As a result, the Anthropocene may prove too hot to permit permanent ice in polar regions. Already, summer sea ice in the Arctic has reached perilously low levels and Hansen suggests it is already a foregone conclusion that it will be gone in coming summer seasons.
Climate change is also, obviously, having an impact on the weather. Extreme weather is becoming the norm, like the drought in the Horn of Africa in 2011 that saw an already dry region receive just 5 percent of its "normal" rainfall. For comparison's sake, last year's severe drought in Texas stemmed from receiving only 35 percent of that region's normal rainfall, noted atmospheric scientist Lisa Goddard, director of the International Research Institute for Climate and Society at Columbia University. "A lot of countries that had zero to do with climate change are being pummeled by climate change," Sachs added, suggesting aid to these regions is really compensation.
The problem in addressing climate change, which Sachs also called the biggest and hardest challenge ever to face humanity, may be human nature itself. Fossil fuels remain the cheapest fuel source, and as long as they do, we will continue to burn them, Hansen noted, arguing for a carbon tax on coal, oil and natural gas with the proceeds distributed to citizens of the countries collecting the tax. And climate change timescales are "longer than human memory and longer than terms in political office," Goddard noted. "Human experience is also largely local, and it's hard to notice a global trend."
At the same time, the more than a billion people mired in energy poverty must be given access to modern energy. If that comes from fossil fuels, it may prove difficult to solve global warming. Engineer Vijay Modi of Columbia University has come up with a way the energy poor can avoid burning kerosene or the like: micro-grids powered by the sun. Modi's Shared Solar combines a village wired by the government with a privately funded solar installation run by a smart meter and doled out on a prepaid basis to villagers. So, for example, the village of Segou in Mali, which has such a system, has a vendor with a smart phone who uses an app to sell increments of electricity generated by the sun to his neighbors.
Shared widely via a new effort called the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, or perhaps just the burgeoning population of Internet-connected mobile phones, such technology could provide light at night for a girl to study by—and the education of women is a crucial part of any bid to address poverty, social justice and environmental problems. Or it can empower local entrepreneurs, such as a women's fishing collective that now has a refrigerator to store its catch or the local tailor and his new light. If such technology ends up fueling economic development, social justice and environmental improvement, then the state of the planet just might improve this century. After all, as Eliasson observed, when asked if the world needs a plan B given its dire state, "there is no planet B."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
34 Comments
Add CommentYou're wasting your time. The people who make such comments are driven by self-interest, and nothing any of the rest of us can say or do will change that. What it comes down to is the difference between those who will consider the welfare of others when deciding a course of action for themselves, and those who won't. Until there are more of the former than the latter, there will be no solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSachs also said, “We’re already past the point of dangerous [manmade] interference with the climate system — not approaching it — past it,”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this30 years of talk about sustainability and we are no closer to achieving it. Domestic crude oil is above $90 a barrel and we still consider it “the cheapest fuel source” for transportation. I wonder what the price will be once the economy starts to improve. We all watch passively as food prices move higher and folks like priddseren pretend that is ok and just want to be left alone. They do not want to be burdened with doing something. They feel put upon when others point out the unsustainable nature of the situation and squeal “communist” if anyone brings up pricing fossil fuels to reflect the enormous cost they have on the environment. Folks like priddseren reject any notion that the state of the planet is grim even as they are aware of the massive environmental problems China is creating. All industrial nations face environmental challenges and they create environmental challenges for the emerging nations as well. It is just easier to point the finger at “communist” nations and ignore the four fingers pointing back. It is easier to say “piss-off” to anyone who says we must act together than to pitch in to clean up the mess. Bob_CA is right; there will be no solution as long as the priddseren’s of the world outnumber the rest.
Nations strive for economic growth. Progressive ideology prefers stable modest growth of 3-4%, while conservative ideology prefers boom/bust cycles. Both view population growth as economic necessities. No one, to my knowledge has defined sustainable economics without growth in both economies, and populations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that if a nation's GDP were divided by the amount of currency in circulation, a real value for currency could be established for all nations. Of course it is not as simple as all that- i.e. US dollars are used by other nations to buy oil, for instance, from a third party nation; meaning the currency was in circulation while never appearing in the origin's domain.
The problem resides in the value of currency based on faith in the currency, or underlying economy. It is equivalent, on the smaller scale, of a producer charging what the market will bear for goods, irrespective of the cost of producing said goods. In other words, our children are taught in schools, that marketing creates value. If a sports celebrity endorsement allows a producer to charge $125 for a cosmetically altered sneaker that formerly sold for $75, then marketing added value; even though, at the same time costs were lowered from $5/pair production costs to $2.50 by moving production to a poor country. This change occurred when Usury laws were considered as quaint as blue laws.
IMO we can never reach ideals of social justice or economic sustainability without establishing parameters for the distribution of wealth in ways that provide for economic incentives (privileges of wealth), while preventing both individuals and corporations to become wealthier than 2/3 of the nations of the world, as we have now.
The New Deal worked under a system that prevented dynasties from developing or growing over generations. That system has been torn down, which now threatens the New Deal. With fewer jobs for increasing numbers of people, the economics of the New Deal are unsustainable, and operate in a context of stagnating or retreating wages.
Fundamental systemic fixes are required- that are fundamentally unconscionable to everyone who supports the consolidation of wealth. This means either the public needs to be educated on how ideology matters, or the public would need to be swayed by a "Big Lie."
In the past, it was the Big Lies that worked. The public was sold on a Big Lie that got public support behind every war this nation ever fought, except one.
Corrupt Fascist Banker Elite Agenda-21 BS !!!!!! This article is another example of the perversion of our infiltrated media in order to enslave the population!! Just see Alex Jones, David Duke, Truth Militia etc websites for the real truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one wants social change, in order to increase social, justice - then it should be argued and debated on it's own merit. To sneak this agenda into climate debate is one more scientific injustice perpetrated and makes the perpetrators of such... NON scientists... but social advocates instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf their idealism is so ideal, then come out from behind climate's big dress, and argue your case as such. Hidden agendas makes everyone nervous. GK
Problem is that everything you do pollutes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't you understand that?
We need ways to form a balance... so that whatever we use, can be restored... to be used a again... without forming toxins that kill us.
It's a very simple, commonsense idea to understand.
Priddseren seems to lack commonsense and has a brain block against reality. Your right, no matter how is it explained to them, their brain is closed to new facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know a person who loves the smell of mothballs and smokes, for years I kept trying to explain why they are very toxic. The neighbors got together to make her stop putting them outside by the box full. She has a cancer now, and keeps wondering how she got it. Sometimes, there's nothing a person can do.
If there was an easy solution, there would be not problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are a many complicated issues that need to be solved individually. It's going to be difficult to find a balance that both sides can agree to, for each of the pollutants that we think cause the most problems.
We need to talk about the individual pollutants, and what we can do right now that's reasonable.
Move down the list one by one. Talk about what CAN we do right now.
The real problem is that everywhere people go, we all leave messes that need to be cleaned up.
Some of the products we use, don't have an cleaner alternative.
Dry cleaning, I don't buy anything that needs to be dry cleaned.
I have been reading everything that VOC"s. All my cleaning products have changes. I have never been a fan of vinegar, but it does clean most things better than Windex. Think about everything and make small changes that work for you. (Mix 2 parts water, 1 part apple vinegar and 1 part hydrogen peroxide for the kitchen) Plastic parts are starting to look like new.
Read about chemicals in foods, aluminum in some cheap salts, we can do without. This is reading that you have to do for yourself and choose. It's well worth the time.
The point is to make cleaner choices, so that we DO NOT have to go without in the future.
James Hansen is perfectly right in saying that volume based taxes on fossiles is the best policy to push for transformation, and this doesn't need worldwide treaty : it is valid on a pure selfish basis for a country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne forget that a major advantages of taxes as opposed to subsidies on alternatives is that you do not have to define the "solutions", but you favor any of them, be it on the conservation or alternatives production side : this is a key aspect, espcially as it is very easy to get it wrong in this "good solution labelling" activity.(typical example : corn ethanol). Plus volume based taxes are the simplest in terms of administrative overhead to operate, and the least prone to cheatings.
And it works : just compare the average mpg of European cars (with heavy gas taxes since the seventies) to American ones.
And don't forget that it isn't only a matter of climate (a very serious aspect), but simply now of survival from the resource available aspect, especially for oil, we clearly are at/near the production peak now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn please don't hesitate to sign, add your message below about this :
http://tribune-pic-petrolier.org/mobilizing-society-in-the-face-of-peak-oil/
"Do we need more communist?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCommunist what? If you mean more communist governance, yes we do -- something more balanced against current capitalist governance.
Years ago, I coined the notion of "orthoproducts", i.e. those products we basically need, like adequate clothes, shoes, shelter, food, etc.
Realizing that the production of these basics has to be matched to demand in order to ensure fair distribution to everybody at a fair price, the Chinese still establish quinquennal plans, like the Soviets did.
Yet in doing so the Chinese rely on a few computer operators only, who are thus easily controllable by the central government -- unlike the Soviets rulers who lost control of an army of apparatchiks collecting, calculating, and exploiting all of available industrial and personal data of a population of over 200 million, thus becoming a State within the State.
The property issue too will inevitably have to be addressed: basically by nationalizing the production means for "orthoproducts", i.e by expropriating their owners, or at least their heirs.
This streamlining of the production sector will free hundreds of millions of individuals from full-time work, so that part-time work will become the rule -- or the unemployed would threaten to reach a critical mass likely to turn into a mob.
With dramatically increasing leisure time at hand, the currently preferred activities of cocooning and car driving will become less affordable to an increasing part of the population -- especially in Russia, China, and India, where huge motorway extensions will have to be financed in addition to automotive mass-production.
So why not have a look at the birds? It's so easy for them to find food that they spend most of their time flying for pure fun -- flying for fun is therefore the solution... and just forget cocooning at all!
Hence, let's have a look at state-of-the-art flying machines: ultra-light electric aircraft are known to outperform the motorcar in terms of economic and environmental footprint -- whereby the major change of paradigm we need in order to cater for increasingly leisure-oriented extra-urban individual mobility is indeed transition from road-bound to airborne traffic...
With his trike, Putin failed to guide a swarm of siberian cranes onto their natural migration path -- maybe with a little help from our part he might be more successful in teaching his citizens to "fly away home" with ultra-light electric tilt-rotor aircraft...
Our insistence that something must be simple has caused more trouble than a bored teenager.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Folks like priddseren reject any notion that the state of the planet is grim even as they are aware of the massive environmental problems China is creating." What is in fact occurring is almost unmitigated progress! Even in China. Environmental economists know this as an "environmental Kuznets curve," which means the 'dirtiest' phase of industrialization is shorter and more manageable for China than any similarly large population during the 20th century. This gloom and doom blog post and its peanut gallery here in the comments is a load of crap - measurably, a load of crap! The shortest authoritative of many recent volumes exposing this load of crap is Cal-Berkeley's professor emeritus in the department of natural resources, Jack Hollander's book "The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment's Number One Enemy." Read it and don't weep - cheer up, idiots!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitics? Economics? Great fields of study, however, the chemical changes we make, and continue to make to our environment don't care one iota. Ocean acidification, warming, melting... 76$B to preserve global biodiversiy? (There's $$$ again.) All the money on the planet will not stop what we're doing. Pontification is equally worthless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere's Maurice Strong when you need him? China?
Don't underestimate simple. It's a good point to start. from when so many people don't agree on what's to do or what's the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll things in life start small.
Poverty is overpopulation that can't be sustained because of the poor environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI talk to people everywhere I go and people are very concerned about the climate, foods. cost of everything...this is just a guess, but I think, it's about 2 in 100 people that think all this is made up and this is progress as usual, and everything is just fine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPackage deals from forced taxes are opportunities to be miss used.
We need to ban as many of the toxic products that are not vital.
Force companies to products better products.
These companies are smart, they will make another product.
The way we grow foods needs to be changed.
Many of the GM foods and chemical can't be digested for energy.
People always say that they are tired.
Acid stomach and fatness seem to go together health problems.
Would not surprise me if this is the reason so many people are fat. Even when they try to loose the weight.
Healthy people are the driving force if life.
Loopholes and package deals in tax bills should be stopped.
Things change when people as a group. start to think about the same problems in a similar way.
Pontification. we are past the roman stone age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost people want to feel good about what they are doing.
Maurice Strong had his roots in oil, until later in life he focused on cleaning up the earth. His good work had won many awards helping people.
We need to sort out climate change so we don't starve. Global food reserves are at their lowest since 1974.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/oct/14/un-global-food-crisis-warning
Sigma Eyes - Green economics and policies have recognised for years that population must be stabilised and that the idea of infinite economic growth (and population growth) is a myth based on an insane belief that the Earth is flat and infinite rather than the reality that it is round and finite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Steady state economics' is what we need. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_economics
We have ignorant innumerate millionaires in charge of the economy here in Britain, but at least here there are limits on what politicians are allowed to spend on election campaigns. I feel sorry for people in the USA (and the rest of us who also suffer the consequences) because elections are likely to be won by whoever spends the most money on advertising.
I agree with Sigma Eyes we need to see usury - charging interest on debt - as immoral again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trouble is our whole economic system for centuries has assumed that it's normal, and so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Until and unless we assume that wealth should be more fairly shared out, we can use taxes to try to get some of those ill-gotten gains back again and make things a bit fairer, but it's an uphill struggle.
I don't like the word "orthoproducts" as coined by euroflycars, but I agree with his idea that we need to make sure that everybody has enough of 'those products we basically need, like adequate clothes, shoes, shelter, food, etc.'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Britain during the second world war people were in danger of starving, because Britain then had a huge empire and used the resources of its empire to feed itself, so German naval blockades stopped food coming in. The government decided to introduce rationing, and the result was that people stayed healthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom
The main Wikipedia page for rationing doesn't have much on this, but it's got more on the USA stuff which I know nothing about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing
The idea of personal 'carbon credits' uses the same idea to make energy use fairer and reduce climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_rationing
We need above all to share out power and wealth more fairly. While there is vast inequality between rich and poor we cannot solve much. The poorest people may not be able to do much to look after their environment because their immediate survival is the most urgent challenge. The richest people insulate themselves from reality and continue to cause most of the damage and pollution.
A very good point, and that is a major issue that is currently being ignored. Greenie ENGO's, i.e. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the WWF and Greenie politicians, Green party etc, are staunch advocates for "Energy Efficiency", "Energy Conservation", "Carbon Pricing" and expensive "Clean Energy". The actual fact is that all of these programs are essentially a form of ENERGY RATIONING, and the net effect of them is to hit the poor brutally, the middle class very hard and the wealthy no effect whatsoever. You need only look at Germany with over 600,000 people having had their power disconnected because of their 2nd highest electricity rates in Europe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bizarre thing is that Greenies are actually advocating higher Energy prices to "Encourage Energy Conservation" - but the REAL effect IS ENERGY RATIONING. Curious how these Greenies have ignored the serious ethical consequences of their policies.
So let's be perfectly clear:
"Energy Efficiency" = Energy Rationing
"Clean Energy" = Energy Rationing
"Energy Conservation" = Energy Rationing
"High Energy Pricing/Carbon Taxes" = Energy Rationing
So if we are going to undertake what is in actual fact a program of oppressive Energy Rationing, then all Ethical Standards and historical examples dictate it should be fair and equally distributed across the full social strata. Not dumped upon the poor & middle class like the Greenies who are its strongest advocates are doing. Wouldn't have anything to do with the $billions in funding ENGO's are getting from super-rich family foundations would it?
"""A very good point, and that is a major issue that is currently being ignored. Greenie ENGO's, i.e. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the WWF and Greenie politicians, Green party etc, are staunch advocates for "Energy Efficiency", "Energy Conservation", "Carbon Pricing" and expensive "Clean Energy". The actual fact is that all of these programs are essentially a form of ENERGY RATIONING, and the net effect of them is to hit the poor brutally, the middle class very hard and the wealthy no effect whatsoever. You need only look at Germany with over 600,000 people having had their power disconnected because of their 2nd highest electricity rates in Europe."""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse. Do at least a modicum of research before proclaiming yourself an expert.
"""The bizarre thing is that Greenies are actually advocating higher Energy prices to "Encourage Energy Conservation" - but the REAL effect IS ENERGY RATIONING. Curious how these Greenies have ignored the serious ethical consequences of their policies."""
Energy rationing is actually a good thing. No one needs daytime TV.
"""So let's be perfectly clear:"""
Yes, I shall bring out my Politifact Truthometer.
""""Energy Efficiency" = Energy Rationing"""
Mostly false
""""Clean Energy" = Energy Rationing"""
Pants on fire.
""""Energy Conservation" = Energy Rationing"""
Half true.
""""High Energy Pricing/Carbon Taxes" = Energy Rationing"""
Pants on fire.
"""So if we are going to undertake what is in actual fact a program of oppressive Energy Rationing, then all Ethical Standards and historical examples dictate it should be fair and equally distributed across the full social strata. Not dumped upon the poor & middle class like the Greenies who are its strongest advocates are doing. Wouldn't have anything to do with the $billions in funding ENGO's are getting from super-rich family foundations would it? """
In summary: please do some actual research before proclaiming yourself an expert. You might learn something.
I never proclaimed myself an expert in anything and all you have is statements like "half true", "pants on fire", "mostly false" and the basis of your argument is "because I say so". I would say it is you who needs to do a little research before you proclaim yourself such a high and mighty of an expert that you don't even need rational argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNope, we are quite readily capable of assimilating another 2 billion people over a quarter century, however it is true exponential population growth is impossible to sustain. Sooner or later we have to come to the realization that Zero Population Growth, at least on this one planet, is a necessity. Why do you think we can't sustain another 2 billion on this planet? What resource limitations do you think will be a barrier to growth?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real major limitation we have right now is corruption of our political systems. Politicians are just doing their best to serve the super-rich elites and corporate socialists who stuff the most dollars in their pockets. Now that is the ONLY unsustainable predicament we are in.
Thanks dwbd for saying I'd made a good point - but actually I'm in favour of rationing because it actually makes things fairer. With rationing, the poor get more than they would have done and the rich get less than they would have done without rationing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor Christ’s sake, it is not rocket science.
We may shift to a zero-footprint economy, by 1) shifting to a clean energy matrix (large-scale ultradeep geothermal, probably government-built because I do not see the companies picking up this bill + wind + solar + sea + perhaps thorium) matrix, 2) converting to a post-oil logistics (electric or other vehicles) given that fossil fuels are limited anyhow, 3) recycling everything recyclable, 4) desalinizing and channeling water, 5) eventually synthesizing animal protein and 6) replacing chemical pollutants for less polluting, usually physical alternatives. This will buy us time to tackle overpopulation via a UNO Framework Convention and a Third World youth coalition to end accidental pregnancy (or no matter how many more billons we feed the mater will only get worse and worse).
Case in point. It's not even that hard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShifting to a zero CO2 footprint with wind + solar + Geothermal, rationing energy, sea water desalination etc etc – we are hearing this all the time from the greenies, who are especially fond of energy rationing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRationing might work for a short time like now in the after-Sandy clean-up work in N.Y..
But after some time there will be a rationing administration growing bigger and bigger.
And the rich (and our politicians) will always find ways to circumvent for themselves these rationing rules. So – rationing will be for the poor not having the 'connections'.
And solving all our energy needs with the low-energy wind and solar stuff ? This might be possible for underdeveloped countries in the Sahara desert.
For industrial nations like the US or Germany the electricity provided via wind and solar is just incompatible with the energy needs of industry. This is a well-known fact – but again and again some people (politicians) ignore this and try to invent some kind of a perpetual motion engine
The best thing to help the poor : Provide plenty of cheap energy.
We have the means – go for the advanced new nuclear technologies.
Darwinian. Sill, there's no sense in accelerating us through the Antrhopocene, which we've taken the good time to notch into our history, and bury everything in ice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarwinian. Sill, there's no sense in accelerating us through the Antrhopocene, which we've taken the good time to notch into our history, and bury everything in ice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the nice blog. It was very useful for me. Keep sharing such ideas in the future as well. This was actually what I was looking for, and I am glad to came here! Thanks for sharing the such information with us
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegard:
http://invictusnoname.wordpress.com/
...and here lies the problem. Rather than go read another's opinion,perhaps read the scientific data for yourself, make your own assessment (Scientific American, NOAA, dozens of universties, etc.). The data is everywhere and it's not good. We all agree climate/environment is heading "south", and can only wonder at what point real change will begin. How long can we maintain this foolishness?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this