Turn it off.

I totally get this guy (picture).

On a more cereals note, there are soooo many ways to save energy, it's almost ridiculous.
I get that utility companies and energy companies provide jobs for some people and (huge) profits for others, but the thing is, do we REALLY need to keep increasing everything, as that old paradigm goes?

Where does it end? In the previous paradigm (which will not last, as it is self-destructive, and life in general isn't, so there you go), faster, better stronger was the norm. More profit. More stuff. More users.

On a finite planet? Oh, please. I should think enough people get the basic geometry of a sphere or, even simpler, a square. (Or checkboard, if you like.) When you fill it ALL UP, there's nowhere to go.

So how, I ask, can people naively think, that the companies/governments/individuals can compete and keep trying to outcompete each other? The faster they (we) do it, the faster we approach the limit.

Sadly, but also, luckily, the limit of the living (and non-living, physical) environment cannot be pushed. Sadly, and luckily, once we hit that slope downward, mmmm, it's going to be hard to stop the Runaway Train. Why? Because nature works in cycles and because we DO know of the positive (/negative) feedback loops.

It's like taking more drugs or medicines. In one day. You can take as much as you like. Low dose, you'll survive. Extreme overdose, you'll die. Just-over-the-limit-of-your-body dose, you'll die as well. (Without serious medical intervention.)

Because you see, I personally don't know many species or people or galactic creatures that I could call with Galax-Skype and say: "HEY, OUR PLANET GOT AN OVERDOSE. COULD YOU, UM ... COULD YOU COME AND FIX IT FOR US?"

So yeah.
Love your loved ones. And teach them to turn off the lights.
Use the bike. Eat meat and soybean a few times less per year. Do what you can.

And maybe, if enough of us do it, we make it.
Or maybe, there will be a tipping point in public opinion and push for legislators and politicians for a bigger change.

Remember, a single grain of rice can tip the scale. [Emperor in Disney's Mulan]

Got the picture from FB post, here.

Science fiction: Just another scientific article?

I think if you search through literature history, you'll find some book or other, from like, 50 or more years ago, that paint a picture so stark it's crazy and scary. Back then, it was called distopian futuristic sight. Now, it's just called 'another scientific report'.

The report will warn that the effects of human emissions of heat-trapping gases are already being felt, that the ultimate consequences could be dire, and that the window to do something about it is closing.

“The evidence is overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising,” says the report, which was made available early to The New York Times. “Temperatures are going up. Springs are arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising. The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The oceans are acidifying.” (1)

But to give you the gist, the 18-page report will try and put the whole science of the last four dacades or so into crisp, clear language. And they will try to promote the science and 'What We Know' across the globe, as they say, in a 'broad outreach campaign to put forward accurate information in simple language' (1).


Like I said, time and time again: we won't need popcorn, watching the news 20 years from now. Possibly, they'll stop making any sort of movies, apart from propaganda movies.

On the other hand, there is always hope.
Even when there is no more hope, when you think all is lost, there is always hope (2).


Take for instance, this guy, Paul Rosolie, who fights in and for the rainforests in the Amazon basin (3). And he warns that even though it may seem we've lost so much and yaddi-daa [environmental scaremongering of the past], there is still so much to save and do. Right NOW. And in the future.

I'll just post an excerpt here:

While the battle is currently ongoing, it's by no means lost, according to Rosolie. He points to a flight he recently took above the heart of the Amazon: "Green. For hours. We were traveling at 140mph and all we saw were trees, interrupted by oxbow lakes and marshes, and the golden rivers that look like anacondas lying across the earth. It was incredible. And during the flight I kept thinking how we always hear about the destruction, and how time is running out. And it is true. But what we don't hear, and don't know, is that there is still so much left to save." (3)

(1) Read more here: Scientists Sound Alarm on Climate, Mar 18 2014 | Justin Gillis.

Got it via Naomi Klein's tweet, here.

(2) Losely after "Pittacus Lore, from I am Number Four. Quote here.

(3): Mother of God: meet the 26 year old Indiana Jones of the Amazon, Paul Rosolie, here.

An Abundance of Anything Analogy

After reading a newspaper article by a (self-proclaimed?) independent energy advisor, I had a few thoughts I'd like to share or start developing, at least. (Article is called "K nam hodi veter spat" and is accessible here.)

This reading requires an open mind.

In the article, it's mentioned that wind turbines do not require fuel to operate - which is true, apart from maintenance trucks and energy, stored/invested in replacement materials, if needed. And also, apart from taking up some energy of course, with their manufacture, transport and installation. (I am guessing solar panels have higher energy inputs till installation, but am not sure. Google Scholar it.)

But the author goes on to state a few troublesome things. Among them, he casually states that cats are murderers of birds, not wind turbines. Well, common sense that. Yes, of a few thousand small birds mostly. But have you ever seen a cat picking on a Golden Eagle? If anything, cats are on its diet list, not the other way around. Which is more than can be said for wind turbines, which are notoriuosly dangerous for k-strategists, long-lived, big animals with few offspring. Such as birds of prey.


Anyhow, to go back to the initial huff and puff.
  You know how we, the 'developed' world, took from indigenous people wherever and whenever we could? (Sure, first it was justified by God, then by Darwin, then by neo-liberalism and whatnot.) Well, now, enter the era of too much.

We've (and I'm saying mainly ''we", the affluent ones) polluted and dirtied the world and emitted so much ... we recognise maybe ... just maybe it's time to stop. (Take, for example, annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Read partly what I mean - lots of words, no action - here, in NY Times post Let’s Change the World. Cheers! | Subtitled: At the World Economic Forum in Davos, ‘Sustainability,’ ‘Mindfulness’ and Cocktails. See also a bit more from Kumi Naidoo (Greenpeace).)

  And then we have the balls to say to developing world: "Hey, um. We should all stop polluting."
"..." [muffled voices from the crowd]
"What? Yes, well, we did take the resources, but now this should all stop."
"..." [muffled angry shouting from the crowd]
"Yes, well. It would appear that we benefited ourselves, the westerners, wouldn't it. Hah hah. But really, it's not like that. See, we didn't know back then that all this pollution is unsustainable and can't go on forever. Now we do know. So, err... you should stop polluting."
"..."
"What? Oh, yes, I meant we should stop polluting. Unless we have those really costly clean technologies. But definitely no dirty technology. God, no. Clean as a glove!"
"..."
"Haven't you been listening? Yes, we did use dirty technologies, but now we know we shouldn't. So don't use dirty tech."
[And is later seen signing a contract with an African tribesman, for his company to come with machines and dig the rare ore. And is a month later seen moving the whole production of a textile industry into Asia, because the environmental standards are lower and labour force is cheaper.]

In one line: Benefiting ourselves on the account of others (and their resources), then telling them that they cannot do it - that's dirty. Nasty. [Or better yet: showing them pictures (movies, ads) of the glorious life in the west... and telling them: nope, you can't have it. Sorry. Time to stop consuming.]


In much the same way, I fear, go the wind energy developments.
First, we all (well, not really, the environmentalists/conservationists are divided) say: "oooh, that's nice. Clean energy." And it's true. It is much, much cleaner than the conventional types of energy production.
  But what happens when we fight for the inches?
And the electricity consumption still rises? And the world population still rises (creating unseen pressure on the (limited) natural resources)?

Having a wind farm by wind farm by wind turbine by wind farm will then create an impregnable wall of blades, cutting every birds loony enough to even consider passing through. Radical, yes. Let's downscale it.

Today, the electricity produced from wind grows between 10 and 20 percent per year. ["annual market growth of almost 10%, and cumulative capacity growth of about 19%", GWEC, 2014, under "Global Wind Energy: Solid Growth in 2012"] Which means, exponentially, as they calculate it often from the year before. (I think.) Okay...
So now, the wind turbines are not yet competing with arable land. Only with marine life (offshore instalments) and birds of prey in land installations.

  But what happens when we reach a certain limit? When more than one study ends up showing sharp declines in raptors? Thing is: studies take time (2-5 years). Disproving them (in the interest of the investors, let's call them "Big Wind", just for fun) takes time (1-5 years). Disproving them in turn, again, takes time. All the while, huge developments are continuing and the birds will be dying.

And then ... Germany says: "Hey, um. We should all stop building wind farms."
"..." [muffled voices from the crowd]
"What? Yes, well, we did seize the schnitzel by the curve, as we say, ha ha, but khem. You zee, the land ... the birds .. this schould all ztop nau."

Who tells whom to stop? The ones with 95 % energy coming from renewable energy sources (RES)? Denmark, Germany, (by then independent) Scotland, Spain, Greece, Netherlands? And all the while, we still keep the restaints on the CO2 emissions and you know, tell the other countries they really need to stop emitting.

It's not fair. It won't be. Yet I hope that by the time I close my eyes on this world forevermore, that the world will be fairer.
And you know what? I think not long after, it will be. Because the only way is the sustainable way. Whatever you say, nature (God?) intended it so. Look, consider this one simple, true and colossal statement:

Nature does not produce waste.

5 questions to help you spot inadequate (false?) climate-related reporting

When you read any news in the media (TV usually gives an even shallow-er overview), be sure to watch out for issues the below 5 questions point out to:

1. who is the author of the claim and what his professional qualifications are (if it only says PhD or Dr., that doesn't mean the person is a climate scientist, a physicist, has extensive knowledge of meteorology, biology, ecology, is an environmental scientist or anything. And yes, sometimes, people not from these fields of science get called upon to give statements..)
2. is the person citing specific scientific research or giving a 'general' claim, pointing to a myth, repetition of "what we all know" (but not really, as most of us are not scientists in the particular fields mentioned above)?  *
3. is this specific research even linked to, referenced in the media item?
   (If not ... it means you might have to do additional research, before you could competently decide on the claims in the news item. Additional time that not many will take...)
4. If you know or can figure out: who owns the particular media you are getting the news from;
5. and affiliations of the owner, as well as the author of the claims to the money structures. (Looks specifically for fossil fuel industry and also for UN and government institutions, to be a bit more unbiased.)

With the above questions answered, you should be able to make a pretty good judgement as to whether the article/item in question is sound news reporting, is based on more than just speculation or belief, and whether any partial interests might have influenced it. [Unless you devote your entire week to it, you probably won't get a resounding yes! either way, but a better picture, get you will. [Yoda voice]]

*You can spice-up solving of question 2 by asking yourself, whether the title of the news item is a pompous one (though this can just point to the "sensationalism" in media nowadays) - and are the statements and claims made by the person(s) advocated in the news item also pompous and exaggerated or are they more moderate? **

** Note that as denial and attacks on persons and institutions involved in the climate science in the last couple of years intensified, so did the reporting from some of the scientists. From being moderate, even timid at first, quite some of them apparently decided it's time for more decisive "action" and stronger words, that should somewhat balance the otherwise pompous and screaming climate "denialism".

Also a good read might be Edward de Bono's book: I Am Right You Are Wrong: From This to the New Renaissance: From Rock Logic to Water Logic (link to description (Amazon)).

Challenge the world faces “today”, September 2013

Challenge the world faces “today”, September 2013, is whether climate warming “denialists” and “contrarians”, as well as PR people from the fossil fuel industry will be able to convince everybody else that IPCC was wrong, UN was wrong and that we don’t need to act, to change our way of living. And that is a dead wrong perception.
  I write about it extensively in the last weeks, as I’ve come to realisation that discussing* how much the world is warming up, and if it’s at all caused by humans, is IRRELEVANT. The climate debate aside, human society and production systems have such a great impact on the planet, that we’ve practically begun to terraform-it. As it was written before, human society has “become a geological force to reckon with”, thus, the term ‘anthropocene’ some people are giving the current era (See the Economist (2)).

Gist: we need to change. And change is hard. But necessary. Otherwise, the planet (so not the garden, not the local shop, not your country or the continent you are living on, but the PLANET will not be able to take it. And come ecosystems collapse, mass extinctions and decades of economic, cultural and other stagnation of human society. See below.

"The Cost of Ecological Overspending

Throughout most of history, humanity has used nature’s resources to build cities and roads, to provide food and create products, and to absorb our carbon dioxide at a rate that was well within Earth’s budget. But in the mid-1970s, we crossed a critical threshold: Human consumption began outstripping what the planet could reproduce." (1)

* [Referring to the IPCC AR5 media pomp, at the time of writing, yet to come.]
(1) See more: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/gfn/page/earth_overshoot_day/

(2): The Economist: The geology of the planet. Welcome to the Anthropocene. (May 26th 2011 |From the print edition):: http://www.economist.com/node/18744401

Tar sands and coal shale is us being junkies

Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse.
Developping tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent.
-- http://www.ted.com/playlists/78/climate_change_oh_it_s_real.html

Meanwhile, Canada is considering bypassing the beleaguered Keystone XL pipeline (which would carry oil from tar sands deposits in Alberta to the US and the Gulf of Mexico) by shipping across the Arctic Ocean instead. <link>
 

Bill McKibben @billmckibben writes today:
Amazon could lose two-thirds of its biomass by 2060? Not really great news http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/05/amazon-deforestation …
This is where we, the average consumers step in. Can you spot the link?:

Brazil is under intense pressure to convert the Amazon forests to produce crops and provide pasture for cattle. But the forests' natural ecosystems sustain wild food production, maintain water and other resources, regulate climate and air quality and ameliorate the impact of infectious diseases. 

They predict that by 2050 a decrease in precipitation caused by deforestation will reduce pasture productivity by 30 percent in the governance scenario and by 34 percent in the business-as-usual scenario. They say increasing temperatures could cause a reduction in soybean yield by 24 percent in the governance scenario and by 28 percent under the business-as-usual scenario.

I used to think that "war-like-mobilisation" to combat #climatechange propagated by @paulgilding was a bit excessive. Now I think he's right. <link>
@paulgilding Referring to the implications of 'Two scenarios' in the article: Amazon -65% by 2060 http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/05/amazon-deforestation … via @billmckibben

Renewable energy 'soaring' in Australia as carbon price does what it's supposed to (Carbon price working? Coal slumps, clean energy soars <link>)

Electricity generated by Australia's highly polluting brown coal power plants has fallen 14 per cent since introduction of the carbon price, while renewable power has soared.

/.../ All up, the emissions intensity of the national electricity market has fallen 5.4 per cent since the carbon price was introduced, meaning carbon emissions from power generation is down 7.7 per cent, or 10 million tonnes, from the previous nine months.

The Dem base--even its big donors--are in a real uproar over Keystone. As they should be--it's a fateful decision http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/10/activists-compare-keystone-decision-to-lincolns-outlawing-of-slavery/ …

 

Fine piece from @wenstephenson in @thenation on Thoreau and the rising Fossil Fuel Resistance http://www.thenation.com/article/174225/thoreaus-radicalism-and-fight-against-fossil-fuel-industry?page=full# …

 

 Carbon price working? Coal slumps, clean energy soars

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-price-working-coal-slumps-clean-energy-soars-20130509-2jals.html#ixzz2Sty0Vxoi

Just a test on how this displays:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Amazon could lose two-thirds of its biomass by 2060? Not really great news<a href="http://t.co/1XLOevqH0R" title="http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/05/amazon-deforestation">wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2…</a></p>&mdash; Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) <a href="https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/332867369540128768">May 10, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

 

Divestment movement, New York Times, Bill McKibben, Do the Math

It's time to post some of a more positive outlook. Ever heard of the Divestment movement?

Well, it just so happens that this interview with Bill McKibben (350.org; fathered projects like Connect the Dots, Do the Math) explains it well and cites some influential media in doing so:

"The New York Times, in what became the week's most e-mailed story in the paper of record, said the campaign could "force climate change back on to the nation's political agenda." A few days later, Time magazine ended its account of the mushrooming movement like this: "University presidents who don't fall in line should get used to hearing protests outside their offices. Just like their forerunners in the apartheid battles of the 1980s, these climate activists won't stop until they win.""

You might be interested to read more, here: Divest from Fossil Fuels. Now. (By Bill McKibben)

Clean energy progress too slow to limit global warming: report

The IEA said that coal-fired generation grew by 45 percent between 2000 and 2010, far outpacing the 25 percent growth in non-fossil fuel generation over the same period. "Unless we get (carbon emissions) prices and policies right, a cost-effective clean-energy transition just will not happen," the report said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/17/us-carbon-energy-warming-idUSBRE93G05A20130417