop them happening on an ever greater scale.



I guess what really gets to me is not that the "mainstream public" and media continually fail to face up to the real issues, but that most of the green movement doesn't do much better. It (collectively) has allowed the tail to comprehensively wag the dog. Instead of actually saying it like it is, and confronting the realities head on, the mainstream environmental movement now follows an agenda based on "what is politically achievable" or "what is deemed acceptable to mainstream society". Which does not include serious consideration of overpopulation or countless other important but difficult issues. And unfortunately the gap between the realities and what is achievable/acceptable is actually getting bigger - climate change being one of the most obvious examples of this trend.

[emordnilap]

This entire thread encourages me to ask you all again to watch Guy McPherson's presentation and wonder, "Is he really that far off the mark?".

He is sometimes labelled as a "the end is nigh" wolf-cryer but I see him as carefully trying to make sense of what we know and extrapolating the trends.

[UndercoverElephant]

This entire thread encourages me to ask you all again to watch Guy McPherson's presentation and wonder, "Is he really that far off the mark?".

He is sometimes labelled as a "the end is nigh" wolf-cryer but I see him as carefully trying to make sense of what we know and extrapolating the trends.

Have you got a link to that?

[biffvernon]

Meanwhile have a play with this bit of modelling: http://www.gci.org.uk/cbat-domains-Hans ... omains.swf

[emordnilap]

Have you got a link to that?

Sure: http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... highlight=

[UndercoverElephant]

Have you got a link to that?

Sure: http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... highlight=

cheers. I did see that thread but didn't realise you were talking about the same thing. Will watch tomorrow if I get time.

[emordnilap]

Have you got a link to that?

Sure: http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... highlight=

cheers. I did see that thread but didn't realise you were talking about the same thing. Will watch tomorrow if I get time.

Well, not 'talking about the same thing' so much as wondering (as in the title of another thread), "Is this it?". And now this thread seems to be heading for the same question. The world is becoming so unstable (with those controlling the mass media acting like it isn't) that some kind of tipping point has to arrive sometime.

It may be tomorrow or it may be in 2045 but both are pretty short intervals in the scheme of things. McPherson isn't saying 'this will happen at this specific point'. He's outlining a likely (but impossible for John Doe to envisage) future, that's all.

[biffvernon]

Some folk are not so keen on McPherson:
http://planet3.org/2014/03/13/mcpherson ... doom-doom/

A former professor of ecology, Guy McPherson has attained some fame and respect among back-to-the-land “permaculture” types. I have no idea what he may or may not know about ecology, but he doesn’t know much about climate. This hasn’t prevented him from using his professorial credentials in the “permie” subculture, and what he tells the permies is that we are absolutely, irrevocably doomed.

Specifically, he believes that there are unstoppable feedbacks built into the climate system that have now triggered the system into instability. He thinks the climate will go bonkers in the way Jimi Hendrix’s guitar would howl when he held it up to the amp speaker. And he thinks it will go so thoroughly out of kilter as to kill every human alive by 2030.

It’s hard to tell why, but some people love him for it. It seems to me he is doing a lot of damage with this schtick nonetheless.

[UndercoverElephant]

OK...replied in other thread

[emordnilap]

Some folk are not so keen on McPherson:
http://planet3.org/2014/03/13/mcpherson ... doom-doom/

A former professor of ecology, Guy McPherson has attained some fame and respect among back-to-the-land “permaculture” types. I have no idea what he may or may not know about ecology, but he doesn’t know much about climate. This hasn’t prevented him from using his professorial credentials in the “permie” subculture, and what he tells the permies is that we are absolutely, irrevocably doomed.

Specifically, he believes that there are unstoppable feedbacks built into the climate system that have now triggered the system into instability. He thinks the climate will go bonkers in the way Jimi Hendrix’s guitar would howl when he held it up to the amp speaker. And he thinks it will go so thoroughly out of kilter as to kill every human alive by 2030.

It’s hard to tell why, but some people love him for it. It seems to me he is doing a lot of damage with this schtick nonetheless.

And what do you think of him yourself, Biff?

One bit (of several...) he talks about that I don't understand is how CO2 takes 40 years to have its effects on global warming. Is it true? Can you explain how in simple terms?