The Most Important Number on Earth

[babylonsister]

The Most Important Number on Earth

by Bill McKibben


Sooner or later, you have to draw a line. We've spent the last 20 years in the opening scenes of what historians will one day call the Global Warming Era-the preamble to the biggest drama that humans have ever staged, the overture that hints at the themes that will follow for centuries to come. But none of the notes have resolved, none of the story lines yet come into clear view. And that's largely because until recently we didn't know quite where we were. From the moment in 1988 when a nasa scientist named James Hansen told Congress that burning coal and gas and oil was warming the earth, we've struggled to absorb this one truth: The central fact of our economic lives (the ubiquitous fossil fuel that developed the developed world) is wrecking the central fact of our physical lives (the stable climate and sea level on which civilization rests). For a while, and much longer in the US than elsewhere, we battled over whether this was true. But warm year succeeded warm year and that fight began to subside. Instead, the real question became, is this a future peril, the kind of thing you take out a reasonably priced insurance policy to guard against? Or is it the oh-my-lord crisis you drop everything else to deal with? Will Hitler be happy with the Sudetenland, or is the world going to spend every cent it has, not to mention tens of millions of lives, fighting him off? Trouble, or TROUBLE? These last 12 months, we've found out.

It was September 2007 that the tide began to turn. Every summer Arctic sea ice melts, and every fall it refreezes. The amount of open water has been steadily increasing for three decades, a percent or two every year-it's been going at about the pace that the hairline recedes on a middle-aged man. It was worrisome, and scientists said all the summer ice could be gone by 2070 or so, which is an eyeblink in geologic time but an eternity in politician time. In late summer of last year, though, the melt turned into a rout-it was like those stories of people whose hair turns gray overnight. An area the size of Colorado was disappearing every week; the Northwest Passage was staying wide open all September, for the first time in history. Before long the Arctic night mercifully descended and the ice began to refreeze, but scientists were using words like "astounding." They were recalculating-by one nasa scientist's estimate the summer Arctic might now be free of ice by 2012. Which in politician years is "beginning of my second term."

The key phrase, really, was "tipping point." As in "I'd say we are reaching a tipping point or are past it for the ice. This is a strong indication that there is an amplifying mechanism here." That's Pål Prestrud of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo. Or this, from Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado: "When the ice thins to a vulnerable state, the bottom will drop out...I think there is some evidence that we may have reached that tipping point, and the impacts will not be confined to the Arctic region."

"Tipping point" is not, in this context, an idle buzzword. It means that the physical world is taking over the process that humans began. We poured carbon into the atmosphere, trapping excess heat; that excess heat began to melt ice. When that ice was melted, there was less white up north to reflect the sun's rays back out to space, and more blue ocean to absorb them. Events began to feed upon themselves. And in the course of the last year, we've seen the same thing happening in other systems. In April, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a report showing that 2007 had seen a sudden and dramatic surge in the amount of methane, another heat-trapping gas, in the atmosphere. Apparently, one reason is that when we burned all that fossil fuel and began raising the temperature, we also started melting the permafrost-melting eight times more of it in some places over two decades than had thawed for the previous 1,000 years. And as that frozen soil thaws, it releases methane; enough of it now bubbles out to make "hot spots" in lakes and ponds that don't freeze during the deepest part of the Siberian winter. The more methane, the more heat, the more methane. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The final piece of the puzzle came early this year, and again from James Hansen. Twenty years after his crucial testimony, he published a paper with several coauthors called "Target Atmospheric CO2" (.pdf). It put, finally, a number on the table-indeed it did so in the boldest of terms. "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted," it said, "paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/16-3

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Recommended.

:thumbsup:

[bertman]

2. What are the chances we, meaning Earthlings, are going to do what needs to be done?

In time?

Slim to none. We are creatures of habit with small brains and a penchant for stubbornness that would make a mule envious.

[babylonsister]

3. A good start is for people to be aware of what we're facing. And now

we've hired a new admin that is aware. Baby steps...

[GliderGuider]

6. Essentially zero.

It's even worse than stubbornness. It's a toxic combination of stubbornness, short-sightedness, self-deception, rationalization and pure self-interest.

Global warming, Peak Oil, food insecurity, the death of the oceans, financial collapse -- all of them are happening together right in front of our eyes. The entire planet is playing a massive game of Prisoner's Dilemma with real-life stakes. Nobody is willing to take the slightest chance of getting the sucker's payoff, so we are all going to lose.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Or, maybe better

C'mon GG; Somehow, we made it through the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages">Dark Ages" even with the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_death">Black Death."

[GliderGuider]

8. Sorry, I'm in a grumpy mood tonight.

I just got a letter from my ex-partner's lawyer. That's worse than the Black Death.

Of course we'll make it through (for some suitably small value of "we"). We just won't get to take our toys with us. Or maybe all our kids. Of course we might not have to take our politicians with us either, so perhaps there is an upside to all this after all...

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Sorry about the letter

We might not make it through.

I think that the surest way for us not to make it though is for us to declare ourselves defeated before we've even made an effort. If we do nothing, then I believe we may be doomed.


(A favorite joke I learned from a lawyer. "Do you know how you can tell when your divorce is getting ugly? When you start thinking of your lawyer as kind of a nice guy.")

[bertman]

13. I'm pretty sure that the Dark Ages and the Black Death are going to be considered mere

inconveniences compared to what's in store for humanity.

The planet, of course, will be just fine. Only it will be less hospitable to our kind and probably most other living species--which is the really sad part.

Whatever you do, DON'T do any reading about what's happening to our oceans due to the increased acidity brought on by pollution and the warming of the seas. Or what's happening to our potable water supplies (aquifers) into which we are pumping such tasty delicacies as chemicals from natural gas wells. Or what humans are doing to each other in the less technologically advanced societies in places like the Congo.

I'm not trying to be a pessimist, just a realist. We Americans seem to think that we can DENY this crisis out of existence. And we are by far the biggest problem area on the planet; although, other nations are vying for the title as we speak.

I'm thinking that I won't be around for the worst parts, so that is some small consolation. And I don't mind telling you that I'm hoping that reincarnation is not a fact.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. Re: Whatever you do, DON'T do any reading about what's happening to our oceans

Definitely bad advice. I do read about it. Willful ignorance is not helpful at all.


However, please, think about this for a moment. A tremendous share of the damage is being done by a relatively small spectrum of activities (i.e. producing and burning fossil fuels.)

If it's so simple for us to damage the ecosystem, what makes you so confident that there isn't a reasonably simple way to reverse or at least mitigate the damage?

The key here is for us to avoid as many "tipping points" as we can.

That means we need to act, now! rather than sitting around moaning, "We're doomed!"

[bertman]

22. Yes, ItIsJustYou. Ha ha, only kidding. I hate those freakin bleeding sarcasm thingies, so

you missed my attempt at sarcasm. Please DON'T throw me in that briar patch, br'er fox.

Despite my bleak assessment of our chances of correcting this colossal screwup, I do advocate doing everything we can to TRY to slow the train down. That means educating ourselves about the problems and the damage so we can come up with a fix.

On a personal level I am trying to lead a more sustainable life. But habits and culture and necessity mitigate against it. Nonetheless, I will not give up.

Your optimism about reversing the trend is deeply rooted in our human trait of assigning great hope and faith to the rightness of whatever we undertake. That's what's gotten us where we are today--for better and for worse.

I won't debate the probability of overcoming the slide into the abyss because it's much too intricate to do in a blog; however, I will say that simply reversing our use of fossil fuels is going to take more than an altruistic desire on the part of most of us homo sapiens. Even if governments around the world were to declare today that we WILL immediately reduce our fossil fuel use, the implications of that sudden move (and it will have to be sudden to be effective) will generate hardship and catastrophe on a massive scale worldwide. We would be shutting down the engine that has kept the world running for almost a century, excluding some of our less developed nations who've only joined the party in the last few decades. Winding down at a less cataclysmic pace means the train keeps running and the miles fly by under the wheels, gaining momentum and decreasing the odds of success.

I can't go on about this topic right now because I have to go see a client who wants a "green" remodeling project done on her 4600 square foot home that she and her husband live in with no one else. She and he want to save energy by adding more insulation and installing better quality windows, plus they would like to use bamboo flooring (which is considered sustainable). Of course, we will use the latest technology and products to make their home greener--technology and products that invariably require incredible amounts of energy and resources to produce and distribute.

These new "green" Americans will fly on a jet to Colorado to snow ski with their two kids, who will also fly. Then they will fly to Cancun for a short vacation before returning to their home.

So they are doing what they consider to be the RIGHT THING FOR THE PLANET by being greener.

Am I the only one who senses a disconnect with reality in that scenario?

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. "Please DON'T throw me in that briar patch, br'er fox."

As you may recall, Br'er Rabbit http://www.americanfolklore.net/folktales/ga2.html">wanted to be thrown in, since that was his means of escaping his predicament. (I also hate the sarcasm tags. I want Irony tags.)

As for the "probability of overcoming the slide into the abyss," well, that's kind of a moot point, isn't it?

If we do nothing, we almost certainly will slide in. Even if we try very hard to avoid it, we may still slide in.

A lot of people don't fully grasp the "green thing." OK, so the only thing we can do is meet them where they are, and try to help them find the way to where they need to be. Changing a light bulb will not change the world, but at least it will get someone thinking about the environment (which for many is a new thing) and in the meantime, it will cut down on CO₂ emissions a little.

[tama]

28. The simple way

Let's not try to fix the problem with another technofix that causes more problems to fix. Simply let's stop causing the problems.

[tama]

27. Well, it's a fact

Kind of. Some people do experience memories of "past lives" that cannot be explained inside the current scientific paradigm. I have no good theoretical explanation, the Buddhist one is one the best I've found. Any case I guess it's all very complicated and too much for my little head to understand - but not to accept that also stuff like that happens.

Any case, if some part of this aggregate of causes called "me", perhaps not the best characterization, is going to continue experiencing in some time and place, I hope it will experience paradise on Earth. Maybe that's just few generations away: human society based on networks of sustainable gardening communities or "ecovillages", healing. Mother Earth has right to enjoy also human precence in all it's beauty and potential. The seeds of that "Paradise on Earth" are being planted and sprouting as we speak. I would like to be able to dedicate rest of my life to that work.

[GliderGuider]

14. Declarations of defeat, or scales falling from our eyes?

I'll never forget the day about four years ago when I first understood the implications of peak oil. I felt like I'd taken the red pill and suddenly woken up in an unsuspected reality. From that point on almost all the information I uncovered about the state of the natural world, the way we humans live in it and the reasons we behave as we do painted the outlines of a framework that was very near the breaking point. As time went on, I came to understand that we were not just near the breaking point, we were at it.

At that point I was faced with a dilemma -- should I talk about my discovery or keep it to myself? The truth of my new perception proved impossible to communicate to those who had not undergone a similar epiphany, while for those who had, no explanation was necessary. To those who didn't get it, I was speaking pure defeatism. For those who did, it was simple realism. Those who get it understand that to respond to a great crisis you need to understand it fully in order not to waste time pursuing avenues that are unworkable or counterproductive. Those who don't get it look on any such critique as obstructionism that doesn't recognize the boundless inventiveness of the human mind. Those who don't get it think every problem has a solution. Those who do get it understand that we are not facing a problem, but rather a predicament, with the obvious distinction that while problems have solutions, predicaments may not. Those who get it tend to think in terms of adaptations or mitigations, rather than solutions.

Because I have decided to speak my unvarnished perceptions rather than modify them to suit the majority sensibility, I am often derided as being a hopeless doomer. I'm prepared to accept that, because I believe so strongly that the only way we can deal with this boojum is if we can see it as it truly is, and that involves lifting the veils from our eyes -- no matter how unpalatable the resulting view turns out to be.

We need to remember that Cassandra was telling the truth.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Lets see, scales falling from eyes

That would be Saul, just before a conversion experience, where he decided to stop persecuting the Christian faith, and start spreading it under the name of Paul. (Is that what you had in mind?)

So, if I understand you, we should recognize the situation we're in, and do something about it, by fundamentally changing our approach to the world.

Is that what you meant?


Or, did you mean that we should be like Cassandra, and do our very best to warn people, whether they believe us or not?

[GliderGuider]

17. Yes, that would be the metaphor I had in mind.

I think you understand my position very well, with a minor tweak:

We should indeed "recognize the situation we're in, and do something about it, by fundamentally changing our approach to the world."

And those who recognize the danger "should be like Cassandra, and do our very best to warn people, whether they believe us or not."

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Well, then "Amen brother!"

Enough of this attitude of "We're doomed, so let's just lay down and die!"

Instead, how about some, "We've got a real problem on our hands here folks. We've got to do something or we may all die!"

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/">As far as I can tell, this is Hansen's attitude.

[GliderGuider]

21. That's a very appropriate subject line

I'm encouraging people to explore spiritual development and personal transformation as a response to the crisis. Not classical religious belief, mind you -- that's as much a part of the root cause as science and technology. The kind of spiritual shift I think would help is one that promotes the awareness that we are a part of the web of life, rather than apart from it. The spiritual aspects of Deep Ecology and (of course) Buddhism seem very useful in this regard.

This approach is explored in Charles Eisenstein's remarkable book The Ascent of Humanity.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. The "Amen corner" may surprise you

Some "Fundamentalists" are coming to believe that ecology is a fundamental responsibility. Check out this declaration for an example: http://www.baptistcreationcare.org/node/1

…

Statement 1

Humans Must Care for Creation and Take Responsibility for Our Contributions to Environmental Degradation.

There is undeniable evidence that the earth—wildlife, water, land and air—can be damaged by human activity, and that people suffer as a result. When this happens, it is especially egregious because creation serves as revelation of God’s presence, majesty and provision. Though not every person will physically hear God’s revelation found in Scripture, all people have access to God’s cosmic revelation: the heavens, the waters, natural order, the beauty of nature (Psalm 19; Romans 1). We believe that human activity is mixed in its impact on creation—sometimes productive and caring, but often reckless, preventable and sinful.

God’s command to tend and keep the earth (Genesis 2) did not pass away with the fall of man; we are still responsible. Lack of concern and failure to act prudently on the part of Christ-followers reflects poorly to the rest of the world. Therefore, we humbly take responsibility for the damage that we have done to God’s cosmic revelation and pledge to take an unwavering stand to preserve and protect the creation over which we have been given responsibility by Almighty God Himself.

…

Many "mainline" churches came to that conclusion years ago:
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2433457&ct=4577005
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24053
http://acen.anglicancommunion.org/news/index.cfm/2008/4/2/Make-climate-change-legislation-a-priority-Presiding-Bishop-urges-Senate

[tama]

31. I don't consider

the wordly (greedy) evangelists fundamentalists. They don't have faith - except in materialism and violence aka Mammon.

Real fundies are people of real faith in the fundaments, plain and simple people like Amish.

[tama]

30. We will all die

to be human is to be aware that human lives end. It's not about survival and immortality, but how we lived when alive.

That said, the fact (or great likelihood) that human population will drop by big numbers this centure with lot's of suffering to go with is beyond my powers to change. And I don't see the kind of change in collective consciousness happening that would be required. But that does not mean that humans will go extinct in the shortwhile nor does it take away our responsibility for future generations and natural balance.

What we should never do is to claim to know better that Mama Earth. She knows better and this is her game, not ours - who are at best or worst a mere melanoma on her skin. If this melanoma brings really big changes to all life on Earth, maybe that's just Her way to evolve to her next mode of being.

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. Do you not consider yourself to be a part of nature?

If we act to prevent the potential death of the majority of species. Are we not a part of "Mama Earth" acting?

[tama]

36. Yes, participating

as part of nature, larger inclusive whole. But many of us are blinded and alianated by thinking that nature is object to their superior subjecthood.

[GliderGuider]

37. Most people don't consider themselves a part of nature in any meaningful sense.

That is what is keeping us from acting to prevent the deaths of species, including our own.

"Homo economicus" has apparently decided to externalize the costs of maintaining life on this planet. Where he intends to externalize those costs to is less clear...

[OKIsItJustMe]

38. "You and me against the world"

It's this artificial notion that we are not a part of Nature which got us into trouble in the first place.

Now, it stands in the way of our efforts to combat this crisis.

• Some of us believe we are above Nature (we are to subdue Nature.)
• Others believe that we are beneath Nature (that we must surrender to Nature, so that she can heal herself.)

We are a part of Nature.

Earth has faced mass extinctions in the past. However, never before (to out knowledge) has there been a species on Earth, capable of comprehending what was happening, and capable of doing something about it.

[tama]

41. Hologrammic view

For those in search for techno analogy for their place in nature, David Bohm has offered the hologram, in which each part is the whole, only in smaller resolution.

[tama]

29. GliderGuider

I'm also in a middle of divorce. Caused by PO (awareness and denial) to put it bluntly. No lawyers involved and won't be.

[GliderGuider]

35. Awareness of the clusterfuck helped do mine in too.

I spent 3 years researching all the elements of the converging crisis -- Peak Oil, Climate Change, soil and water depletion, food insecurity, economics and finance, politics and the origins of human behaviour -- and integrating all the components into a big picture. The sense of doom that radiated from that effort was so overwhelming that it changed my personality. I spent the entire time in a state of aggressive despair, being contemptuous towards anyone who held out any hope at all –- including my partner and her children.

By the time I found a door out of that box, the relationship was over and my ex-partner’s attitude toward me was "less than magnanimous".

You have my deepest sympathy, tama.

[HamdenRice]

19. Except only a precious few geniuses know the truth!

The neo-Malthusians! Every ideology or theory that posits that humans are cognitively incapable of understanding something must confront the paradox that the ideology or theory positing that universal cognitive disability has somehow been overcome by the holders of that ideology or theory.

So they have to posit that they, and they alone, are supermen with the only correct theory. They therefore have no need to confront facts, theories or models that disagree with the supertheory.

Leninist Bolsheviks; medieval Catholic church; Calvinists -- all the same thing, different clothing.

[GliderGuider]

20. No genius is necessary, just a bit of insight

Nobody with a normal-range intelligence is "cognitively incapable of understanding" these issues. It's more a matter that people have an internal narrative (what I called a "world-view" in that other thread) that they use to describe and give meaning to the world they live in. People have a neuro-psychological need to believe their perceptions are correct, so they reflexively discount, discard or block out any evidence that contradicts their narrative.

Shifting that narrative requires a psychological quantum leap that usually comes in a flash of insight. The person’s intelligence remains unchanged in the process of course, but the way they understand the world can change dramatically in moments. It’s not a case of there being a “secret knowledge” that is only available to an elite. It’s that our internal narratives are reinforced from within (by our own psychology) and without (by the stories our culture tells us) to such an extent that radical shifts in narrative are rare.

The jump from an economic to an ecological consciousness can be catalyzed by new information that is so dramatic that its significance breaks through our psychological protective mechanisms. However, the two modes of perception are so different in the way they analyze the world that a heavy investment in one point of view can preclude the possibility of change even in the face of physical evidence. Since the ecological perspective is so recent, the world at large reinforces the well-entrenched economic world-view. This makes the transition very difficult -- it requires a person to assimilate new information, process old information in a new and radically different way, and do it all in the face of constant negative reinforcement from the media (including people on the Internet), educational systems, political power structures and even the legal system.

Those who do make the shift move their perceptions into a frame of reference that is largely incomprehensible to those still working from the old story. As a result their new perceptions tend to be derogated as “faith-based” because the inner logic of the new frame is not derivable from the old.

[bertman]

25. Excellent explanation, GliderGuider.

[tama]

32. Most people are very mechanical

It takes insight ("Know thyself" as Socrates taught) and good luck to be exposed to wisdom in some form or other to start understanding the mechanisms that guide one's life. That way - and only that way - understanding on more general levels can develop.

Understanding as meant here should not be confused with theoretical knowledge. Understanding is closer to being than knowing.

[wtmusic]

44. So neo-Boserupians are the REAL precious few geniuses

Got it. Thank God there are precious few of them.

[Laelth]

4. k&r for what's REALLY important.

:(

-Laelth

[BrklynLiberal]

5. I have to email this to everyone...

[hatrack]

9. K&R - Say, I just got an email for a 7-day all-expenses vacation package on the Canfield Ocean

Is it a scam, or should I go??

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Go now and beat the rush

I think everybody will be going in a few years.

[file83]

11. Maybe this is what is meant by the "Age of Aquarius" - by 2012 no ice in arctic...

Epiphany?
:smoke:

[bertman]

26. Isn't 2012 the year the Mayan calendar says the world ends?

[tama]

33. Not world

just time - in some form, but not in all forms.

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. Not even time

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-03-27-maya-2012_n.htm

…

But scholars are bristling at attempts to link the ancient Maya with trends in contemporary spirituality. Maya civilization, known for advanced writing, mathematics and astronomy, flourished for centuries in Mesoamerica, especially between A.D. 300 and 900. Its Long Count calendar, which was discontinued under Spanish colonization, tracks more than 5,000 years, then resets at year zero.

"For the ancient Maya, it was a huge celebration to make it to the end of a whole cycle," says Sandra Noble, executive director of the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies in Crystal River, Fla. To render Dec. 21, 2012, as a doomsday or moment of cosmic shifting, she says, is "a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in."

…

Looking for the end of time at some magical date has a long and fabled history.
Some looked for the end of time in the year 666.
Some looked for it in the year 1000.
Some looked for it in the year 1666.
Some looked for it in the year 1984.
Some looked for it in the year 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar#Long_Count


Expecting the world to change when the calendar runs out is like expecting your car to change when the odometer hits 100,000 miles.

[tama]

40. Yes time

if not other time, the time of Mayan calender.

But let's not fool ourselves that there is only one time, same to all.

[OKIsItJustMe]

42. Then, time ends each year for me at Midnight on December 31st

(Until I put up the next year's calendar.)
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/19/no-doomsday-in-2012/

May 19th, 2008

No Doomsday in 2012

Written by Ian O'Neill

…

[Nihil]

43. Nice analogy!

> Expecting the world to change when the calendar runs out is like
> expecting your car to change when the odometer hits 100,000 miles.

:toast:

It may be an occasion for celebration (or dismay) but not, in itself,
any different from previous such 'anniversaries'.