Ecocide: a corporate anathema

'Eradicating Ecocide highlights the need for enforceable, legally binding mechanisms in national and international law to hold to account perpetrators of long term severe damage to the environment. At this critical juncture in history it is vital that we set global standards of accountability for corporations, in order to put an end to the culture of impunity and double standards that pervade the international legal system.'

So says Bianca Jagger in her endorsement of Polly Higgins’ book, Eradicating Ecocide. And rightly so.

If corporations are not immediately reined into prevent them from persisting in acts which, directly and indirectly, are the primary causes of our global ecological meltdown; in continuing to maintain and aggressively promote a corporate and societal culture which prioritises profits over all other concerns and obligations so as to be able to persist in perpetrating those acts to those ends, then we must anticipate a substantial destabilisation of the biosphere in the not too distant future, one which will make life untenable for many species and cause immense, almost unimaginable, human suffering.

To give but one example, as James Hansen says, if the Keystone XL Pipeline is approved, it is game over. (Use the tag or search for previous posts on Jim Hansen, and for inspiration check out the end of the one paragraph version of his c.v. accessible here)

Be that as it may, we already know far more than enough to be certain that the corporate world will oppose the criminalisation of ecocide to the absolute limits of its power, a power which in practice appears almost irresistible.

The evidence for that is overwhelming - it is irreconcilably hostile to any limitation placed on its freedom to operate and resists implacably with every means at its disposal. Ever since they were introduced, it has been waging a concerted and heavily-resourced war of attrition to roll back the advances made in environmental protection in the second half of the last century. By now it is quite clear that it is winning substantially.

We simply could not be in this most dire of predicaments were that not true. On every front, in every aspect of our multi-faceted environmental calamity, be it deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, loss of biodiversity, water, soil or any other you care to look at, the damage is being done, facilitated and enabled by corporate activity, and almost always on a scale which is still ramping up despite the known impacts that will result and their indisputably disastrous consequences.

Yet in every example, almost without exception, you will find that all attempts to stop, limit or mitigate the damage and its consequences are being powerfully opposed by the corporate lobby, almost always by the very corporations which undertake the activities concerned and profit by them. There are some noble exceptions, it is true – Patagonia being the most outstanding example, the principled companies aiming to be a part of the solution rather than of the problem - but most are minnows in the grand scheme; the general picture is as described.

Environmental protection measures have been under constant attack on every front: the doctrinaire, alarmist and irrational - that things will go very badly economically and hence very badly in general if market forces are not allowed free rein; direct attacks on legislation and the legislative process pressing for the watering down or repeal of existing measures and opposing new proposals; undermining the credibility of the scientists whose work underpins environmental regulation, and, most notably over climate change, well-documented attacks on the science itself via devices which employ bogus institutes, maverick scientists and pseudo experts to mislead and bamboozle the public; by drawing the teeth of regulators through similar assaults on the regulatory bodies concerned, attacking their funding or even their very existence (currently on the Environmental Protection Agency no less), through tying up their limited resources in legal challenges, or merely by being able to intimidate them into submission using the probable costs should they decide to so challenge.

Lobbying funded on an gigantic scale, together with the manipulation of public perceptions through the mass media are ubiquitous weapons in this war, and the influence now wielded over politicians, particularly those in power, seems to have reached a degree where their independence and representational purpose is very seriously in question.

One has only to look to what is currently unrolling in America, the extraordinary transformation of President Obama, The Citizens’ United decision by the Supreme Court last year (covered by Common Cause here and here, and by the New York Times here), and the assault on the continuing existence of the EPA to see how things panning out.

In the UK too, the process seems relentless, with attack after attack, be it frontal or guerrilla, by the Government itself on existing environmental protection measures, justified on almost any context imaginable. Spending cuts, economic efficiency, deregulation, public benefit, ideology...

Whether we ever lived in democracies is open to question; what seems clear is that in practice the dominant powers in the developed world have now morphed into corporatist states and superstates, in which the superficial trappings of what was never anything more than what is euphemistically termed 'representative democracy' have become a mere puppet show to distract an impotent and gullible populous, deliberately hypnotised by a constant stream of diversions and banality; a populous which has been intentionally socialised and educated to be incapable of thinking sufficiently deeply to comprehend the issues, what is happening, how it will affect their lives and their families, to even take an interest in its own vital interests, let alone react intelligently to what it perceives, while remaining emotionally incapable of doing so anyway, should that unlikely occurrence actually happen. That our collective response to climate change can objectively be described as insane would alone seem to prove all of this beyond dispute.

So the corporate world as it currently exists will never be anything but implacably hostile to the criminalisation of ecocide, be its opposition overt or covert. Its credo is the entirely unfettered, globalised free market, where all and everything is decided by market forces and nothing else, where everything is commoditised without exception. If we still have a regime where the costs of environmental impacts can continue to be externalised and discounted more or less totally, it is no accident. It is the result of sustained, massively resourced and extremely sophisticated politicking by the corporations, conducted over very long time frames and on a global scale, and which continues with increasing vigour even now, as we watch our future (or at least a benign one) slipping relentlessly into oblivion.

Yet, bizarre as it may seem, to the extent that the corporate world can ever be reconciled with the prospect of criminalising ecocide, once it has understood the terms it is being offered, the corks will be flying in boardrooms around the globe.

The reasons for this unlikely and counter-intuitive conclusion must wait for the next substantive post - the one immediately following being a quick update on coverage of the mock trial, which seems to have been very well received.

Cap, Trade and Lobby

Much remains to catch up on, but here is one hot off the press.

It is James Hansen's reflections following his testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means of the US House of Representatives on 25 February.

His testimony lays out starkly the reasons why cap and trade - which he argues should properly be called 'tax and trade' - is intrinsically incapable of addressing climate change effectively.

Because it is inherently inefficient, far too slow, and wide open to exploitation, as well as just plain unjust.

More than just disquieting, then, that cap and trade is the principal and more or less unique mechanism world leaders are prepared to envisage as a response to the perils of climate change.

Here are some key quotes from Hansen's testimony:

'A ‘cap’ increases the price of energy, as a tax does. It is wrong and disingenuous to try to hide the fact that Cap is a tax. Other characteristics of the “cap” approach: (1) unpredictable price volatility, (2) it makes millionaires on Wall Street and other trading floors at public expense, (3) it is an invitation to blackmail by utilities that threaten “blackout coming” to gain increased emission permits, (4) it has overhead costs and complexities, inviting lobbyists and delaying implementation.

'The biggest problem with Cap Tax is that it will not solve the problem. The public will soon learn that it is a tax. And because there is no dividend, the public will revolt before the Cap Tax is large enough to transform society. There is no way that the Cap Tax can get us back to 350 ppm CO2.

'We need a tax with 100% dividend to transform our energy systems and rapidly move us beyond fossil fuels. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we cannot let the special interests win this fight.

'Our planet is in peril (1). Climate disruption threatens everyone, but especially the young and the unborn, who will bear the full brunt through no fault of their own. Recent science makes it clear that if we continue to burn most of the fossil fuels we will leave our children a deteriorating situation out of their control.

One scientific conclusion is crystal clear (1): we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels without setting in motion a process of climate disruption that threatens the very existence of many species on our planet. This potential injustice is not limited to the innocent species we exterminate. The greatest injustice is to our own species (2) – our children, grandchildren and the unborn, and people who live with nature, who we may call ‘undeveloped’, indigenous people who want only to live their lives without bearing burdens that we create.'

[please see the paper for footnotes 1 and 2 - link below]

Instead he argues passionately for a 'Carbon Tax & 100% Dividend' where the entire yield of the tax is returned to the community so as to reward low carbon users whilst penalising profligate ones. This is a simple measure that can be quickly introduced which will immediately change consumer behaviour directly. One reason is that it will shift the balance decisively in favour of renewable energy over carbon.

In his testimony he suggests:

'a tax large enough to enough to affect purchasing decisions: a carbon tax that adds $1 to the price of a gallon of gas. That’s a carbon price of about $115 per ton of CO2. That tax rate yields $670B per year. We return 100% of that money to the public. Each adult legal resident gets one share, which is $3000 per year, $250 per month deposited in their bank account. Half shares for each child up to a maximum of two children per family. So a tax rate of $115 per ton yields a dividend of $9000 per year for a family with two children, $750 per month. The family with carbon footprint less than average makes money – their dividend exceeds their tax. This tax gives a strong incentive to replace inefficient infrastructure. It spurs the economy. It spurs innovation.

'This path can take us to the era beyond fossil fuels, leave most remaining coal in the ground, and avoid the need to go to extreme environments to find every drop of oil. We must move beyond fossil fuels anyhow. Why not do it sooner, for the benefit of our children? Not to do so, knowing the consequences, is immoral. The tax rate likely must increase in time, but when gas hits $4 per gallon again most of that $4 will stay in the United States, as dividends. Our vehicles will not need as many gallons. We will be well on the way to energy independence.'

On the way we get some insights into the world of climate change politics and lobbyists in particular:

'the number of lobbyists in DC working to influence federal policy on climate change increased in the past few years by 300% to 2,340 lobbyists -- four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.'

'The question is: who will Congress listen to? Protesters (bringing no gifts - it's hard enough to pay their own way) or lobbyists (with lobbying expenditures last year of about $90M).

'Young folks, if you need an indication of what you are up against, let me give you one example. Peabody Coal (a.k.a. Peabody Energy) hires Dick Gephardt, paying him $120,000.00 per quarter in 2008. The amount of money going into lobbying is increasing rapidly. As Shakespeare would say, gird up your loins.

'If democracy does not win this one, if the lobbyists win, perhaps the best we can do for our grandchildren is buy them a ticket to another planet. Of course, Congress would have to borrow the money from our grandchildren. But at least we would show that we are giving them some consideration.'

And I guess that goes equally for every one of us too.

Gird up your loins, folks. The Last Battle approaches. Truly.

For those with the time, his testimony is well worth a look to see how the world's top climate scientist summarises our position and policy responses to it. Find them all at

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/02/james-hansen-ways-and-means-and.html

Apocalypse shortly? We should know by next summer

Here is the news that we all hoped would never happen.

Guess we thought we would all get away with it. That it just wouldn't come to pass. Despite all the inevitability. That it would turn out to be no more than another apocalyptic scare story from those crackpot Earth scientists – the ones who were running around thirty years ago predicting arrival of the next ice age.

Or if it really is inevitable, not in our lifetimes. Or at least, for pity's sake, not until 2070 when we've had our best years and are about ready to depart this mortal coil.

Best of all, that it should be like all those other things you read about in the news that everyone gets so exercised about, but then just seem to dissolve and leave nothing. Nothing happens, then later people seem hardly to remember. The millenium bug, the asteroid that is going to hit, the killer bees. Perhaps avian flu. Things like that. Scary stories that spice life up and cause a big hoo-ha... but ultimately come to zilch.

Like positive feedback cutting in and spiralling climate change - more or less literally - into the stratosphere. Images of millions of tonnes of methane liberated from the sea floor, bubbling up to the surface in great plumes over vast swathes of ocean, making research vessels look like toy boats in some infernal hot tub with the jacuzzi turned up full... Ideas like that.

But of course that all remains incorrigibly hypothetical, because the tipping point has always been w a y over yonder.

If it is not totally mythical. Or so goes the thinking.



Well guess what...?


...No!


Yep.


Afraid so.


Or - if it isn't - it is something never before seen that just happens to bear the most uncanny likeness.

'"We had a hectic finishing of the sampling programme yesterday and this past night," said Dr Gustafsson. "An extensive area of intense methane release was found. At earlier sites we had found elevated levels of dissolved methane. Yesterday, for the first time, we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface. These 'methane chimneys' were documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instruments]."

At some locations, methane concentrations reached 100 times background levels. These anomalies have been seen in the East Siberian Sea and the Laptev Sea, covering several tens of thousands of square kilometres, amounting to millions of tons of methane, said Dr Gustafsson. "This may be of the same magnitude as presently estimated from the global ocean," he said. "Nobody knows how many more such areas exist on the extensive East Siberian continental shelves.

"The conventional thought has been that the permafrost 'lid' on the sub-sea sediments on the Siberian shelf should cap and hold the massive reservoirs of shallow methane deposits in place. The growing evidence for release of methane in this inaccessible region may suggest that the permafrost lid is starting to get perforated and thus leak methane... The permafrost now has small holes. We have found elevated levels of methane above the water surface and even more in the water just below. It is obvious that the source is the seabed."'

This is not science fiction. Nor is it the script from some topical TV drama.

It comes from an exclusive called, aptly enough, Exclusive: The Methane time bomb carried by the Independent on 23 September. The quote above is how it covered a rather breathless report by the leader of an international scientific expedition, made direct from the decks of the research vessel immediately it finished sailing the entire length of Russia's north coast.

Arguably this is the most important news story of all time - because it indicates, for the first time ever, a reasonable possibility of the arrival of conditions that will bring life as we know it shortly to an end, (including the two-legged ones - and history too, being an exclusively anthropocentric interest, also, for that matter). As such it deserves detailed examination, so here is a cheat sheet.




What we have here is more or less exactly what is predicted by the positive feedback model. So is that what is going on?

Well there seems to be a strong case in that direction. It would seem to be primary evidence that climate change has now got to such a magnitude that it is causing the melting of permafrost and methane hydrates on a large scale. First, the fit is near perfect. The Arctic as the hotspot for global warming is heating up tremendously – the latest figure is by an astonishing five degrees. The Arctic ice seems to be in terminal retreat with the consequence that yet more energy gets transferred to the system as it gives way to seawater – one of the most absorbant substances known. The tundra is certainly melting, and very quickly too. Methane has been detectable in the Arctic waters since 2003 or earlier whereas it was not present before, suggesting that the methane hydrates and permafrost have been under stress and starting to leak for some time. Yet we have not reacted.

Second, it is hard to postulate another explanation. There are no other sources of methane on this scale to look to, other than huge deposits of submerged, rotting material not presently known to exist. So it would seem likely that whatever is causing this is triggering release from the methane hydrates and the permafrost.



OK, so it looks like positive feedback, but are there credible alternatives to climate change as the cause?

Not really. One could postulate that that is being caused by a different mechanism unrelated to climate change, for instance:

The permafrost cap in these areas may have been fractured by seismic activity. But if that was the case, these plumes would have been observed since time immemorial.

A large but localised geothermal hotspot could have caused the melting. But again, that possibility has always been around, so why has this not been seen until now? You could argue that as a result of the temperature changes in the Arctic waters caused by climate change, the permafrost cap has now been weakened by thawing to a state where it is vulnerable to such hotspots, whereas before it was not. This does still not seem as likely though, as so far we have no evidence linking what is happening to hotspots. But it is coherent enough to deserve further scrutiny to see if it stands up.


There are no other obvious ones at present. Of these, only one seems to stand up to even mild scrutiny. And it still looks close to a no-hoper alongside the positive feedback model.



So is it positive feedback for sure?

Not yet. It can be considered positive feedback when it is known to be either triggering a runaway release of the stored methane; or it causes runaway effects elsewhere in the climate system. Neither of these have yet been proven. But it is clearly a strong signal that the first may already be in train; and that may well give rise to the second over a longer period.

The first could be observed fairly readily, so should be obvious by the end of next summer at latest. The second depends upon how catastrophic the effect. The more so the quicker it will become apparent.



So what next?

The Arctic Ocean is now be freezing over again with the onset of winter, which will impede research in the short term. It also gives rise to a number of possible scenarios overwinter. If the methane release continues unabated or at an increasing rate it may either be trapped beneath the ice in huge bubbles or reservoirs, or it may dissolve in the sea water and diffuse somewhat.

If the former, there will be a colossal release of trapped methane about next March when the sea ice begins to break up, which should prove interesting. Once liberated to the atmosphere it will add to forcing, possibly by a significant factor depending on how much is released. This could lead to a significant hike in temperatures, and possibly to positive feedback in that respect.

If the latter, the release will be more attenuated. But this will make little difference to the net amount released or to the climatic effects medium to long-term.

Alternatively the rate of methane release may slow up over winter. This could result from a reduction of biological activity if this is a factor in play, or other unforeseen changes as a result of falling temperature.



Could it stop altogether for the winter... or forever?

The problem here is to find a mechanism that would cause that to happen.

If, as seems likely, the release is being caused by a weakening of the permafrost cap caused by melting, the only mechanism likely to stop that is if the cap refreezes again, sealing itself in the process. But that seems most improbable under present conditions, which are giving rise to long-term and potentially irreversible melting, generally through the region.

Sea ice may reform in winter, but it does so at the surface, and in fairly thin plates. The only conceivable way for this process to affect permafrost lying on or below the sea bed would be if the entire body of water from surface to sea bed were to freeze. Whilst the depths involved are not explicitly stated in the report, we must assume sufficient depth for the research ship to pass – say five metres at absolute minimum. Given that sea temperatures have been rising, and freezing delayed by the increased area of open water and by the milder climate generally, it seems vanishingly unlikely this would happen, short of a catastrophically severe winter, or more convincingly, a succession of them. That, in turn, seems highly unlikely for the same reasons.



Methane – that's pretty nasty stuff – right?

The worst greenhouse gas arising naturally and in quantity. Here's a cheat sheet from the Independent. The bad new is it is about 20 times more potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The good is that it decays after around 12 years. But it fails to mention that it probably decays to CO2, so that is only the start of the story. Also both those figures are quoted quite variably in the various papers relating to this story. For instance the lifespan has been quoted at between 6 and 20 years, depending on conditions.



That's serious. So how much of this stuff is there?

A definitive study was published in September entitled Vulnerability of Permafrost Carbon to Climate Change: Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle which tells just about everything you could want to know on this subject. This estimates the total soil carbon in the northern circumpolar permafrost zone to be 1672 petagrams (Pg; 1 Pg = 1 billion metric tons), with 277 Pg of that in peat-lands. This doubled previous estimates, which means all previous climate modelling will be way out in this respect.

To put it in context 1672 petagrams is considered to be twice as much as currently exists in the atmosphere:

Overall, this permafrost C[arbon] pool estimate is more than twice the size of the entire atmospheric C[arbon] pool, and it is more than double previous estimates of high-latitude soil C[arbon](Gorham 1991, Jobbágy and Jackson 2000). The 0–3 m permafrost- zone soil C[arbon] estimated here at 1024 Pg represents a large fraction of world soil C[arbon] stocks; global soil C[arbon] stocks from 0 to 3 m depth (peatlands not included) have been estimated to be 2300 Pg (Jobbágy and Jackson 2000).

Twice as much as is up there now – that's curtains!

Global average greenhouse gases are currently at 385 ppm CO2 equivalent. Hypothetically if all that carbon is released it would treble that to 1155 ppm.

Well it all depends on what happens - but it sure doesn't look reassuring, to put it mildly. On thawing there will be a big spike as the gases that are currently trapped by the permafrost cap are released in large quantity. But most of this carbon is held in biological material requiring decomposition by microbes to release it, which is considered to be the dominant continuous process. Fire is the dominant episodic one.

In combination with dry conditions or increased water infiltration, thawing and fires could, given the right set of circumstances, act together to expose and transfer permafrost C[arbon] to the atmosphere very rapidly. Lastly, fire can interact with decomposition by creating warmer soil conditions and deeper permafrost thaw, which in turn promote the loss of C[arbon] from increased microbial activity.

Clearly the result will depend on the amounts of methane released, and the rate at which it is. But when they say very rapidly, they mean just that. We now have data from Antarctic ice cores proving that this happened at least twice previously, and at astronomical rates.



1155 ppm CO2? Can you put that in context?

The European Carbon Trading Scheme wa hailed as a big success as the first working carbon trading scheme, with the cap set at 550 ppm CO2. But as it soon became clear this would make absolutely no difference to climate change other than being a quick road to the hot house, it wasn't such a success after all.

IPCC4 caused massive angst when it brought the figure down to 450 ppm at the start of 2007, but by that summer the science had moved on so fast that it was clear that wouldn't save us either.

Various authorities then suggested we needed to limit CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere to 425 ppm or 400 ppm.

The soundest thinking emerged this June when James Hansen, a monumental figure in climate science, brought the figure down again to 350 ppm. This was discussed at length by the pensive prognosticator in“Finding oil isn't the issue – it is whether we want to find it, burn it and all fry” . But it must be confessed with one omission – it failed to stress that the actual levels already stood above the 380 ppm mark – 30 ppm or more into the danger zone. Which only goes to suggest that we have simply been waiting for something to blow, which might go along way to explain why this is happening. It all fits Hansen's model perfectly.

To give it a time line, 100 Months is based upon an estimate on when we will pass 425 ppm CO2. That campaign commenced on 01 August, so we are currently in month 98. However as 425 ppm looks incredible as a safe limit, it is unlikely we have that long. But don't let that put you off the campaign – that aside it is a good campaign, one of the few positive things going on and is well worth supporting.

If you take 400 ppm CO2 as the red line, we currently stand at 385 ppm. Greenhouse gases have been growing at 2 ppm per year and appear to be accelerating slightly. In addition we now have this new and significant source of methane to add to that. Make your own estimates on that basis – but if you get to a figure of more than seven and a half years from now, you've cooked it.



How soon will we know?

Winter conditions will impede research, and the presence of ice will obscure large-scale surface observations. Divers and mini subs might still be able to check out the sub-surface activity and the sources of methane. Surface measurements of trapped methane build up should still be possible.

Despite that it is unlikely we will have a good idea before:

the scale of the release of methane during the sea ice break up is know (next spring);

open water will allow direct observation of the extent of the plumes over a large area (next summer);

the renewed scale of activity and whether this is accelerating significantly is clear (probably not until late summer).

unless one or more proves to be catastrophic in scale, in which case we shall know all the sooner.



Further developments

Incredibly, only one.

Two days later, on 25 September, the Independent followed up with Hundreds of methane 'plumes' discovered . This story dealt with entirely unrelated research which had also just discovered the release of methane for the first time in a completely different part of the Arctic, this time off Svalbard in Norway. However the details are quite different.

At Svalbard there has been no prior investigation, the locations were much deeper, and the methane sources are not currently capped by permafrost. So it is conservatively assumed the process there has been going on for some 15,000 years. But this does not rule out that the scale is increasing in response to climate change, and clearly the researchers are onto that.

Unlike the first research it was able to confirm the source as methane hydrates degassing, in line with James Hansen's predictions.

Here is an extract or two.

'Yesterday, researchers on board the British research ship the James Clark Ross said they had counted about 250 methane plumes bubbling from the seabed in an area of about 30 square miles in water less than 400 metes (1,300 feet) deep off the west coast of Svalbard. They have also discovered a set of deeper plumes at depths of about 1,200 metres at a second site near by. Analysis of sediments and seawater has confirmed the rising gas is methane...'


'An analysis of sediments taken from the seabed show that the gas is coming from methane hydrates – ice-like crystals where molecules of the gas are captured in "cages" made of water molecules, which become unstable as water pressures fall or temperatures rise.

'Professor Westbrook said the area surveyed off the west coast of Svalbard was very different to the area being studied by the Russian vessel because the water was much deeper and does not have a layer of permafrost sealing the methane under the seabed.

'It is likely that methane emissions off Svalbard have been continuous for about 15,000 years – since the last ice age – but as yet no one knows whether recent climactic shifts in the Arctic have begun to accelerate them to a point where they could in themselves exacerbate climate change, he said.

'"We were very excited when we found these plumes because it was the first evidence there was an active gas system in this part of the world. Now we know it's there we know we have to very seriously consider its effect."'

And that - oddly enough - seems to be the entire media coverage to date on the most important news item in all of history.

It does not seem to have been picked up on by other periodicals. Nor has the Independent, which has to be praised for getting onto the story so fast, followed up. Searching has not brought up any scientific papers by the scientists quoted – which in itself is not unreasonable given that there are huge data sets to be crunched and analysed, conclusions to be tested and the paper itself to be produced.

But may leave you wondering why, if you missed the Independent stories first time around, you should have to be depending on a haplessly late story in the pensive prognosticator, a bottom of the heap blog, to bring you news which is arguably the most important in your life, critical to your entire future and a major factor in every decision you subsequently make. And the same for the world collectively.

But I leave that with you to ponder. And shall try to deal with the question as to how we should respond as individuals in the next instalment.




Stay happy





Sources

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hundreds-of-methane-plumes-discovered-941456.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-connor-the-ultimate-gas-leak-that-scientists-dreaded-938935.html

Gwynne Dyer - Climate Wars

'US and UK military strategists have already started planning to deal with the threats posed by climate change: failed states, famines, floods, new warzones, and millions and millions of refugees'


Greetings

Rather a long time ago I stated an intention:

'finally, if it remains possible, to draw the main environmental and geopolitical strands together to make some tentative predictions of the main factors likely to be at play, to give some indication of where we might be heading on present trends.'

Clearly I've spun out hopelessly on that to date, but happily this fellow has spared us all the trouble. More happily still, being a strategic analyst of such eminent standing he is syndicated to 175 journals in 45 countries, he does so with an authority that is infinitely more credible than any layperson could ever hope to muster.

Which is just as well given the logical conclusions anyone considering the human and planetary predicament objectively and with clarity must inevitably come to.

Gwynne Dyer gave an interview on the Late Night Live show on ABC (by approximation, the equivalent of the BBC in Oz) on 26 August. The billing for the programme states:

'US and UK military strategists have already started planning to deal with the threats posed by climate change: failed states, famines, floods, new warzones, and millions and millions of refugees'

It is the first I am aware of that someone of his stature and with access to the necessary privileged (ie classified) information has spoken out candidly and coherently on this subject, rather than partially and piecemeal.

The interview runs one by one through the main strategic risks such as food scarcity, water, mass migrations and so on, and analyses the likely geo-political effects on each region of the globe. As you would expect from a defence analyst, the tone is absolutely measured throughout, yet the conclusions are as sensational - read frightening - as any currently abroad.

As such it is an analysis of the deepest importance which I would encourage all to spare the 40 minutes necessary to listen to here.

But for the sceptical or more heavily pressed, a short yet telling report which went out on the Environmental Network News on 29 August can be found here.

As an appetite whetter, here is a snippet from the latter:

'there is a sense of suppressed panic from the scientific and military leaders.

"And it's not just the analysts. I spent the past year doing a very high-speed self-education job on climate change but I think I probably talked to most of the senior people in the field in a dozen countries," Dr Dyer said.

"They're scared, they're really frightened. Things are moving far faster than their models predicted. "You may have the Arctic ocean free of ice entirely in five years' time, in the late summer. Nobody thought that would happen until about the 2040s - even a couple of years ago." Dr Dyer says there is a sense of things moving much faster, and the military are picking up on that. He also says we will be playing climate change catch-up in the next 30 years. "The threshold you don't want to cross, ever, is 2 degrees Celsius hotter than it was at the beginning of the 1990s," he said.

"That is a margin we have effectively already used up more than half of. It would require pretty miraculous cooperation globally and huge cuts in emissions." And if the world does not decarbonise by 2050, you don't want to be there, according to Dr Dyer. "My kids will and I don't think that is going to be a pleasant prospect at all, because once you go past 2 degrees - and you could get past 2 degrees by the 2040s without too much effort - things start getting out of control," he said. "The ocean starts giving back to the atmosphere the carbon dioxide it absorbed.

That world is a world where crop failures are normal.'

Inevitably he discusses James Hansen's critical role in alerting us to this and Hansen's current view that the safe limit for CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere is 350 ppm (covered with references in my email of 02 May entitled “Finding oil isn't the issue – it is whether we want to find it, burn it and all fry” - do ask if you would like it resent). According to this interview we are currently at 387 ppm. That is not a typo.

He also considers that the current consensus to be that 425 ppm is the ultimate threshold beyond which you may as well forget about a future because everything blows. It is pertinent to note here that the fourth IPCC report, which remains current in that all political solutions are based upon it but is now hopelessly out of date scientifically, considers 450 ppm to be the goal to be aimed for. That is not a typo either. Allow the implications of those figures to permeate your consciousness.

Also:

'"[There will be] huge falls in the amount of crops that you can grow because there isn't the rain and it's too hot," he said. "That will apply particularly to the Mediterranean... and so not just the north African countries, but also the ones on the northern side of the Mediterranean. The ones in the European Union like Spain and Italy and Greece and the Balkans and Turkey are going to be suffering huge losses in their ability to support their populations.'

He also predicts the militarisation of the US border with Mexico within ten years.

The rest I leave for you.

In passing, I have had no success in downloading the podcast from ABC, but the streaming works perfectly via either channel offered; and there are a few inaccuracies in the ENN report - for instance the date of the broadcast, which is possibly something to do with the dateline.


Finally, in response to some very kind requests to make these discussions more widely available they have been posted on a rather rudimentary blog. It is still in beta and rather rough round the edges, but functional. All the material circulated over the last year or so is there (after a long list of vibes, hopefully to inspire, which speak of our predicament), including that originally posted on the now defunct Wild Law forum. In addition there is an RSS feed which, if you subscribe to it, has the advantage of alerting you to new postings automatically as they appear. All at

http://pensiveprognosticator.blogspot.com


Hope it helps

Stay happy

“Finding oil isn't the issue – it is whether we want to find it, burn it and all fry”

Dear friends

Another contemplation for the holiday weekend, if it so grabs you.

This one deals with the most significant scientific developments since Easter. All adding to the alarming impression that we have missed or are missing the boat, unfortunately.

Nevertheless, within society as a whole there remains what seems to be an overwhelming sense that none of this is that important, that life on a world devoid of its north polar ice cap will carry on much as before, and that the environmental threats upon us are nothing we need concern ourselves with unduly. Certainly not enough to go to the inconvenience of changing our lifestyles, nor to take the trouble to understand sufficiently to react coherently. Or even objectively.

As that may prove to be a catastrophic or even fatal mistake, the intention had been to follow up the discussion of the grave implications of Tony Blair's international initiative with one dealing succinctly with why such assumptions appear unrealistic.

However with so many developments over the last month hinting ever more strongly that run-away global warming may already have set in, reporting those has had to take precedence, so it has had to be held over until next time

The aspiration is to continue the argument in later papers:

First by setting out what ought by now be obvious to anyone taking the space to step back and think about it - that there is simply not going to be a scientific or technological solution to climate change. There is no quick fix that will rescue us from our fate as the chips go down ever more weightily against us, and the possibility of one emerging are slight.

Then one to point out what is now equally apparent. There is not going to be a political one either.

It will then remain to explore a little more what is preventing us - somewhat akin to suicidally - from reacting intelligently, coherently, and with sufficient vigour, when under galvanising threat.

And finally, if it remains possible, to draw the main environmental and geopolitical strands together to make some tentative predictions of the main factors likely to be at play, to give some indication of where we might be heading on present trends.


All Inshallah as they say in Islamic circles, including major developments, catastrophic events and more mundane happenings not interceding.




The 07 April Guardian led with a story so important it ought - rightly, in an objective world - be sufficient on its own to convince anyone that we cannot go on like this a moment longer, and are being utterly self-destructive by doing so.

It reports a paper published by a most eminent group of climate scientists which the newspaper describes as “a startling reappraisal of the threat”.

It suggests that we have grossly underestimated the scale of the problem, and calls for a major downward revision in C02 limits if

"humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed".

The situation is as dire as that.


The source of the paper is absolutely unimpeachable. Its lead author, James Hansen, is as big as it gets in climate science. He is head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, was one of the first to bring the climate crisis to the world's attention in testimony to Congress in the 1980s, and has been at odds with the Bush administration over climate change to the extent of having accused the White House and NASA of trying to censor him.

Hansen has steadily revised his analysis of the scale of the global warming and was himself one of the architects of the 450ppm target which is the holy grail of current negotiations, considered politically to be the resolution of climate change. Of that he now says

"I realise that was too high."

The fundamental reason for his reassessment is what he calls "slow feedback" mechanisms which are only now becoming fully understood (discussed briefly in my previous email).

The paper predicts that a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels to the EU limit of 550 ppm – currently the most stringent on the planet - would cause the Earth to warm catastrophically - by 6 degrees Celsius instead of 3 degrees as currently thought. (To remind everyone again, there is a significant school of opinion which holds that a 2 degree rise is enough to bring civilisation as we know it to an end.) And that even a 450 ppm limit, which is proving so intractable to negotiate because of opposition by the US and others, would nevertheless lead eventually to complete meltdown and a 75 metre rise in sea levels.

Hansen now regards as "implausible" the view of many climate scientists that the shrinking of the ice sheets will take thousands of years:

"If we follow business as usual I can't see how west Antarctica could survive a century. We are talking about a sea-level rise of at least a couple of metres this century."

Depending on which baseline you take, this amounts to an overnight lowering of the bar under which we are trying to do a very ungainly limbo by 18% on the already ambitious, possibly politically unachievable, target of 450ppm; and by a staggering 36% in the case of the EU 550 ppm limit.

It is widely recognised that the latter figure was never going to work, but nonetheless it enjoys a certain popularity. It is an agreement, at least, and having an agreement that is not going to remedy the problem or save us is seen as progress nonetheless, and a positive thing. Better an unworkable agreement than none at all. If nations have managed to ratify a treaty on a hopeless goal they are comfortable with, they are much better disposed to going on to revise it for something that might possibly work at some later date as yet uncertain. Or so the thinking goes.

Well lets hope so!


These are chess-like moves in the realms of grand diplomacy which are intended - hopefully - lead to the right agreement in the end. The problem remains that the players of such games are used to setting the timing with reference to themselves and not much else. Unfortunately Nature is on the other side of the table in this one, and she is not much impressed with their proposed solutions, nor their imperiousness over timing, nor their game playing.

The main cause for alarm is the scale by which the bar has dropped overnight, and the tiny size of the gap we are left to squeeze through if we are going to come out of this debacle more or less in one piece.

It is particularly disquieting because it was never looking likely that we were going to make it under even the highest of these limits, not least because we are doing almost nothing concrete to achieve it; while the 450ppm limit remains utterly hypothetical more or less to the point of fantasy. Nothing has been negotiated; the negotiations look as if they are hopelessly stalled before they have even started as a result of intractable national and factional differences and a general disposition of small-mindedness; and are so far from achieving anything at all that will actually deliver concrete, measurable changes that the entire proposition might as well be treated as hypothetical – at least until it proves otherwise.

Now, on top of that, we are confronted with science which shows that in addition to the political improbability of these negotiations resulting in any significant concrete effect in the small amount of time in which it remains possible to do anything to affect the outcome – i.e. our fate - their goal is entirely futile anyway, and we must now somehow find a way to crank the screws down another 18 or 36% to have even a chance of scraping through.

It is starting to look more and more like hoping for miracles to expect this stuff to be negotiated, ratified and yield the necessary results in time under prevailing attitudes.

Disquietingly, the only eventuality foreseeable that is likely to change that is a catastrophic chain of events of one sort or another, devastating enough to shake the global electorate sufficiently to their senses.

But by then it will inevitably be too late....

“The IPCC numbers are underestimates”

Hansen's claims on sea level rises were more or less vindicated by researchers meeting at the European Geosciences Union conference who reported the pace at which sea levels are rising is accelerating, that we should expect higher sea levels than the IPCC predict, and that we should expect 0.8-1.5 metres rises over this century.

Due to melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets, and warming water, which together could displace tens of millions of people. The conclusions result from a new prediction of sea level rises which takes into account ice dynamics for the first time.

"For the past 2,000 years, the sea level was very stable," They rose just 2 cm in the 18th century, 6 cm in the 19th century and a greater 19 cm last century. "It seems that rapid rise in the 20th century is from melting ice sheets"

The latest IPCC report took no account of ice dynamics – the more rapid movement of ice sheets due to melt water which could markedly speed up their disappearance and augment sea levels. This effect is now expected to generate around one-third of the future rise in sea levels, according to an American researcher quoted.

The rise would not be uniform around the globe and more research is needed to determine the effects on individual regions. Inevitably the hardest hit will be the developing nations in Africa and Asia who lack the infrastructure to build up flood defences. Countries like Bangladesh, where almost all the land surface is a within a metre of the current sea level.

"If [the sea level] rises by one metre, 72 million Chinese people will be displaced, and 10 percent of the Vietnamese population”

Doesn't look good for a lot of other places, either. Those living in the Netherlands know it and have been mindful for generations. Inhabitants of the overcrowded British Isles, for instance, may wish to take account of the fact that approximately one third of its current land mass is maintained by drainage, pumping, and sea defences of one sort or another.

“Emissions are growing much faster than we'd thought, the absorptive capacity of the planet is less than we'd thought, the risks of greenhouse gases are potentially bigger than more cautious estimates and the speed of climate change seems to be faster."

Those were the words of none other than Sir Nicholas Stern, warning that the disquieting predictions of his high-profile 2006 review of the future effects of global warming underestimated the risks, and that climate change poses a bigger threat than he had realised.

Stern said that new scientific findings showed greenhouse gas emissions were causing more damage than was then understood. He cited last year's reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and new research which shows that the planet's oceans and forests are soaking up less carbon dioxide than expected.

He said that increasing commitments from countries to curb greenhouse gases now needed to be translated into action. Indeed.

But who is listening? The same week Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, said the lack of such action by developed countries was likely to deadlock and derail attempts to seal a new global climate treaty at the crucial meeting in Copenhagen next year - aiming for the 450ppm limit discussed above.

The 2006 Stern Review, which was conducted for the UK government, was credited with shifting the debate about climate change from an environmental focus to its economic impacts. It said the expected increase in extreme weather, with the associated and expensive problems of agricultural failure, water scarcity, disease and mass migration, meant that global warming could swallow up to 20% of the world's GDP, with the poorest countries the worst affected. The cost of addressing the problem, it was then thought, could be limited to about 1% of GDP, provided it started on a serious scale within 10 to 20 years.
Clearly this timing, at least, must now be considered obsolete as far too relaxed. Last year the IPCC said steps to curb emissions were needed by 2015 if the worst effects of global warming were to be avoided. Since, experts have warned that the Arctic and Antarctic are losing ice much faster than thought, and that the sea level rise could be more severe than the IPCC suggested. Other studies, focusing on how greenhouse gases are swapped between the land, sea and atmosphere, have suggested that the speed and strength with which serious climate change will strike has been underestimated.

'Last October, scientists warned that global warming will be "stronger than expected and sooner than expected", after a new analysis showed carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere much more quickly than predicted.'

All of these reports are major revelations in their own right. Collectively, just as they stand, they present a predicament of the utmost gravity.

But perhaps the most disquieting thing that characterises them all is the universal reference to the pace of change being faster than had been previously predicted and to be speeding up. Quite apart from the sheer magnitude of the phenomena being discussed - which is strongly persuasive in itself - it is exactly what you would expect if run-away climate change is starting to cut in; if the tipping point has already been passed.

Which brings us back to the opening quote. If one did not know otherwise, one would be forgiven for presuming that the source was the kind of person dismissed as some variety of eco-nut. Or perhaps me.

Happily, though, it turns out to have an unimpeachable one. None other than Dieter Helm, the UK energy advisor – Mr Energy himself in these parts. The Guardian of 15 April reported him saying

'the world is not running out of oil; much exists under the now melting ice caps.

“Finding oil isn't the issue – it is whether we want to find it, burn it and [as global warming increases] all fry”'

So now we know. When it comes down to it, it is a straight choice between dispensing with the vehicle and frying in the future.

As if we didn't before...

The anecdotal impression, North West of London, is the inhabitants are plumbing almost unanimously for the latter, based on their observed behaviour since being made aware of the choice.

Perhaps that is only to be expected in a land in which big fry-ups form a pivotal part of the national cuisine. And perhaps its psyche also, if such a thing actually exists.

One is only left to wonder: 'Have their brains been fried, too?'


Stay happy



References

1 The Hansen Paper
Climate target is not radical enough – study
The Guardian Monday 07 April 2008 p1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/climatechange.carbonemissions

2 Sea levels 'will rise 1.5 metres by 2100'
Newscientist.com Special Report Climate Change 16 April 2008
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn13721-sea-levels-will-rise-15-metres-by-2100.html
3 I underestimated the threat, says Stern
The Guardian Friday April 18 2008 p15
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/18/climatechange.carbonemissions

4 Surprise discovery off coast of Brazil may confound the oil and gas doom -mongers.
The Guardian Wednesday 15 April 2008 p27
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/apr/16/oil.brazil


.