How to stop man made climate change

Executive Summary

1) Educate people of so they know the facts about man made climate change and the effects it will have on the future of the world.

2) Highlight the fact that man made climate change is made worse each time individuals cause the burning of fossil fuels or other materials. Therefore if every one stops burning stuff, especially fossil fuels, we become part of the solution.

3) Vote for Governments that will prioritize addressing the problem of man made climate change..

4) Price non CO2 emitting energy less than fossil fuel energy, so everyone switches because of their own self interest.

5) Introduce carbon taxes to subsidize the transition to low carbon economy,  

6) Start to build a global energy grid, so surplus wind and solar power can be moved to areas of darkness and calm.

7) Build nuclear power stations to back up wind and solar. 

8). Humans need to stop being tribal. To solve the man made climate change problem humans need to work together, as we all need to drastically reduce emissions at the same time, ie now. In order to survive we need to evolve and change our nature.

 

The Batte of Fridaythorpe

 The great thing about going on a long distance walk, is that you meet new people and discover things for yourself, It gets you out of your small pond and into a different world of new experiences and stories.

One such story was encountered on The Yorkshire Wolds Way when we passed through the village of  Fridaythorpe. An information board near the duck pond told of a “battle” that occurred back in the 19th Century, a local punch up that has relevance today.  

The tale was, that back then, Fridaythorpe and another local village (the name of which I can’t recall) each had a well that provided each village with all their essential water. However, in one particularly hot summer, one of the other villages wells' dried up, so it was agreed that they could draw their water from Fridaythorp’s well, which appeared to have plenty of water.

As the hot summer continued, and the drought persisted, Fridaythorpe’s well started to get worryingly low. At a heated meeting the villager’s decided to withdraw the agreement with the other village in order to save the remaining water for themselves. Obviously the other village, who would be left with no water supply, weren’t very happy about this and demanded to be able to draw water as previously agreed. But the people of Fridaythorpe maintained their position and stated that the agreement was not permanent and entirely at their discretion.

Being without water is extremely serious, as you and your animals cannot live, so it’s no surprise that violence broke out and the two villages went to war and fought a pitch battle.  Luckily, it rained the next day.

It’s no surprise this story isn’t widely publicised, or on the village website. It’s not a great moment in local history to be proud of. But it does illustrate a side of human nature that’s very common - when people get rich relative to others, they become less generous, not more. Why share with “others” when your doing fine, particularly when things are getting serious? Deep down, humans are tribal beings and  put themselves and their clan first.

In his book Metazoa, Peter Godfrey-Smith writes, “Often in evolution, an animal will be set up in a particular way for one set of circumstances, and then may find itself in a very different setting. When this happens, you will find yourself with a way of being, a way of relating to things, that is inherited from the earlier context. This might bring advantages or problems. Things will present themselves in a particular way and particular roads will be open - or relatively open- while others are not”.

Well, in our increasingly globalised world, that is changing rapidly because of the internet, global travel/trade and man made climate change, we are finding our selves in a very different setting to that encountered by our predecessors. The roads ahead are all new.

But let’s not choose a road similar to the one taken by the villagers of Fridaythorpe, back in the 19th Century.

Update Aug 24. In his excellent book "Why War?" Richard Overy highlights that changes to the environment have historically been triggers for violence and the Fridaythorpe battle would fall in to this category. However,  he makes the point that such violence is usually a local problem and highlights that today aid  would normally come from unaffected areas further afield or from national Governments, so predictions of violence due to man made climate change are currently overstated.

The impacts of Climate Change

 The impacts of man made climate change that I have read in respected newspapers, magazines, books and websites are:-

1. Increased rate of glacier retreat.

2. Less sea ice in antarctic and arctic.

3. Increased rate of melting of Green land ice cap and other land ice.

4. Sea level rise due to land ice melting and ocean expansion leading to increased coastal erosion and flooding.

5. Greater risk of ice melt water lakes bursting.

6.4% reduction in the strength of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream due to fresh water from the Greenland  ice cap altering salinity of the ocean.

7. A change in the tilt of the earths axis due to changes in the distribution of fresh water.

8. Greater evaporation from the oceans.

9. Increase in frequency of storms.

10.Increase in the intensity of storms ie windier weather.

11. Higher levels of precipitation ie more down pours.

12. Greater risk of flooding from storms.

13. Greater risk of man made dams being breached.

14. More frequent heat waves.

15. Hotter heat waves.

16. Increased desertification.

17. Acidification of oceans leading to coral reef collapse and shell fish extinctions.

18. Melting of permafrost, leading to rotting of peat, generating CO2 and methane.

19. Increased risk of peat ground fires.

20. Increased rates of under sea methyl hydrates melting.

21. Melting of permafrost and destablisation of building foundations.

22. Increased risk of landslide due to high rain fall.

23. Increased frequency of droughts.

24. Increased duration of droughts.

25. Increased risk of wild fires.

26. Increased soil erosion.

27. Greater risk of crop failure leading to famine especially in the tropics.

28. Damage to existing ecosystems.

29. Migration of warmth tolerant species to cooler climates.

30. Migration of topical diseases to cooler climates that are now warming.

31. Extinction of species that cannot migrate.

32. Mass migration of humans from areas that become too hot, stormy or flooded.

33. Increased mortality of humans due to heat stress, flooding, ecosystem collapse, wildfires, storms.

34. Large Economic expenditure adapting to man made climate change ie repairs to damaged infrastructure and buildings.

35. Large Economic expenditure preventing man made climate change.

36. Large Economic expenditure developing and implementing large scale climate mitigation projects.

37. Increased risk of war (and violence to migrants) as humanity fights over the land and resources that become more valuable in a hotter world.

38. Man made climate change has permanently changed the earth, hence the new geological period the Anthropocene.

39. Reduced mental health in humans particularly for young people (which is cured by coming to terms with the reality of man made climate change and taking positive action against it). 

40, Increased stratification of the oceans as surface water warms but mixes less.

41. Increased oxygen depletion in seas and oceans.

42. Cancellation of outdoor events such as music concerts, fairs and sporting events.

43 Increased insurance costs 

44. Ground water depletion.

45. Changes to food prices, most likely up. 

46. Increasing the number of air conditioning units from 1.6 billion units to 5 billion units in 2050 also increasing energy demands and HFC refrigerants which are green house gases.

47. The jet streams are being pushed further north in the northern hemisphere and further south in the southern hemisphere. 

48. Extreme El Nino events will have twice as frequently.

Sycamore Gap or Rosebank Oil field, Which is the Greater Crime?

 It may be because I‘m a Sheffielder, who has witnessed many of our street trees being felled, but I can’t get worked up about the felling of a single sycamore tree on Hadrian’s wall. Especially when it occurred a few days after the UK Government announced it would be opening up new oil and gas fields, loosening its commitment to phase out gas boilers and pushing back targets to stop selling petrol and diesel cars. In my eyes both acts are wrong, but one is criminal vandalism and the other is a crime against humanity.

The motives of the vandals is currently unknown, but if they were trying, by the sacrifice of a single tree, to open our eyes to show how blind we are, I have to congratulate them on a job well done. The tree, because it is so wonderfully photogenic,  is world famous, being framed in perfect symmetry between two sinuously curving hills. It’s unforgettable image is ideal for our tiny screens that we now use to experience the world. Its destruction has left a hole in our lives and generated an outpouring of emotion.

But are we so obsessed with our tiny screens, screens that only allow us to view the world through a business controlled keyhole, that we have become blind to the bigger picture and what is really important?

Can we not see that the felling of this single sycamore, is insignificant compared to the damage that will be caused by the extra carbon dioxide emitted because of our Governments recent policy announcements?.  The felling of this tree harmed no one, but more CO2 in the atmosphere will damage the planet and will lead to more human suffering. 

Just because policy announcements don’t make a stunning photo, can we not see who the real criminals are?

What has the Holocaust, the Holodomor and Genocides got to do with man made Climate Change?

 After visiting Berlin a few years ago, I wanted to learn why the holocaust occurred, and if it was possible to prevent similar events ever happening again. After reading and thinking about this troubling subject, I learnt that the circumstances and mindset of it's perpetrators has been common throughout history, it is just that in modern times, we have the means to carry out slaughter on a massive scale.

Firstly, it must be accepted that people like the Nazi’s, Hutu militias or Stalinist's are not monsters. They did monstrous, evil acts, but they were perfectly rational human beings. When they faced trial, they behaved just like any other criminal would. Many didn’t think they had done anything wrong, and went to their deaths unrepentant. To simply call them monsters, is to deny their humanity, which makes the problem too easy for us to dismiss. We must accept they were humans, just like us, and try to understand why and how they carried out such evil acts. We have to accept, that if we had grown up in Germany, Russia or Rwanda just prior to the Holocaust, Holodomor or Rwandan Genocide, it is highly likely that we too would have also participated, or done nothing too stop, crimes, awful crimes, against humanity.

Not any easy truth to acknowledge, but once accepted, understanding can develop and then prevention.

So having accepted the horrific fact that normal human beings are  capable of great evil against others, why does it happen? Well the key word is “others”. Crimes against humanity are always carried out against others. And prior to the crimes occurring, these others will have been portrayed as “lesser others” - People who are of lower status, inferior, unimportant, or descendants of some perceived past crime, such as migration or stealers of wealth. If this portrayal is carried to such an extreme, those other human beings are seen as not equal, as animals, filth, coach roaches or sub human, or, if they hold different religious or political views, as wrong, or just simply, such as rainforest people, not considered at all.If this is the case, then any cruel and barbarous act against them can be portrayed as actually doing good, similar to an act of cleansing, or progress or improvement to the world. If this view is widely held in a society, then genocides can, and in the past, frequently have happened.

Especially, when those views are held by those in power. When this occurs, even if the general population does not hold these views, the elites, by passing laws and rewarding those who enforce and obey those laws, can control behaviour to such a high degree that individuals will not stand up and speak out against, what becomes, the perceived majority view. To do so will mean a long prison sentence, reprisals against loved ones or even execution. Few have the moral courage required, and the elites ensure those that do, cannot join and work together. The elites know that if dissenters get organised, they become more powerful and pose a threat to their privileged position. At the first sign of trouble, alternative views are crushed. And so the genocide, holocaust and holodomor is permitted by almost everyone.*

What’s this got to do with our current problem of man-made Climate Change? Well, I’m getting worried. I see parallels in how we are thinking about man-made climate change, and how genocides have occurred in the past.

Because, when it comes to the issue of global warming, the “others” this time includes billions of  “future others“, Those “others” cannot vote today because they are yet to be born. Their needs, wants and lives are not heard, are not equal, not considers and seen to be of less importance to our own, They can be easily dismissed and ignored. By radically altering the planet, will we not be harming them before they even exist?

Because, when it comes to the issue of burning fossil fuels, are we not committing genocide, not against other humans, but this time against other species, whose habitats are being destroyed? The world of the Emperor Penguins and the Polar Bear are being rendered, for them, uninhabitable. The vast majority of us know this, but do we do anything? Are we not just looking the other way, while the concentration camps are in full operation, pumping out their carbon dioxide rather than Zyklon B and carrying out unseen mass murder on an industrial scale ?

Because, when it comes to rising planetary temperatures, are we, especially in wealthy high emitting countries not treating the "others" who live in the tropics, as human beings whose lives, wants and desires are  unimportant compared to ours? Are we not treating them as un-equals, as lesser beings?

Thermometers don’t lie. And we shouldn’t lie to ourselves, we are all capable of evil acts.And the future may look back on the continued burning of fossil fuels, as the most evil act of them all. 

* There is now an excellent book called Bystander Society by Prof Mary Fulbrook on this process. This book together with Orwell's 1984 should be read by everyone.)

Why the Majority accept Man Made Climate Change, but take no action

 

Because it is a simple fact of physics, that the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the hotter the world becomes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) concluded it's latest report that, with very high confidence, Man Made Climate Change is

“a threat to human well being and planetary health. There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all.,,,,,,,  The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts now and for thousands of years.” (paragraph C1 of headline statements IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report)  

So the worlds leading scientists, who have been studying our home planet all their lives, couldn't make it any clearer. Drastically and rapidly reduce green house gas emissions or we're F***ed.

What has been the response to this report and the news that we are messing up the planet for at least the next thousand years? ………..Well, here in the UK, tackling man made climate change is just not a vote winner. A threat to human well being and planetary health is deemed un important compared to rising bills, a failing health service and no longer being able to afford a holiday to Disney World. Meanwhile, Global oil consumption continues to rise, CO2 levels continue to increase and the world gets hotter at rates faster than the scientists predicted. It's like that old comedy sketch were the news presenter says. “The Government has announced that due to an incoming asteroid, the world will end at 2pm next Thursday. Here are the football results. Arsenal 2 Man Utd…..”  

Why are the vast majority of people, governments and political parties, not taking man made climate change seriously? There are several factors and excuses, all of which are unjustifiable.

1) It's Historically Unprecedented Nothing like this, on such a large scale, has ever happened before. There is no text book, historical records,  or even any religious guidance on how to handle such a global  modern problem. But just because it has never happened before, doesn't  mean it isn't happening and we can ignore it;

2) The implications are so serious it's almost incomprehensible.  It is almost unbelievable that our civilization, which is currently based on cheap energy provided by fossil fuels, is about to wreck the world. Can it be true that every time we do such innocent and mundane things such as use our cars, cook our diners or heat our homes, it causes irreparable damage? Well individually it has very little effect , but when 7 billions of us continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere and that CO2 will stay there for centuries, it will wreck the world.

3) It's so very inconvenient  Changing our highly enjoyable, comfortable, happy way of life is just such a pain. It will upset the great, high consuming, high emitting party we (especially in the developed western world) have been having. It's not something any of us wants to do, but to continue burning fossil fuels is irresponsible and will kill billions when vast areas of our planet ie the tropics are no longer habitable. We would be causing a global mass murder, a slow motion holocaust, a famine, a destruction of unprecedented scale. Think this is an exaggeration - last year the heatwave killed 62,000 in Europe alone, and this doesn't include heat waves in India or floods in Pakistan Libya, wildfires in Hawaii, Greece, US or storms all around the world. As matters will only get worse, or more likely, much worse, the excess deaths year on year will soon reach millions.   
,
4) Carbon dioxide is invisible. Unlike smoke, litter, plastic in the oceans, sewage in rivers, you cannot see green house gases. It doesn't make a dramatic photo like black smoke, filth in rivers or piles of rubbish on a beach. Therefore emissions are much more difficult to witness and promote as something that we should take seriously - its easy to dismiss, as its not visible. We can’t see it on social media, so it easy to ignore it. However, in the long term it is as deadly as smoke, and will not clear when the fire is out. It will linger, and because planetary processes take centuries to scrub it out of the air, it will continue to warm the world.

5) Climate change proceeds at a slow pace that is difficult to perceive. Until recently climate change has only been visible in data, charts and graphs. It is impossible to experience climate change directly as events such as wild fires, heat waves and floods occur, but in far parts of the world, and  then pass and normal weather resumes. Only over decades can frequency trends be determined. Our memories are inaccurate, we remember only what we want to remember, so weird weather banished from our minds. Man made climate change is perceived as important, but not urgent and because it takes thinking and imagination, it's hard to comprehend. Also, why be bothered about the serious consequences, when they will only  arise after the next election or after your life time?

6) There has not been, and there is unlikely to be, a single massive disaster event. It is unlikely that there will be a Chernobyl, or  a Great Stink or Titanic event that will make the seriousness of inaction concerning man made climate change undeniable to all. The slowly worsening climate will creep up the temperature scale and one generation after another will look at old photos and films not really knowing when it started or how to get everyone to act. Perhaps if London and a few other cities flooded at the same time, or the Matterhorn collapsed or a world wide famine occurred, perhaps the majority would finally demand action. However no such cataclysm is likely to occur so its full steam ahead in our old mindset, thinking planet earth is unsinkable.

7) Technology will Solve the problem. "No need to act as someone has just invented…." These story's are common and provide the comfort, but the false assumption, that we can invent our way out of any problem. Carbon sequestration, fusion power, hydrogen fuel, geo engineering - none have been tested or developed at a global scale and who is going to pay for it? If there's no profit it wont happen. The easiest solution remains to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to renewables supported by nuclear. Why not just do that? 

8) Targets have been set. Great news, there's no need to act as in 2050 we will be at net zero, So we can all ignore the problem today and keep on emitting. It’s a pity CO2 levels will be rising until the year 2049 and  that the next generation will have an even hotter world and an almost impossible  problem  to solve.However don't worry as in 2049, the Government will set new targets so the problem will be solved! Perhaps someone might have realized by then that targets are not action and achieve nothing.

9) We can adapt. Here, man made climate change isn’t even a problem. We will adapt to the hotter world and crank up the air conditioning. However, those that cannot adapt will suffer and perish and continuing emissions means the world will just get hotter and hotter and hotter until we are fully adapted to a planet that is just a rock devoid of all life apart from ourselves. Science fiction? Well it's true that millions of years ago, in the Eocene and Permian, the earth was much warmer than today and despite mass extinction,s life continued. But whether today's ecosystems can cope the unprecedented rate of change caused by man made climate change is unknown and the risks of our scorched earth experiment are existential.  Why take the risk and isn't it more comfortable to live in today's world or tomorrows hot house?

10) Man made Climate Change isn't commercial. Newspapers, magazines, media must make money (or get clicks on phones) to survive, and most people don't want to know that we are trashing the planet let alone pay for this bad news. So this commercial reality means the seriousness of global warming is underplayed in the media and a bias emerges towards towards new tech solutions, a down playing of the data and more generally, a lack of acknowledgement that anything can be done,  There seems to be a mind set of "keep the readers happy" or people will go elsewhere. The historian Neil Oliver has recently called for the media to stop terrifying people with scare stories - ie we don't want to know! Therefore it is only "not for profit organisations" such as the United Nations that are presenting the true picture. 

11) Our selfish genes mean we act in our own self interest, rather than for the common good.  In the competition of life and our biological drive to pass on our genes, we delude ourselves that we are the most important thing in the universe and prioritize our own needs over those of others. Therefore as long as I’m doing great, what does it matter about others and future others? Co operating at a species level doesn't come naturally to us and so far there is no sign that our intelligence will conquer our nature . However evolution will teach us co operate or our population will collapse.

12) Why should I act when the Chinese aren’t. To stop climate Change everyone must act, now. This means taking personal responsibility and accepting you are part of the problem, but also part of the solution. Expecting others to solve the problem and doing nothing yourself is not going to work. Inactivity by others is not an excuse for not acting your self. If every one uses this excuse, nothing happens and we all burn (as the UN has pointed out).

13) Doomster dismissal. Those who are making a fuss can be dismissed as, emotional, on the spectrum, cranks or over exaggerating, It's the usual tactic that if you can't defeat the argument, rubbish the messenger. However you can't change the laws of physics, and more CO2 in the atmosphere means it just gets hotter and hotter and hotter, whoever is annoyingly banging on about it.

14 Environmental protesters are hypocrites as they use oil based products too. To accuse  protesters as hypocrites, ie someone who says you are doing something wrong, when they are doing exactly the same thing, does not change the fact that both you and them are doing a something wrong. It may give you an excuse, or comfort, for continuing your bad action, but it also shows that deep down you know it is morally wrong and both you and the protesters need to change their behavior. 

15) I refuse to be guilty for the way I live. Calling for action on climate change is not about making any one feel guilty. The past is the past and cannot be changed. Being a boomer I've racked up my carbon foot print with global travel and driving all over the country. Its about changing now for the future, of doing the right thing rather than the easy thing, about making the world better not worse.

16) Economics and democracies are not the best system to bring about swift change.  Our civilization needs energy and our economic systems are set up to always favour the cheapest option. Fossil fuels are cheap. They come out the ground almost ready to use, and because we can vent the waste produced after use into the atmosphere for zero cost, this form of highly concentrated energy is cheap. Therefore our economies have been build on cheap fossil fuels, as the future costs of dealing with the problems of global warming are all future costs for some else to pay. Economists are now saying that these hidden costs (externalities, because they are external to the market) should be paid for by introducing a carbon tax that can be used to pay for the transition to renewables (estimated at an Annual global bill of $2.7 trillion to reach net zero by 2050); but who will vote for this increase in tax, especially when climate change does not directly effect their lives? Only by educating the majority of the long term implications of man made climate change, and the need to act swiftly for the benefit of everyone, will a democracy embrace the transition to renewables. The earth is priceless, out side of economics and you can't buy another earth.

17) Whats the cost benefit analysis of tackling man made climate change - isn't it cheaper to do nothing? How do you put a cost on the world you live in, the lives wrecked or the damage caused by heat waves, fires, storms, floods and ecosystem collapse? The situation is so risky that we can't afford to wait for more data. What is obvious is that the longer you put off making a decision to solve a problem, it will get more and more expensive, Do you fix a roof at the first sign of a leak, or wait until all the timbers are rotten too? 

18 Man made global warming is a long term problem. The current UK Tory Government is opening up new oil fields and coal mines because their decisions are based on a 1 year time frame ie the 2024 general election. The UK Labour party, that will probably be elected, will have a 5 year decision making time horizon. Environmentalists have a 25 year mindset and scientist take a long term 75 - 1000 year time frame. With this in mind it can be understood why everyone is disagreeing. But which is the most intelligent perspective? As the issue is so serious, I'm with the scientists.

19 The green policies are being portrayed as infringements to civil Liberties. The introduction of the Ultra low emissions zone to all of London has been imposed on Londoners with high daily charges and little public debate. Resistance to this well meaning but clumsy, and for some punitive, policy, has been  seized upon by the political right, as a policy of  those in power reducing our freedom in order to reduce pollution and achieve net zero. This highlights that in a democracy, the majority of people must accept the need for change, and policy must be inline with the demands of the people. Therefore debate and education and general acceptance must proceed green policies. Green policies are not about infringing freedoms, they are about protecting our future and the planet in which we live.

20) it’s the economy Stupid. Because most lack the comprehension, imagination and intelligence to grasp the reality that climate change will, at a minimum radically alter, and at worst destroy our civilization, we continue to plough on full steam ahead with our same old policies head long into disaster. When it comes to man made climate change, there is a leadership vacuum and democracy is unlikely to deliver one. No wonder our young people are losing faith in politics.

For all of the above reasons we lack the moral courage to speak the truth about how we are living and its consequences. We lack the bravery to acknowledge reality and accept responsibility for what we are doing to our world.
    
To spare ourselves the mental discomfort, we adopt an intellectual blindness. We veil the unpleasant truths from view by half closing our eyes – and our minds. We make panicky excuses and shrug off undeniable facts  with words like adaption, net zero, and sequestration, knowing full well that the only answer is to change our highly damaging life styles and stop burning fossil fuels.  We steer around the subject and In order to live with ourselves, we have to smear the reality out of recognition with verbal camouflage and techno babble.* We fight to maintain our delusion.

Such a response is only human, but the sooner we all accept the consequences of inaction, and take meaningful steps to sustainability by drastically reducing our CO2 emission, the better for humanity, the planet and the future. 

I don't like it, I don't suppose you like it, but we have no other option.

 

*Adapted from the writings of Kravchenko, a perpetrator of the Holomodor. Please don't fall into the same mind set that killed 4 million people, by taking their food away.

PS if you come across "Its all a hoax designed to control us" - just ask who ever is saying it for their reasoning and evidence. It's then easy to point them in the direction of reality.. 

Burning fossil fuels is a Crime against humanity

 The UN definition of a ‘crime against humanity’ is inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: 

 A simple internet search  within seconds gives the following stats - European 2022 heatwave causes 62,000 deaths, in 2021 Particulates kill 330,000 in India (BBC 26/10/22), Pakistan 2022 floods kill 1500. Such figures caused UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres to respond  man made “climate change is killing us”.

 With such large numbers of deaths already occurring, and because global consumption of oil and gas shows no sign of rapidly falling as required, the situation is at best, going to get worse, or more likely, get much worse, so as we now have the indisputable knowledge of the harm caused, isn’t it time to start calling the burning of fossil fuels a Crime against Humanity*?

The holomodor and holocaust occurred, because people deluded themselves that other people were less important than themselves, and invoked a mental blindness to justify their actions, or their decision to look the other way. Today, we rightly condemn those who perpetrated or failed to stop these darkest hours of humanity’s past. But are we not showing signs of the same mental blindness towards today's slow motion global holocaust? We know that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes death, and if we choose to ignore such facts, are we not complicit in the killing of fellow human beings?

Despite tensions, the US and China have held meetings  in order to work together on the control of emission. Hopefully they have recognised the seriousness of the situation. Why can’t the UK parties also have talks, so that there is a cross party consensus on policy?  Man made Climate change is far more serious than Politics and we all have a duty to work together to make the world better, not worst.

*We now have the knowledge that man made climate change is causing great harm and if we continue to make the situation worse  by choosing to ignore this knowledge, we are intentionally causing great suffering - a crime against humanity.

 

A 1.5 degree Course Change?

 In his short story Typhoon, Joseph Conrad, the early 20th century author famous for his tales of the sea,  describes the story of a steam ship and its Captain, who  “having just enough imagination to carry him through the day, and no more“, ignores the conventional wisdom to avoid early signs of bad weather and steams straight into a vicious storm. A fight for survival ensues.

“I don’t believe you can make a man like that understand anything“ despairs Jukes, the first mate, when the Captain misunderstands his indignation that, rather than sail under his native red ensign, the ship sets sail under a foreign flag.

“What’s the matter with the flag“ says Captain Mac Whirr “it looks alright to me“.

Conrad sums up the Captain’s mundane character thus -“The sea itself…..had never put itself out to startle the silent man, who seldom looked up, who wandered innocently over the waters with the only visible purpose of getting food, raiment and house-room for his family ashore…..Captain MacWhirr had sailed over the surface of the oceans as some men go skimming over the years of existence to sink gently into a placid grave, ignorant of life to the last….. Had he been informed by an indisputable authority that the end of the world was to be finally accomplished by a catastrophic disturbance of the atmosphere, he would have assimilated the information under the simple idea of dirty weather, and no other, because he had no experience of cataclysm, and belief does not necessarily imply comprehension.”

Jukes tries to respectfully warn of the approaching Typhoon by telling the Captain “what ever there might be about, we are heading straight into it”.

At the suggestion of a change of course the Captain explodes “To Eastward? You want me to haul a full powered steamship four points to eastward just to make the Chinamen comfortable?….What put it into your head that I would start to tack a steamer as if she were a sailing ship? …..suppose I went swinging off my course and came in two days late and they ask me ‘where have you been all that time?’ ‘Went around to dodge bad weather‘ I would say. ’Must have been dam’ bad weather ‘ they would say. ‘Don‘t know‘ I would have to say ‘I dodged clear of it.’”

So its full ahead into the storm. The ship, crew and passengers take a battering, only just survive  and arrive in port looking like a wreck. After Conrad’s wonderful descriptive prose he ends the story concluding that the skipper “ got out of it very well for such a stupid man“.


I’m struck by the relevance of this short story, from over a century ago, to our modern world. 

Are we  not being warned by scientists of approaching bad weather and all the disruptive effects of human induced climate change? Are we not full steam ahead in our high tech world, detached from nature, ploughing on at full throttle into a  massive storm of our own making?. Like captain MacWhirr, do we not lack the imagination and sense to take avoiding action, but by putting our faith in new inventions. think that we will be able to ride out the rough seas and make it to better times ahead?

We will shortly exceed 1.5 degrees C of human induced global warming and temperatures will keep rising beyond that. A few decades ago, our governments set targets. but then did nothing of any consequence. We were warned what was coming, but like Captain MacWhirr, lacked the imagination to see it. We now think we can adapt or invent a technological solution and delude ourselves we are detached from nature, like a steamer independent of the wind.  We are still unable to accept why it is vital that we lose our addiction to fossil fuels as it is not urgent, but very important. And how can we explain at a future date why we changed, if no disasters occurred? Similarly, as Conrad highlights. we cannot comprehend the approaching cataclysm, as we have no experience of it. But  change we must, because the difference between Conrad’s story and ours is, the coming storm will not pass, it will be permanent

How stupid are we?

But It’s never too late to change course. As Captain MacWhirr says "She ain't lost yet".
 

The use of the world is ultimately a personal matter

" What happens under the rule of specialization [of labour] is that, though society becomes more and more intricate, it has less and less structure. It becomes more and more organised, but less and less orderly. The community disintegrates because it loses the necessary understandings, forms, and enactments of the relations among materials and processes, principles and actions, ideals and realities, past and present, present and future, men and women, body and spirit, city and country, civilization and wilderness, growth and decay, life and death - just as the individual character loses the sense of responsible involvement in these relationships.

The only possible guarantee of the future is responsible behaviour in the present. When supposed future needs are used to justify misbehaviour in the present [or equally, supposed present needs used to ignore the future], as is the tendency with us, then we are both perverting the present and diminishing the future…..

Although responsible use may be defined, advocated, and to some extent required by organisations, it cannot be implemented or enacted by them. The use of the world is finally a personal matter, and the world can be preserved in health only by the forbearance and care of a multitude of persons."

- THE UNSETTLING OF AMERICA by Wendell Berry 1987

The words above resonate with me, so I repeat them here for you. Does not the first paragraph describe the modern world, the second our current denial of our responsibilities, and the third the fact that we can't rely on Governments, Companies or Institutions to resolve the problem of man made pollution of the air, sea and land?