Great essay by Ted Nordhaus and Alex Trembath which goes agains both climate alarmism and ignorance, but paints a realistic, pragmatic perspective on a manageable future, that demands radical steps nevertheless: Is Climate Change like Diabetes or an Asteroid?
Diabetes is not benign. It is not a “natural” phenomena and it can’t be cured. It is a condition that, if unmanaged, can kill you. And even for those who manage it well, life is different than before diabetes.
This seems to us to be a reasonably apt description of the climate problem. There is no going back to the world before climate change. Whatever success we have mitigating climate change, we almost certainly won’t return to pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, at least not for many centuries. Even at one or 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, the climate and the planet will look very different, and that will bring unavoidable consequences for human societies. We will live on a hotter planet and in a climate that will be more variable and less predictable.
How bad our planetary diabetes gets will depend on how much we continue to emit and how well adapted to a changing climate human societies become. With the present one degree of warming, it appears that human societies have adapted relatively well. Various claims attributing present day natural disasters to climate change are controversial. But the overall statistics suggest that deaths due to climate-related natural disasters globally are falling, not rising, and that economic losses associated with those disasters, adjusting for growing population and affluence, have been flat for many decades.
But at three or four degrees of warming, all bets are off. And it appears that unmanaged, that’s where present trends in emissions are likely to take us. Moreover, even with radical action, stabilizing emissions at 1.5 degrees C, as many advocates now demand, is not possible without either solar geoengineering or sucking carbon emissions out of the atmosphere at massive scale. Practically, given legacy emissions and committed infrastructure, the long-standing international target of limiting temperature increase to two degrees C is also extremely unlikely.
Unavoidably, then, treating our climate change condition will require not simply emissions reductions but also significant adaptation to known and unknown climate risks that are already baked in to our future due to two centuries of fossil fuel consumption. It is in this sense that we have long argued that climate change must be understood as a chronic condition of global modernity, a problem that will be managed but not solved.
Ökologischer Kapitalismus vs. grüner Sozialismus – das Transformationsmodell von Ralf Fücks
Ökologischer Kapitalismus vs. grüner Sozialismus – das Transformationsmodell von Hans Thie
#TeamÖkologischerKapitalismus. Spannende Gegenüberstellung.
It’s Time to Try Fossil-Fuel Executives for Crimes Against Humanity: It isn’t hyperbole to say that fossil-fuel executives are mass murderers. We should put them on trial for crimes against humanity.
Technically speaking, what fossil-fuel companies do isn’t genocide. Low-lying islands and communities around the world are and will continue to be the worst hit by climate impacts.
Still, the case against the fossil-fuel industry is not that their executives are targeting specific “national, ethnical, racial, or religious” groups for annihilation, per the Rome Statute, which enumerates the various types of human rights abuses that can be heard before the International Criminal Court. Rather, the fossil industry’s behavior constitutes a Crime Against Humanity in the classical sense: “a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack,” including murder and extermination. Unlike genocide, the UN clarifies, in the case of crimes against humanity,
it is not necessary to prove that there is an overall specific intent. It suffices for there to be a simple intent to commit any of the acts listed…The perpetrator must also act with knowledge of the attack against the civilian population and that his/her action is part of that attack.
Fossil-fuel executives may not have intended to destroy the world as we know it. And climate change may not look like the kinds of attacks we’re used to. But they’ve known what their industry is doing to the planet for a long time, and the effects are likely to be still more brutal if the causes are allowed to continue.
Neben Klagen gegen CEOs von Klimaschänderfirmen dürfte absaufende Infrastruktur ein weiteres gutes Druckmittel auf die Politik darstellen, vor allem wenn es sich um Infrastruktur des Militärs handelt: Dramatic photos show Offutt Air Force Base engulfed by floodwaters. (Ganz davon abgesehen sind absaufende Militärbasen per se zu begrüßen.)
Temperaturanstieg in der Arktis lässt sich nicht mehr aufhalten: Selbst wenn die Ziele des Pariser Klimaschutzabkommens umgesetzt werden: Die Temperaturen in der Arktis werden laut Uno bis 2050 um mindestens drei Grad Celsius steigen.
England could run short of water within 25 years: The country is facing the ‘‘jaws of death”, Sir James Bevan said, at the point where water demand from the country’s rising population surpasses the falling supply resulting from climate change.
From that same stomach: Eco-fascism is undergoing a revival in the fetid culture of the extreme right
Pigeons With Tiny Backpacks Are Gathering Climate Data Now: Researchers at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom have developed a tiny set of sensors that can be strapped onto the backs of pigeons. Rick Thomas, the research fellow who leads the project, uses the birds to collect data on urban microclimates—the block-by-block variations in temperature, humidity, and winds that affect living conditions in major cities.
[Klimalinks 6.8.2019] Wer bezahlt Anpassungen an den Klimawandel?; Klimaaktivisten besetzen Tagebau Schleenhain; Energieberatung Wood Mackenzie sieht +3°C; in der Arktis brechen Eisplatten von Grönland ab