Thursday, August 01, 2019

We're Out of Time. You Have to Choose a Side.



It’s a trite cliché to say the time has long since past the critical tipping point when humanity can no longer have it both ways. Every human must, sooner or later, once and for all, choose which side of the debate they’re on and then accept the consequences of whichever side is chosen.

                                                           - Jerome Irwin


Another day, another climate scientist pouring her heart out. Theirs is about the most miserable profession of the lot. Highly educated, determined, and living with the reality that no matter the peril to humanity the decision-makers will ignore the science no matter how dire the warning. Nowhere is this more burdensome than inside the petro-states, the fossil energy giants.

Joelle Gergis is a climate scientist and writer from the knuckle-dragging capital of the southern hemisphere, Australia. If you glance at the charts in the previous post you'll see that Australia is neck and neck with Canada when it comes to carbon production and emissions. Shame on you, Australia.

Here are a few of the more telling excerpts from Ms. Gergis' address:

Preparing for this talk I experienced something gut-wrenching. It was the realisation that there is now nowhere to hide from the terrible truth.

...The results coming out of the climate science community at the moment are, even for experts, similarly alarming.

We know that CO2 concentrations have risen from pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million (ppm) to approximately 410 ppm today, the highest recorded in at least three million years. Without major mitigation efforts, we are likely to reach 560 ppm by around 2060. 
...When the UN’s Paris Agreement was adopted in December 2015, it defined a specific goal: to keep global warming to well below 2°C and as close as possible to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (defined as the climate conditions experienced during the 1850–1900 period). While admirable in intent, the agreement did not impose legally binding limits on signatory nations and contained no enforcement mechanisms. Instead, each country committed to publicly disclosed Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to reduce emissions. In essence, it is up to each nation to act in the public interest.

So how is the Paris Agreement actually panning out? 
...To restrict warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, the world needs to triple its current emission reduction pledges. If that’s not bad enough, to restrict global warming to 1.5°C, global ambition needs to increase fivefold
...Increasingly after my speaking events, I catch myself unexpectedly weeping in my hotel room or on flights home. Every now and then, the reality of what the science is saying manages to thaw the emotionally frozen part of myself I need to maintain to do my job. In those moments, what surfaces is pure grief.  ...Being willing to acknowledge the arrival of the point of no return is an act of bravery
But these days my grief is rapidly being superseded by rage. Volcanically explosive rage. Because in the very same IPCC report that outlines the details of the impending apocalypse, the climate science community clearly stated that limiting warming to 1.5°C is geophysically possible.

...Although the very foundation of human civilisation is at stake, the world is on track to seriously overshoot our UN targets. Worse still, global carbon emissions are still rising. In response, scientists are prioritising research on how the planet has responded during other warm periods in the Earth’s history. 
The most comprehensive summary of conditions experienced during past warm periods in the Earth’s recent history was published in June 2018 in one of our leading journals, Nature Geoscience, by 59 leading experts from 17 countries. The report concluded that warming of between 1.5 and 2°C in the past was enough to see significant shifts in climate zones, and land and aquatic ecosystems “spatially reorganize”.
These changes triggered substantial long-term melting of ice in Greenland and Antarctica, unleashing 6 to 13 metres of global sea-level rise lasting thousands of years. 
Examining the Earth’s climatic past tells us that even between 1.5 and 2°C of warming sees the world reconfigure in ways that people don’t yet appreciate. All bets are off between 3 and 4°C, where we are currently headed. Parts of Australia will become uninhabitable, as other areas of our country become increasingly ravaged by extreme weather events.

...There is a very rational reason why Australian schoolkids are now taking to the streets – the immensity of what is at stake is truly staggering. Staying silent about this planetary emergency no longer feels like an option for me either. Given how disconnected policy is from scientific reality in this country, an urgent and pragmatic national conversation is now essential. Otherwise, living on a destabilised planet is the terrible truth that we will all face.

We still have time to try and avert the scale of the disaster, but we must respond as we would in an emergency. The question is, can we muster the best of our humanity in time?
What I would ask you to do after reading the preceding post and this is to consider who, with a shred of concern for Canada and our young people, could support the handmaidens of the petro-state, Scheer or Trudeau, this October.  There is "nowhere to hide from the terrible truth" of what they are doing. Parliament's declaration of a climate emergency is nothing more than a dark farce, a sop to appeal to the environmental vote. Scheer is reprehensible. As for Justin, his words mean nothing. His deeds speak for themselves.

As Jerome Irwin writes, you have to choose which side you're on. Humanity can no longer have it both ways.

h/t Graeme Decarie
h/t The Arbourist

11 comments:

  1. Australia is opening new coal mines, big fuss over that. The Indian company behind one is acting like a pre WW2 outfit running roughshod over the locals. No wonder younger Australians are getting upset.

    https://www.abc.net.au/radio-australia/programs/pacificbeat/approval-for-coal-mine-bad-news-for-pacific-says-scientist/11215290

    Meanwhile, China is telling Australia not to open new mines:

    https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/chinese-expert-warns-australia-against-investing-in-new-coal-mines-20190710-p525xb.html

    Scheer and the Cons are religious nuts so far as I can tell - the good lord will look after us and all that crap. Worked for both sides in both World wars, didn't it? But there's no dimming the stupidity of mankind. Plus, if you disbelieve climate change, you don't have to do anything in mitigation - never underestimate the power of laziness until the Aw, sheeeeet! day.

    BM

    ReplyDelete

  2. BM, in speaking to a friend today I asked if she had noticed her friends regularly mentioning how the world has gone crazy. A well-educated career woman with equally sophisticated friends she confirmed that, yes, that was a staple of their conversations.

    Perhaps that's what 40 years of peace, indulged consumption, comfort and ease begets. Could it be that we've bred ourselves into a condition of idiocy? Has it dulled our survival instinct? Buggered if I know.

    ReplyDelete
  3. .. well, Mound..
    I regret but do not regret - to say.. 'you're the bearer of bad news'
    Is that why I read you.. or Derocher, or Nikiforuk, or Climenhaga or Norm Farrell ? I dunno

    I read for.. many reasons.. Truth, Fact, Reality.. that's how we learn actually
    And yes, I read fiction.. for entertainment, inspiration, distraction (but that's not very 'nutritional' neccessarily, its a lifelong habit) I 'read' my Twitter feed for information, edification, awareness, astonishment.. and my Facebook feed for family, friends.. and little bits of the 'stuff of life' .. odds n ends, odds n sods.. randomness

    Sadly.. regarding Environment, you bat 1000.. in baseball terms.. as a batter, you are a vicious hitter. The Impossible Out. Its a 'liner' off the wall triple. An over the fence. An out of the park. A moon shot to the upper deck. A double to the corner. A wicked slice to the corner double. Why your posts are not Mainstream Media boggles me.. but I can say that about many mainstays of my daily reads.

    This ayem which as usual starts at unholy beef, dairy farm hours.. 4:30ish.. ie in total darkness yet sounds of a robin resound
    I will say this..
    CAN WE STOP CALLING ALBERTA BITUMEN 'OIL' ????? (not you of course)

    If we could get Main Media to curb their error.. or Indy Social Media, or our friends, family .. KIDS.. or the Stock Markets, OUR SCHOOL CURRICULUMS, our Church ministers, Politicians, Pundits !!!!!

    We lump Diluted Bitumen - Bitumen in like calling ground hamburger TENDERLOIN.. (and therefore should pay accordingly) and its an endless parade. Its like calling CATS as DOGS.. SALMON as PORK.. Yes Yes.. the APEX TERRESTRIAL is the POLAR BEAR.. but can we pat it on the head & assume its one of those Harper era pandas ??? NO NO & No.. it will EAT YOU !!! YOU ARE ITS LUNCH OR DINNER !!!!!

    I am a house painter.. I start with a 'site inspection' .. an estimate, then comes.. THE PREP (if required, but there is always PREP).. I will meet every spider in that house.. we become friends. Then I begin 'the cutting' and I see every single flaw ceiling down to the floor.. then I roll, then come touchups, then I leave. This never changes really.. I take photos before during after, send memos

    If I was 'painting' Canada's fossil fuel 'house' .. or Alberta's .. or Beautiful British Columbia's .. I would be mortified by the site inspection.. tell the boss at home 'the owner is insane' .. She of course as the wise and lovely blunt woman she is.. would ask scathingly.. 'why didn't you just walk away immediately ?'

    Ulp.. I cannot just walk away.. 'This is our house.. my house, your house.. could I walk aways from people breaking down our front door & assaulting you.. or my family.. telling me its 'nation building? or its 'for growing the economy'.. sre you nuts ? I would rip their legs off at the front door, the dogs would too.. I am expert level junkyard dog.. This is OUR COUNTRY.. OUR HOUSE.. OUR KIDS .. OUR GRANDCHILDREN.. MY BLACK IRISH ANCESTORS WOULD ROLL IN THEIR GRAVES IF I KISSED ASS

    Mr Trudeau, Ms McKenna.. better wake up, shape up.. LIKE NOW

    Apologies re all the CAPS ..

    ReplyDelete
  4. hmmm ... Choosing sides - or more compromise?

    It looks to me that an eminent Cdn IPCC member is arguing for a strategic vote to get a minority gov't... but in effect it's mostly another 'hold your nose and vote Liberal' strategy.

    http://markjaccard.blogspot.com/2019/08/if-canadians-elect-climate-insincere.html

    ReplyDelete

  5. NPoV, I've long had difficulty with Jaccard's approach. "Climate sincere" WTF is that? Sounds like "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" business I used to hear from my mom.

    Sincerity is no longer enough. We have to slash our greenhouse gas emissions, some of the highest in the world, rapidly and even that might no longer work. We need a government that can show how it intends to do that and by when. We need a plan for mitigation and adaptation.

    Jaccard's aspirational approach is unconvincing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Australia has sold itself out to other countries: Mostly China. Clive Hamilton has written a book called "Silent Invasion". If we don't watch it Canada will be in the same boat. Especially with the Federal Government proposing to use Huawei to build its tech in the North of Canada. XX

    ReplyDelete
  7. Perhaps the last viable option is rage.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Together with our Climate Disaster and 5G, we are eliminating ourselves from the face of the earth. https://interestingengineering.com/is-5g-harmful-for-humans-and-the-environment I actually don't see or hear much intelligent solutions coming from government at all. They are only concerned with GDP and their very wealthy friends. XX

    ReplyDelete
  9. NPoV, I've left a comment on Jaccard's blog asking several questions. It hasn't passed his "approval" screen yet. His creation of new categories dividing us into convenient groups - "climate sincere" parties (i.e. Liberal), "climate insincere" parties (Tories) and the great unwashed he brands "climate concerned" individuals sounds like "teacher talk."

    Among other things, I asked Jaccard how we were to separate climate sincere from climate insincere. By their words or on their record, by their deeds. Are we to treat a party that has reneged on its solemn promises to be somehow "sincere"?

    Jaccard's is a plainly "better than nothing" formula. He has no grasp of Churchill's take on emergencies - "Sometimes it is not enough that we do our best, we must do what is necessary."

    All in all, entirely unimpressive. I did ask if he's been given a riding yet.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I read Jaccard's Globe&Mail OpEd. What a load of shit. All of it. He appears to be delusional. Jaccard looks to be another Liberal partisan, working for a corporate think-tank, whining about "climate-insincere" governments with 40% majorities. That the last time we had a federal majority popular government was in 1984 with 50.x% of the popular vote, apparently doesn't mean anything for Canada's "natural governing party".


    "In just four years, these and other policies have transformed Canada from a global pariah under the Harper government to a model for climate action under Trudeau"... "In climate policy, experts agree that Canada is finally a global leader. " WTF? Which experts? These sentences appear to be grammatically accurate, but effectively meaningless.

    Canada is according to him, a "climate-leader" now, a model for other countries to emulate, but only if the climate-sincere electorate votes for the Libs, instead of splitting the vote. Which shouldn't be a problem, as Trudy-boy promised the last election would be the last with a FPTP system.

    ReplyDelete

  11. I share your sentiments, Stu. Jaccard has sullied his academic reputation to shill for a political party. If only he wasn't quite so blatant about it.

    ReplyDelete