Tag: global warming

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, General Commentary, Innovation, Technology, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , ,

Go watch this short clip from futurist Jamais Cascio in a Fast Company forum. It’s only 2 minutes and 22 seconds (once you get past the ad). Here’s an excerpt:

If you want to find out how to use a new emerging tool, don’t ask the people who invent it, because they have a very narrow view of what it’s supposed to be used for. The people who are hacking it–the people who use it for crime, who use it to have sex, who use it to do something fun or different–those are the people who are going to find out the little interesting variations.

This kind of thinking has been noticeably absent until fairly recently. Look at the early coverage of the Internet of Things, for instance. It’s all pretty rah-rah, this is great, and nobody was wondering about what to do if someone hacked your refrigerator and set all the food to spoil.

Yet we so often see unintended consequences, not only in the ability of evildoers to exploit those weaknesses, but also in not thinking through all the ramifications of a new technology. For instance, those who developed fossil fuels never thought about health effects from pollution, or catastrophic climate effects from increasing CO2 levels, or about how a society built around the idea of mass private vehicle ownership and a network of roads that go everywhere would be different (better in some ways, worse in others). The people who developed the very exciting 3D printing world probably didn’t think about the consequences of being able to build weapons that don’t show up on X-ray scans, using a device you can have in your own home. People running massive charity programs may not have considered the impact of subsidizing goods on the local, indigenous producers who are essential to a thriving local economy.

This is a good time to remind ourselves of the Precautionary Principle (scroll to page 10 when you open the link): if there’s a chance that major harm will come from an action, choose not to perform that action.

Europe has widely adopted the Precautionary Principle; the US has been lagging behind even under more forward-thinking administrations, and the current administration is actively hostile to the environment.

With an even more reactionary, pro-pollution president about to take over in Brazil, one who has pledged to turn over the Amazon rainforest to industry regardless of the consequences,

Brazil's magnificent Amazon rainforest (courtesy NPR)
Brazil’s lush, multispecies rainforest sequesters enormous amounts of carbon–and is at risk of being bulldozed for short-term private gain (courtesy NPR)

the Precautionary Principle (which Brazil followed for about the past 15 years) is about to be thrown out. The consequences, though, aren’t limited to Brazil. The above link documents the extreme negative effects this will have on the climate issue worldwide.

One difference with the unintended consequences Jamais Cascio discusses: the consequences won’t be unintended. They are deliberate. This new leader simply doesn’t care. And he’s not likely to listen to activists in the US or even governments in the EU. But he will have to listen if the people of Brazil turn out in huge and constant demonstrations demanding climate justice and rainforest preservation. I wish them luck; we’ll all need it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Consumer Issues, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, language, poverty, propaganda, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Socially Responsible Investing, Technology Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Let’s just pretend for a moment that the climate deniers are right and nearly the entire scientific community is wrong. We spend a lot of time and effort so humans can continue living on this planet of ours–and it turns out we didn’t need to do all that. Let’s say all that happens is we switch to clean energy and super-efficient design, improve  our air and water quality, dramatically reduce pollution-related illness, free up more spending power among people who are no longer buying fossil fuels, create hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs, and so on–but it doesn’t affect the climate, or the climate continues to be just fine for humans. Let’s say that ending our reliance on fossil fuels changes our foreign policy away from resource-based wars and toward peace, quality-of-life improvements around the world, and international cooperation.

A storm-damaged pier. Courtesy freeimages.com
A storm-damaged pier. Courtesy freeimages.com

You know what? I’d be pretty happy with those outcomes. It would be worth making that effort even if climate change were not an issue.

BUT…what if the climate scientists are right? What if our future is full of massive flooding, wildfires, severe storms, food riots, and all the rest of it? I’m not actually worried that much about the planet. The planet has survived climate upheaval many times before, and it will again. So will the cockroaches. But I AM worried about our planet’s capacity to sustain human and mammal life, and the plants that we all rely on for our survival. The planet is indifferent to whether humans survive and thrive. It looks to me that the planet has begun to fight back over the past ten or twenty years; “global weirding” has become a thing, around the world. The climate we’ve been used to for a couple of centuries is not the one we have anymore. If we continue blindly down the path of climate denial and inaction, explorers from other planets will land here to discover that the cockroaches are in charge, and humans are either extinct or a tiny remnant living lives of deprivation in scattered little bands.

Don’t take my word about those consequences. Follow these links and listen to the real experts: scientists.

  1. First, a quick general-audience overview of why climate change matters
  2. A more scientific but still relatively readable report from NASA
  3. And finally, a more technical piece from the Union of Concerned Scientists (a group I’ve been paying attention to for about 40 years and for whom I have a great deal of respect) outlining why humans need to own the responsibility for climate change

Are natural causes also contributing to climate change? Sure. Volcanoes, earthquakes, massive forest fires and floods…all of those have an effect on climate. But it’s important to keep four things in mind about natural disasters:

As an example of that last point, consider the accident at Fukushima in 2011. Seismic activity caused a tsunami, which flooded one of the largest concentrations of nuclear power plants in the world (6 plants at the Fukushima Daiichi site and another 4 at Fukushima Daini, just 7 miles away), which led to explosions in at least four of the Daiichi plants, which led to a meltdown, which contaminated a wide swath and forced thousands to evacuate.
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is another example. Around the world, numerous oil rigs, nuclear plants, chemical refineries, etc. sit on earthquake faults or next to large bodies of water. And this is simply nuts!

We’ve had 200 years to watch this crisis coming. We have plenty of technology to reduce our need for energy AND to generate clean, safe energy to power our world. If we’d started to get serious about dealing with climate change even as recently as 50 years ago, by now, we could have easily moved to 100% renewables, and if we had any sense, we would have. The good news: we could still convert to 100% renewables by 2050, or perhaps even sooner. The bad news: we may not have the luxury of 30+ years to figure this out, and at the moment, the US at least has a federal government that is actively hostile to climate science and puts dollars in the pockets of big business ahead of the health, safety, and livability of people and planet.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Corporate Social Responsibility, Demographics/Psychographics, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Environment, language, Marketing Trends/News, Politics, Social and Economic Justice, Socially Responsible Investing, Technology Tagged with , , , ,
Delegates at an international meeting
A similar international meeting (in Bonn, Germany)

After the failure at Copenhagen a few years back, I didn’t have big hopes for this year’s event. Yet, I’m beginning to think the big Paris climate change conference known as #COP21 may actually accomplish some real change.

Oddly enough, my optimism is rooted in something I would have seen a few years ago as a fatal flaw: that the results will be based in voluntary, not mandatory, compliance.

Why? Because:

  1. We can’t GET mandatory compliance. In the US, that would require a yes vote in each house of Congress, or even worse, the 2/3 Senate support required to adopt a treaty. But even as far back as Kyoto, US electoral politics had become a toxic swamp of attack-dog partisanship. No climate change bill with teeth is going to pass Congress any time soon. And without US (or China’s) participation, any agreement would be useless.
  2. The US and China have already agreed to take climate seriously, and have negotiated their own agreement. Weaker than I’d like, but a heck of a good start, and one that seems to have helped apply the brakes on China’s mad rush to coal (the worst scenario for averting climate disaster).
  3. The business community has woken up. Often a force for conservatism, the business world now understands the catastrophic consequences of failure to make meaningful progress on climate change—and the profits to be made in doing the right thing. If the government won’t act, they will force action through other channels. The emergence of environmental activism among evangelical Christians and even a subset of Tea Party activists who care deeply about the environment is also very encouraging.
  4. The growing use of carbon markets provides additional financial incentives for cutting carbon.
  5. New technology makes it easier to do more with less, use. our resources far more effectively, and solve engineering problems with biological thinking (for example, letting bridge engineers study spiderwebs). We understand now, for instance, just how much energy and carbon we can save by going for deep conservation.
  6. Early discussions about whether the world should agree on a 1.5 degree Celsius vs. 2 degree C cap in global temperatures compared to what existed before the Industrial Revolution means we’ve finally gotten past the question that’s been holding us back for so long: why do we need to contain rising temperatures in the first place? For the first time, the world is pretty much in agreement that it has to be done. Not just scientists, this time, but governments, too. Climate deniers (other than in the US Republican Party leadership, apparently) are now as marginalized as environmental activists were 20 or 30 years ago.

I could keep going, but you get the message—we can do this!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Energy & Sustainability, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , ,

Okay, I admit it. While I see catastrophic climate change as a deep and real danger, I do find some comfort in the short term.

It was great that I barely had to pick up the snow shovel last winter. And it’s great that we’re already gathering blueberries off our bush, about three weeks early. The irises were in almost a month early, bringing welcome color to our yard.

And the zucchini is flowering already; we’ll be eating it soon. That’s usually mid-July, here in Western Massachusetts.

I’m looking forward to a long and productive garden season, especially welcome because last year’s garden got destroyed halfway through the season by Hurricane Irene.

Still, these comforts will seem like distant dreams if the worst predictions of climate change come true.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, propaganda Tagged with , , , , , ,

In my post yesterday on oil-industry and think-tank funding of climate deniers, I deliberately used the term “catastrophic climate change” instead of the more common phrase, “global warming.”

You may be wondering why:

  • “Warming” is a joyous word, with happy connotations. Think about “warm-hearted” friends or a “warm lead” in sales—but climate change is nothing to be joyous about
  • “Warming” implies a gradual shift, nothing to be very concerned about, just a natural evolution—rather than the reality of intense and cataclysmic storms
  • The weather patterns are not all heat-related—right now, for example,  millions of people are freezing in Europe
  • It’s hard for many people to make the connections between rising temperatures and the major weather events they influence—such as the human interventions that turned Katrina from a “normal” hurricane into one of the most destructive storms ever, only to be surpassed by the Indian Ocean tsunami a few months later

As change activists and marketers, we need to own the language we use, to frame today’s realities in messaging that is easy to grasp and hard to distort. (George Lakoff, among others, has written very eloquently on this.)

I heard one speaker several years ago suggest that “global roasting” would be more appropriate—his graphic description of what we can expect is essential reading for climate activists for the wreckage that our planet will become—but even that doesn’t do the problem justice.

Even the phrase, “climate change,” is not enough. “Catastrophic climate change,” with its extra alliterative power and clear focus on potential disaster gives people a frame they can grasp. I suggest we use this term in our messaging.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , , , ,

Already getting a fifth of its power from the wind, wants to kick that number all the way to half by 2020, and completely eliminate fossil-fuel sources by 2050, according to Reuters.

Denmark had enough sense to abandon its plans for nuclear power in 1985, before actually building any (though a portion of the power it imports is undoubtedly nuclear).

However, don’t break out the champagne just yet. Denmark plans to replace coal and oil with a large percentage of biofuels. While biofuels are renewable, they are not always clean. Wood-burning, in particular, can contribute massively toward pollution and carbon emissions (and thus toward catastrophic climate change, a/k/a global warming).

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Demographics/Psychographics, Energy & Sustainability, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

According to the Associated Press, there was a huge jump in carbon emissions, worldwide.

The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago…

The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That’s an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries — China, the United States and India, the world’s top producers of greenhouse gases.

.

Increased reliance on coal (WHY??? WE KNOW BETTER!) has a lot to do with the problem.

And not surprisingly, climate change correlates closely with the growing epidemic of extreme weather events.

Meanwhile, the climate talks in Durban, like their predecessors in Copenhagen a few years ago, don’t seem to be getting much accomplished.

“Double-plus ungood.” Fiddling while the planet burns.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The world has got to get off coal and oil and gas and biofuels and nuclear, and onto forms of energy that are truly sustainable: they renew themselves, they don’t pollute, they don’t emit greenhouse gases, and they certainly don’t leave a legacy of poison. And the good news is we already have the know-how to do this; now we just need to find the will.

This is a crucial crossroads moment with huge implications for future generations. More specifically, for whether we actually still have a planet to pass on to future generations. We could tip toward sustainability…or continue on the path to desolation.

In just 50 years, carbon levels in the atmosphere have gone from 315.59 parts per million (PPM) in December 1959 to 387.27 as of December 2009 and 392.94 PPM just five months later—passing the danger threshold of 350 PPM in 1988, heading for 410 or higher by 2020, and perhaps as bad as 770 PPM by the end of the century. Much of that increase is directly attributable to human activity. And 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record.

What does that mean? For starters, polar melting will raise sea levels up to 1.9 meters (6 feet, three inches) by2100, causing widespread inundation of coastal cities around the world. Some entire countries, especially those on islands, will simply disappear under the waves.

Increased heat in the tropics will increase desertification and have a severe impact on food production, leading to famines, which in turn will make wars and ethnic violence a whole lot more likely.

Polar melting will also change the salt ratio of the oceans, because the ice caps are freshwater. This in turn could interfere with the Gulf Stream, making Europe a lot less habitable.

I’m old enough to remember the early 1960s: There was a lot less plastic. Most households had a maximum of one car, one television, and one telephone. There was a whole lot less traffic, and therefore a lot fewer cars spewing greenhouse cases while idling in that traffic. Air conditioning was rare. Suburban sprawl was a relatively new phenomenon, and vast acreage remained as forest or farmland that has since turned into housing and shopping and office parks. Individuals did not own computers. An 800-square-foot apartment or a 1200-square-foot house could comfortably fit a family of four or five. With all these major lifestyle shifts, it’s not surprising that humans have an impact on our planet. And I’m not suggesting that we roll back the clock on “progress.” But I am suggesting that if we want this lifestyle, we need to consume fewer resources to maintain it.

Have you perhaps noticed that major earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and even winter storms (allowed to move out of the polar regions because global warming breaks down the natural barriers that kept them polar before) have been much more severe in the last decade or so? Our Planet Earth is apparently beginning its rebellion.

We have to move forward, and we have to do it quickly.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , , , ,

Sure has been one cold and snowy winter here in Massachusetts. One morning last week was minus 19 F, and that is the coldest day I can remember experiencing, ever. And January set snow records all over the place.

The cold snap has seized much of the country, including places like Georgia that are decidedly UNused to real winter.

The climate deniers, of course, are latching on to this news with great glee, and kind of a “ha, ha, we told you there was no global warming problem.”

However…what I’ve heard is that this weather pattern actually has a tremendous amount to do with global warming. In fact, the arctic air has become so warm that it’s no longer trapped by low pressure. The pressure is high enough, and the air rises enough that it pushes down into the south, and makes us shiver around here.

So don’t go out and buy a Hummer any time soon. The problem is real, and this is more evidence, not less.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail