Vanity Fair asks ‘Who Is the Jon Snow of Climate Change?‘ … erm? Me it would seem?
(‘More Ramsay Bolton!’)
AM I THE ONLY PERSON (except for probably Mills himself, and his team at BLP) WHO REALISES AND UNDERSTANDS THAT HYDRINO ENERGY IS THE ONLY VIABLE AND REALISTIC SOLUTION TO SAVING HUMANITY FROM ALMOST CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE?
Yes, Climate Change is real.
Yes, it is caused by human carbon emissions.
No, there is no other solution, except for human civilisation to adopt a brand new energy source (i.e. hydrino energy… it’s the ONLY one that exists!)
And not only will it solve climate change, the technologies that could be developed from GUT-CP could possibly solve EVERY other environmental catastrophe that’s heading our way! (there are others, including plastics, feeding the population, deforestation)
“There’s squabbling among the kingdoms about issues that seem pressing. But meanwhile, far away, there is this looming threat that could eclipse all of it,” says Katharine Davis Reich, associate director at the UCLA IoES Center for Climate Science. She’s talking about Game of Thrones—and also our response to climate change.
Of course, there’s at least one major difference between the two: winter is coming to Westeros, but disappearing on Earth. Still, both worlds’ most pressing problems involve a rejection of information gathered on the front lines, migrations of vulnerable populations that unsettle adjacent communities, and a potential tipping point past which there is no hope of survival.
Peter Griffith, a scientist in Baltimore, MD, who works in the field of carbon cycle and climate, made the connection early while reading the first book in George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series: “Any time there was news from the Wall, and it was ridiculed by King’s Landing—the old stories that nursemaids tell to scare children—there was an immediate sense of, boy, this sounds familiar.”
Because the only way to get the general public to care about or even understand global climate change is to compare it to their current favourite TV show! (honest to f**k)
Climate change is coming
The popular television series has many parallelisms with the threat of global warming. Find them in this gallery
ANYWAY BACK TO PLANET EARTH!!!
In a recent column for The Post, Margaret Sullivan said the media must cover climate change as if it’s “the only story that matters.” The Pentagon has stated that climate change is a threat to national security. The World Bank has warned about the devastating impact of rising temperatures on economies. Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, has said that “climate change is actually the biggest thing that’s going on every single day.”
So why isn’t the media covering this story all day, every day?
Climate change has been described as a “catastrophe in slow motion.” But the Trump administration could be called a catastrophe at full speed. The distractions are relentless.
WASHINGTON — If there were any doubt before, there should be none now. “Solving” the global climate change problem may be humankind’s mission impossible. That’s the gist of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations group charged with monitoring global warming.
Unless we make dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and others), warns the IPCC, we face a future of rapidly rising temperatures that will destroy virtually all the world’s coral reefs, intensify droughts and raise sea levels. We need to take action immediately, if not sooner.
The IPCC says that emissions need to be cut 45 percent from present levels by 2030 and virtually eliminated by 2050. This would keep the projected increase in global temperatures since the early 1800s to 1.5 degrees centigrade, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. We would escape the worst consequences of global warming.
It’s not clear how this would be done. The reality is that global carbon emissions are rising, not falling. Emissions today are about 60 percent higher than in 1990, according to the World Bank.
There are at least three obstacles frustrating the IPCC’s agenda.
First, we don’t have the technologies to reduce and eventually eliminate emissions from fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas). Yes, solar and wind power have made advances, but they still provide only a tiny share of the world’s total energy, about 4 percent. Electric vehicles don’t solve the problem, because natural gas and coal are the underlying energy sources for much of the electricity.
Second, even if we had the technologies to replace fossil fuels, it’s doubtful that we have the political will to do so. Democracies — or, for that matter, dictatorships — have a difficult time inflicting present political pain for future, hypothetical societal gains. Voters abhor higher gasoline and heating-oil prices, which are an integral part of most proposed solutions for global warming. They would dampen demand for fossil fuels and spur investment in substitutes.
The clearest proof of America’s political bias against the future is the treatment of Social Security and Medicare. For decades, we have known that an aging population would significantly boost spending for these programs. What did we do to prepare for this inevitability? Not much.
Finally, assuming (unrealistically) that today’s advanced societies — led by the United States — overcome these obstacles, it’s unclear whether poorer and so-called “emerging market” countries would follow suit. These countries represent the largest increases in fossil-fuel demand, as they attempt to raise living standards. Already, China is the world’s largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, nearly twice as high as the United States.
Economic and population increases boost energy demand. Consider air conditioners. The world now has 1.6 billion air conditioning units, reports the International Energy Agency. By 2050, that could triple to 5.6 billion units. People in advanced societies won’t abandon air conditioning, and people in poorer countries won’t surrender the chance to enjoy it. Much of future demand will come from three countries — China, India and Indonesia.
What is to be done?
Maybe nothing. This seems to be the choice made by many Republicans and the Trump administration, which is withdrawing from the Paris agreement’s commitments to reduce emissions. Trump’s hostility is not as crazy as it sounds. If suppressing global warming is as hard as I’ve argued, one likely response is a series of half measures that don’t much affect global warming but do weaken economic growth. The politicians’ real aim is to brag that they’ve “done something” when all they’ve really done is delude us. Trump would skip this stage.
My own preference is messier and subject to all the above shortcomings. I would gradually impose a stiff fossil-fuel tax (not a 10 or 15 percent tax but a doubling or maybe a tripling of prices) to discourage fossil-fuel use and encourage new energy sources. In addition, some of the tax revenues could reduce budget deficits and simplify income taxes. With luck, a genuine breakthrough might occur: perhaps advances in electric batteries or storage. That would make wind and solar power more practical.
There are risks. It can be argued that this sort of policy, aside from relying on unpopular energy taxes, would represent a triumph of hope over experience. In the name of fighting global warming, we might justify a host of energy boondoggles.
Combating global warming is a noble crusade, but it’s much harder than the rhetoric implies. If we were serious about cutting greenhouse gases, we could adopt comprehensive wartime controls that empower the government to mandate changes. Or we could accept a worldwide depression as a way to quash job growth and greenhouse gases. Obviously, neither is in the cards.
Robert J. Samuelson is a columnist for The Washington Post.
The IPCC has been criticized for being “too alarmist. If anything, it is the opposite. With their latest report, they have been overly conservative.”
A decade ago, the “father of global warming”—the first scientist to sound the alarm on climate change in the 1980s to the US Congress—announced that we were too late: the planet had already hit the danger zone.
In a landmark paper, James Hansen, then head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, along with seven other leading climate scientists, described how a global average temperature above 1°Celsius (C)—involving a level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere of around 450 parts per million (ppm)—would lead to “practically irreversible ice sheet and species loss.” But, they added, new data showed that even 1°C was too hot.
At the time the paper was issued in 2008, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were around 385 ppm. This is “already in the dangerous zone,” explained Hansen and his colleagues, noting that most climate models excluded self-reinforcing amplifying feedbacks which would be triggered at this level—things like “ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and GHG [greenhouse gas] release from soils, tundra, or ocean sediments.”
Such feedbacks constitute tipping points which, once triggered, can lead to irreversible or even runaway climate change processes.
According to Hansen and his co-authors, these feedbacks “may begin to come into play on time scales as short as centuries or less.” The only viable solution to guarantee a safe climate, they wrote, is to reduce the level of greenhouse gases to around 350 ppm, if not lower.
Today, we are well in breach of the 1°C upper limit. And we have breached this limit at a much lower level of atmospheric CO2 than Hansen thought would be necessary to warm this much—as of May 2018, the monthly average atmospheric CO2 had reached 410ppm (the August measurement puts it at 409ppm.) This is the highest level of CO2 the earth has seen in 800,000 years.
Ten years on from Hansen’s warning, the UN’s new climate report—presenting the consensus of the world’s leading climate scientists—informs us that if we continue at this rate, the planet will warm to around 1.5°C in just 12 years, triggering a sequence of increasingly catastrophic impacts.
According to a Met Office briefing evaluating the implications of the UN report, once we go past 1.5°C, we dramatically increase the risks of floods, droughts, and extreme weather that would impact hundreds of millions of people.
The IPCC says that this would just be the beginning: we are currently on track to hit 3-4°C by end of century, which would lead to a largely unlivable planet.
The IPCC “fails to adequately warn leaders” about six climate tipping points that work in this way. One of the more well-known such tipping points is Arctic sea ice, which could disappear in the summer in just 15 years, according to the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme’s Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic report. The ice acts as a reflector of heat back into the atmosphere, so the more it melts, the more the Arctic waters absorb heat.
This self-reinforcing feedback loop could lead to an ‘Arctic death spiral,’ where the loss of the sea ice accelerates the melting of permafrost, which some scientists believe could release large quantities of methane—a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent in driving warming than CO2—into the atmosphere.
Computer simulations of the Arctic’s thermokarst lakes—a certain type of Arctic lake that forms as permafrost thaws—are not incorporated into current global climate models.
The simulations suggest that toward mid or late century, “the permafrost-carbon feedback should be about equivalent to the second strongest anthropogenic source of greenhouse gases, which is land use change”, Katey Walter Anthony, an associate professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, said in a press release announcing a NASA-funded study that found the “abrupt thawing” of permafrost could release large amounts of CO2 and methane via soil microbes “within a few decades.”
Despite its blind spots, the IPCC throws down the gauntlet to global policymakers, demanding “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities to slash carbon emissions and begin drawing down carbon from the atmosphere.
By 2030, global CO2 emissions will need to drop 45 percent below 2010 levels—equivalent to over 60 percent below 2015 levels—reaching net zero by 2050. This will be a colossal undertaking. The UN report says it will require “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”
“The goal of keeping warming under 1.5°C will require the virtual dissolution of the military-industrial complex”
The financial and banking system will also need new regulation to mainstream this approach, along with new forms of “public-private partnerships” to support “new business models for small-scale enterprises and help households with limited access to capital.”
Without saying it aloud, these sorts of measures entail a fundamental shift in how capitalism as we know it operates, converting the economy from a structure dominated by narrow special interests which accumulate wealth for themselves, to one that serves communities.
THE SITUATION certainly is dire, though we’ve known that for the past 30 years. What we now have are more accurate models of how serious the consequences of global warming will be.
One thing to remember is that the IPCC is a body set up by the United Nations. It is staffed by leading climate change experts, but it only issues reports that are acceptable to the governments they represent. So IPCC predictions tend to be very conservative. Historically, they have consistently underestimated how quickly the climate is warming and how serious the effects will be.
With respect to how quickly the climate is warming, we have pretty good models. In particular, we know the effects of pumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere. It’s simple physics that this will result in average global temperatures going up due to the greenhouse effect.
What’s more difficult to model are the so-called “tipping points” and feedback loops. For instance, as the world warms, the polar ice caps start to melt. We’re already at the point where the Arctic is almost ice-free during the summer. With less ice, less sunlight is reflected back into space. Instead, it’s absorbed by the ocean, which in turn speeds up ice loss, so even less sunlight is reflected into space, and so on.
A further effect is that as global warming increases, permafrost — ground that is frozen — begins to thaw, releasing trapped methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas that has an even bigger impact on warming than carbon dioxide — in the short term, although it does dissipate much faster.
This is another feedback loop: More methane released into the atmosphere means warmer temperatures, which means more loss of permafrost, which means more methane in the atmosphere, and a continuing downward spiral.
All this means that warming may happen even faster than the IPCC predicts. But the dire predictions in the latest report have more to do with the consequences of warming.
The reports says, “There is no documented historic precedent” for what needs to happen, and that’s no exaggeration.
The problem is that governments of every political complexion have prioritized the interests of the fossil-fuel industry.
Leaving the oil in the ground is exactly what we need to do. But that runs counter to the interests of the fossil-fuel industry and the logic of the wider capitalist system in which it is embedded.
The size of the fossil-fuel industry is mind-boggling. There is more capital invested in it than any other industry. The major oil and gas companies make tens of billions of dollars in profits each year, and the total value of existing fossil fuel and nuclear power infrastructure is at least $15 trillion.
Most of this infrastructure has decades of possible further use. But in order to solve the climate crisis, we need to shut it down almost immediately and invest in renewable energy.
The people who own and profit from the existing system obviously won’t let that happen without a huge fight. That’s why they’ve been funding climate denialism for decades, both through sponsorship of think tanks and large campaign contributions to right-wing politicians.
As we now know, Exxon, Shell and other major oil companies knew of the risks of global warming as early as the 1970s from their own research, but they buried it in order to continue making profits.
GIVEN THE institutional opposition to change, is there any realistic way in which the kind of transformations necessary can actually happen?
I DON’T know what the chances are, but I do know that radical change only happens when mass movements demand it.
The price of beer could rise sharply this century, and it has nothing to do with trends in craft brewing. Instead, a new study says beer prices could double, on average, because of the price of malted barley, a key ingredient in the world’s favorite alcoholic drink.
By projecting heat and drought trends over the coming decades, a team of researchers in China, the U.K. and the U.S. found that barley production could be sharply affected by the shifting climate. And that means some parts of the world would very likely be forced to pay much more for a beer.
In Ireland, a leading beer-consuming nation, prices could triple, the study says.
THE SOLUTION TO ALL THIS!!!
KEEPING THE ENVIRONMENT FREE OF CARBON EMISSIONS, WHILST KEEPING CAPITALISM IN PLACE, A NEW TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION, KICKSTARTING THE STAGNANT GLOBAL ECONOMY… CLEAN, CHEAP, LIMITLESS, NON-POLLUTING ENERGY SOURCE…. … DRAGONS ARE REAL!!!