Going To War With Planet Earth
There are many spectacular moments in history that we can pinpoint as epicentres of resounding change; historical earthquakes of such significance that their shockwaves thundered through time, altering the course of the human trajectory. Some of these events in history are easier to spot than others; the lineage of the First World War, for example, is often traced back to Gabrilo Princip, who on the 28th June 1914 murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sofie in a side street in Sarajevo. But the story is made more difficult when it comes to periods in history where something didn’t happen. How much of the present do we owe to the Cuban missile crisis? Whether the choice not to press the red button can be described as a turning point is debatable but, when the alternative reality is Armageddon, it’s undeniable that this moment of inaction changed everything. In the present day we enter a similar paradigm…
One thing that has always interested me is the question of whether people who lived through these landmark, transitionary, moments had any clue that they were. When Martin Luther nailed his theses into the church door at Wittenburg, did the residents of surrounding towns have any sense of what was to happen next? Did the early Victorians realize that they were on a scientific and philosophical precipice when Charles Darwin published his Origin of species? I ask these questions now out of desperation. Because what seems to face humankind now is like nothing we have faced before and yet the silence is resounding. No birth, no death, no war, no reformation can compare to what the Homo sapien could endure this century. As this time, for the first time, we battle extinction.
One thing that has always interested me is the question of whether people who lived through these landmark, transitionary, moments had any clue that they were. When Martin Luther nailed his theses into the church door at Wittenburg, did the residents of surrounding towns have any sense of what was to happen next? Did the early Victorians realize that they were on a scientific and philosophical precipice when Charles Darwin published his Origin of species? I ask these questions now out of desperation. Because what seems to face humankind now is like nothing we have faced before and yet the silence is resounding. No birth, no death, no war, no reformation can compare to what the Homo sapien could endure this century. As this time, for the first time, we battle extinction.
1979
Scientists travelled the world for it. The World Climate Conference would be the first of its kind — an opportunity for a thorough discussion about the unusual and complex phenomenon called ‘climate change’. Though the idea of climate being susceptible to human influence wasn’t new, a lack of definitive scientific research had quelled any reason to panic. Things would remain business as usual. But the scientists who congregated in Geneva from the 12–23 February 1979 planned to change that; experts from a myriad of disciplines would present a series of papers commissioned by the World Meteorological Organization[1], which would provide a clearer picture about what on earth was going on.
And it is the consensus that these scientists reached, almost 40 years ago, which makes the following story all the more devastating. Because they not only clearly identified human activity as a significant contributor to detrimental change in climate, but they predicted the worst-case scenarios if the issue was ignored. They specified, in detail, what the millennium would look like without radical changes and created a blueprint to do just that.
The chair of the conference, Robert M. White, said this in his opening speech:
“In little more than twenty years, we will celebrate the year 2000. This millennium may very well represent the ending of one era in the relation of humanity to the planet and the beginning of another. The millennium may mark a fundamental change in the ability of the planet to sustain its people or at least in the ways in which this will be done. There are many who will disagree with the timing of this fundamental change but few who will disagree with its likelihood. By any criteria, whether relating to population, food, energy, or the state of the global environment, we are likely to pass to a new world condition around the year 2000. This transition will also signal a new level of importance of climate to society.”
The chair of the conference, Robert M. White, said this in his opening speech:
“In little more than twenty years, we will celebrate the year 2000. This millennium may very well represent the ending of one era in the relation of humanity to the planet and the beginning of another. The millennium may mark a fundamental change in the ability of the planet to sustain its people or at least in the ways in which this will be done. There are many who will disagree with the timing of this fundamental change but few who will disagree with its likelihood. By any criteria, whether relating to population, food, energy, or the state of the global environment, we are likely to pass to a new world condition around the year 2000. This transition will also signal a new level of importance of climate to society.”
Ominous, isn’t it? In 1979, we knew. Not only the science behind global warming, but how significant a conference like this was. It marked another crux around which our future hinged, and the language used throughout the two-week event supports this; it was almost utopic with optimism: “We can contribute to a bright future for mankind by national and international actions … to improve the economic and environmental welfare of people everywhere and to mitigate destructive impacts of climate,” said White. “This conference can be the beginning of that process,” he finished.
An unfortunate coincidence
Of course, 1979 wouldn’t be the turning point which White would have liked. But it was a turning point nevertheless; in May that year, Margaret Thatcher’s conservative government won a landslide victory in the UK, and her premiership was utterly transformative. Thatcher ushered in a new era of economic policy that would take off globally and become known as neoliberalism, a modification of free-market capitalism that enshrined corporate freedoms and crippled state power. But importantly, and often overlooked, the new consensus that Thatcher implemented destroyed the post-war spirit of collectivism. Community was out, and the individual was in. Gone was society — and with it was any hope of averting catastrophic climate change.
While the scientists in Geneva agonized over how they would advance scientific research while convincing governments of the threat, they had no idea of the rumblings in the political sphere which would undermine their goals. Ignorant of this, the tone of the conference was one of self-criticism; the scientists believed that the limiting factor in avoiding climate change would, essentially, be them:
While the scientists in Geneva agonized over how they would advance scientific research while convincing governments of the threat, they had no idea of the rumblings in the political sphere which would undermine their goals. Ignorant of this, the tone of the conference was one of self-criticism; the scientists believed that the limiting factor in avoiding climate change would, essentially, be them:
“what we do about climate issues depends upon the state of our scientific knowledge. Only to the extent that we have understanding can we help our governments. Governments wish to know where to focus effort and resources. The international resources that can be made available to deal with climatic problems are limited … because the number of scientists capable of working effectively on these problems is limited.”
If White could have known then what we know now — that these same governments would become more interested in private interests than planetary ones — I doubt that his words would have been so sympathetic to those in power. “Although the problem itself is extremely difficult, there seem no grounds for pessimism. Science has always managed to find solutions to such urgent problems for mankind,” he continued. What alluded him, though, was that ‘finding the solutions’ would be the first and smallest battle.
The scientists were forward-thinking visionaries at the cutting-edge of a scientific revolution of sorts, and yet they were always two steps behind the new capitalist agenda that was moving in parallel… Indeed, fossil fuel companies had been aware of the damage they were causing since 1977, two years before the conference was even convened…
Exxon had the foresight to conduct its own scientific research into climate change before the issue became mainstream. This ingenious move of pragmatism gave the company years to build their defences and prepare a strategy to deal with the fight-back that would ensue once the science became certified public knowledge. In July 1977, a leading scientist at Exxon, James Black, told the management committee that “man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.” And from this point on the mission was clear; to do everything possible to ensure that a climate movement would not, or could not, prevent the company from continuing its carbon-intensive pursuit of profit.
And they were remarkably successful. You only need to look at who sits in the white house (and who his secretary of state is) to see that the culture and consensus that the energy giants helped to create, paid for in cold hard cash, was worth every penny. But how did they do it? Well, thanks to a few leaked documents[2] and an exposed trail of capital, we can develop an idea of the scale of the cynical, wildly-efficient campaign that was driven by corporations to sabotage a blossoming climate movement.
Indeed, climate-denialism wasn’t so much a rational scepticism to bold new science as it was an engineered attempt by a rich elite to secure assets and cling on to the status quo. In 1989, Exxon would help launch the Global Climate Coalition. This lobbying operation, made up of the biggest players in the game — including Shell, BP and Texaco — spearheaded climate scepticism and waged war against measures that would limit greenhouse gas emissions. Undoubtedly, preventing the USA’s participation in the landmark Kyoto Protocol was the GCC’s biggest victory; and one which cost them $13 million in advertising; however, advertising was but one part of a multiple-pronged strategy designed by the carbon oligarchs to protect themselves from regulation.
Ten years later, the American Petroleum Institute created a ‘Global Climate Science Communications Plan’, a document that in hindsight makes for some pretty jaw-dropping reading. What is so fascinating about this document is how brazen it is; the plan is so sincere in its malevolence, so honest, that you can imagine it being drafted by a cartoon villain, tucked away in a remote fortress laughing manically. A memo, for instance, involves a 5-point description of what ultimate victory is, and it reads as follows: [victory will be achieved when:]
Indeed, climate-denialism wasn’t so much a rational scepticism to bold new science as it was an engineered attempt by a rich elite to secure assets and cling on to the status quo. In 1989, Exxon would help launch the Global Climate Coalition. This lobbying operation, made up of the biggest players in the game — including Shell, BP and Texaco — spearheaded climate scepticism and waged war against measures that would limit greenhouse gas emissions. Undoubtedly, preventing the USA’s participation in the landmark Kyoto Protocol was the GCC’s biggest victory; and one which cost them $13 million in advertising; however, advertising was but one part of a multiple-pronged strategy designed by the carbon oligarchs to protect themselves from regulation.
Ten years later, the American Petroleum Institute created a ‘Global Climate Science Communications Plan’, a document that in hindsight makes for some pretty jaw-dropping reading. What is so fascinating about this document is how brazen it is; the plan is so sincere in its malevolence, so honest, that you can imagine it being drafted by a cartoon villain, tucked away in a remote fortress laughing manically. A memo, for instance, involves a 5-point description of what ultimate victory is, and it reads as follows: [victory will be achieved when:]
· Average citizens “understand” (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional wisdom”
· Media “understands” (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
· Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current “conventional wisdom”
· Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
· Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.”
A side-note of this reads: “Unless ‘climate change’ becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts.”
Mind-blowingly impudent, right? And yet they clearly had grounds to be confident, because the API did achieve, to varying degrees, every one of the above facets of ‘victory’. And they did it with the help of (you guessed it) Exxon, who had direct involvement in drafting the plan.
The roadmap for victory was layered. Firstly, the API intended to “identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach.” But it was not only adults who the carbon corporations needed to influence; they were thinking long-term, and this involved targeting the next generation of children who would be most at risk by a warming planet. Anti-scientific materials like the following began to find their way into schools[3] — and make no mistake, this problem still persists today.
“What if it weren’t easy to fuel a car? Or what if it were more expensive?… If airplanes and trucks couldn’t be fuelled easily or it was more expensive to fuel them, how would that affect products you and your parents buy in stores?….Did you know that CD players, DVDs, ink, some clothing, computers, containers, telephones, and toothpaste are also petroleum products?… What would your life be like without these?”
They didn’t stop there. Some industry groups stooped so low as to forge letters, using the name of marginal non-profit organizations — including the NAACP — to sway members of congress to vote against key clean energy measures[4]. Others resorted to outright bribery and forked out millions to US senators and representatives to ensure their loyalty. The chokehold of these corporations over political democracy in the West is astounding; over 100 million dollars of fossil fuel money was given to Republican presidential candidates in 2015, one-third of all money donated to the party, and one-fifth of all money donated, in total, during the election[5].
The roadmap for victory was layered. Firstly, the API intended to “identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach.” But it was not only adults who the carbon corporations needed to influence; they were thinking long-term, and this involved targeting the next generation of children who would be most at risk by a warming planet. Anti-scientific materials like the following began to find their way into schools[3] — and make no mistake, this problem still persists today.
“What if it weren’t easy to fuel a car? Or what if it were more expensive?… If airplanes and trucks couldn’t be fuelled easily or it was more expensive to fuel them, how would that affect products you and your parents buy in stores?….Did you know that CD players, DVDs, ink, some clothing, computers, containers, telephones, and toothpaste are also petroleum products?… What would your life be like without these?”
They didn’t stop there. Some industry groups stooped so low as to forge letters, using the name of marginal non-profit organizations — including the NAACP — to sway members of congress to vote against key clean energy measures[4]. Others resorted to outright bribery and forked out millions to US senators and representatives to ensure their loyalty. The chokehold of these corporations over political democracy in the West is astounding; over 100 million dollars of fossil fuel money was given to Republican presidential candidates in 2015, one-third of all money donated to the party, and one-fifth of all money donated, in total, during the election[5].
For the scientists involved in the first ever world climate conference, the birth of neoliberalism and the advancement of corporate power was an unfortunate coincidence. But perhaps not a completely surprising one; experts in the conference did get a chance to discuss political and economic issues and some excerpts presented display a shrewd political awareness. E.K. Fedorov, for example, wrote a paper that highlighted the work of several economists including the socialist economist, Jan Tinbergen. He writes, “A large group headed by another economist, Tinbergen recommends the creation of a new world order, namely, a system of co-operation among countries on a global scale including control of national economic and other activity by a supranational authority to which each state would transfer part of its sovereign rights.”
He goes on to express, “In capitalist countries the notion of a goal is absent; there are only desires for further development, and these vary among different organizations and public groups. Not surprisingly, there are no clear goals established, nor ways to achieve them, in the case of mankind as a whole. Laszlo [a Hungarian economist] calls for the development, adoption and pursuit of some rational objectives for all mankind, which he calls “a revolution of goals”.
He goes on to express, “In capitalist countries the notion of a goal is absent; there are only desires for further development, and these vary among different organizations and public groups. Not surprisingly, there are no clear goals established, nor ways to achieve them, in the case of mankind as a whole. Laszlo [a Hungarian economist] calls for the development, adoption and pursuit of some rational objectives for all mankind, which he calls “a revolution of goals”.
So indeed, although the scientists were coming into this war at a remarkable disadvantage — they were not completely naive to the political landscape. They, like the fossil fuel companies, were looking to the future: “By the millennium, the world energy situation will be no less ominous. Estimates are that by the year 2000 the desire of the world for oil will have far surpassed world oil production, even with a 50 per cent increase in oil prices. In seeking to meet our energy needs we may pose a threat to global climate with formidable consequences for world society”. White was right about this, and lived to an age where much what he predicted at conference would come into fruition. When he died in 2010, the climate problem was dire. After decades of failed protocols, missed targets, and relentless extractivism, the turn of the century into ‘decade zero’ (as it would be known by defeated climate scientists — understandably cynical at this point) was as “ominous” as promised, and the signs of ecological meltdown were starting to present themselves in violent and unpredictable ways.
Change in the global south
“it is clear that such a change [in climate] would have vastly different impacts in various regions of the world. There would be winners, and there would be losers. A climate change could be the cause of a major redistribution of wealth, and from the point of view of mankind, quite an arbitrary one” — R White.
“it is clear that such a change [in climate] would have vastly different impacts in various regions of the world. There would be winners, and there would be losers. A climate change could be the cause of a major redistribution of wealth, and from the point of view of mankind, quite an arbitrary one” — R White.
Seventeen skulls and seventeen femur bones were taken to the capital. The farmers who brought them there had tried everything[6]: from running naked through the streets to drinking their own urine, but their demands were never met. This time, though, they would force the government to confront the horrors of climate change face-on. They wore them. Necklaces of bone, the remains of men — friends — who had been driven to suicide by one the worst drought in 140 years.
Many farmers in the Tamil Nadu region fell into debt as they could not produce sufficient crop yields. Their fellow farmers now demanded concession on their behalf: a wavering of loans and an adequate drought package. One asked, “What are we to do? We can’t live like this…[the chief minister of Tamil Nadu and others] have not delivered on any of their promises. Maybe our deaths will move these people into action,” whereas another simply stated “We have no water left in our area. How are we to grow crops, if we don’t have water”. And of course, there’s no answer to this. No water; no crops; no life. Humans have never, and will never, be able to survive without this necessity — and yet the droughts that plague much of the developing world have not provided an incentive for the West, or (pre-)industrial India, to radically scale back emissions. The farmers never gained anything from their 100-day protest, but they highlighted a sombre truth: when the climate comes crashing down, the first victims will be poor and brown; and in the past 3 decades, it is estimated that almost 60,000 Indian farmers have killed themselves in climate-change-related circumstances[7].
It seems a grotesque unfairness that those who had little to do with the impending catastrophe will be the very people who will initially pay the largest cost. In fact, a tiny 10% of the world’s population are responsible for 50% of emissions, while the poorest 50% are responsible for only 10%[8]. The West in a lot of ways now looks a lot like a victor of climate change — we have got off free of charge, right? Complete industrialization paid for by the suffering and sacrifice of deprived nations to the east — what’s new? Well, that might be the case now, but while the West counts its blessings and continues to pump carbon into the atmosphere, countries like India are well into the first-wave of climate change, creating a blueprint of what will, in good time, reach American and European shores.
“The vital conditions [to modify the climate] are to prevent world conflict and establish a lasting peace, since only through the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems are close co-operation and concerted action possible; to stop the arms race and promote disarmament, for only by such action will it be possible to afford the great material resources required by such concerted activities. It is clear that only under such conditions can we hope to solve the global problems of modern civilization” — R. White.
Few places on earth have paid the price for industrialization like India. And like other developing countries, the problem of climate change is twofold: an unfortunate geographical positioning makes it susceptible to volatile weather and under-developed infrastructure makes prevention, defence and recovery, very difficult things to facilitate. In addition to this, the income of over 600 million Indians is dependent on farming, and the main form of energy generation — thermal and hydroelectric plants — relies completely on a crucial ingredient: water. And this is a big problem; rainfall has decreased by 20% across India[9] which has hampered energy production to the extent that in 2016, the country lost 14 TWh of electricity generation, enough to power all of Sri Lanka’s energy requirements for a year[10]. But as well as suffering water shortages, India’s monsoon season provides an opposing extreme, and as of August this year, 32 million people in India have been affected by floods[11], a staggering statistic that is only set to increase.
And with water scarcity becoming more of an issue across Asia, a worrying tension has started to emerge; the idea of a ‘climate war’ may seem far-fetched and dystopic, yet the geopolitics that are unravelling across much of southern–central Asia make it inevitable. Besides, scientists have found that, already, 1 in 4 conflict outbreaks in ethnically fractionalized countries coincide with climatic casualties[12]; the battle for resources has already begun.
And when it comes to resources, there are few more valuable than the Ganges–Brahmaptura–Meghna river basin, which covers 174.5 million Hectares and is home to about 10% of the world’s population. As the Himalayan glaciers continue to retreat and water scarcity worsens, the longevity of the river systems in the area is now uncertain and so competition between neighbouring countries has become more, well, desperate.
And when it comes to resources, there are few more valuable than the Ganges–Brahmaptura–Meghna river basin, which covers 174.5 million Hectares and is home to about 10% of the world’s population. As the Himalayan glaciers continue to retreat and water scarcity worsens, the longevity of the river systems in the area is now uncertain and so competition between neighbouring countries has become more, well, desperate.
China, for example, is in the process of constructing multiple dams in the region, which could see it controlling water for approximately 40% of the world’s population[13]. And the science shows why: by 2050 the rivers sourced from the Himalayas could lose 10–20% of their flow13, and nobody wants to be left without. The Indian geopolitical analyst Brahma Challaney says the following about the situation: “China-India disputes have shifted from land to water. Water is the new divide and is going centre stage in politics. Only China has the capacity to build these mega-dams and the power to crush resistance. This is effectively war without a shot being fired.” I might be a pessimist, but historically, how long do bullet-less wars remain that way? If war is starting to creep already, during the first phase of adverse climate change, then what hope is there for peace in 2100? In 2050? When resources will be even thinner and the stakes even higher; how confident can we be that diplomats and treaties will ensure harmony in a planet that is imploding? What is certain, is that the culture of the West, specifically, must change drastically if worst-case scenarios are to be avoided. And this starts with an analysis of how industrialisation, in concert with an unnatural economic model, has warped our relationship with the natural world and blinded us from the very real repercussions of unlimited consumption.
Stuard vs butcher
“Until several decades ago, man’s image of the climate was one of an almost immutable force. That is, no human activity could possibly influence the climate or its natural variation, with the possible exception of air pollution episodes around large human settlements. Quite rapidly, this image has been altered” — R. White.
If the Neanderthals had access to 21st century technology, would we still be here today? With the power and tools to make most life on earth extinct, how long would it have taken them — or, I guess the real question is, is there something inherent to the Homo Sapien which makes it so drawn to domination and destruction, or did we pick these traits up somewhere along the way? This question is, I will explain, an important one; and one that always makes me think of the famous Francis Bacon quote: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
“Until several decades ago, man’s image of the climate was one of an almost immutable force. That is, no human activity could possibly influence the climate or its natural variation, with the possible exception of air pollution episodes around large human settlements. Quite rapidly, this image has been altered” — R. White.
If the Neanderthals had access to 21st century technology, would we still be here today? With the power and tools to make most life on earth extinct, how long would it have taken them — or, I guess the real question is, is there something inherent to the Homo Sapien which makes it so drawn to domination and destruction, or did we pick these traits up somewhere along the way? This question is, I will explain, an important one; and one that always makes me think of the famous Francis Bacon quote: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
Bacon was a pioneer of a scientific revolution almost 400 years ago in which our relationship with nature was radically subverted. As he put it, it would be a “truly masculine birth of time”, where men would conquer the natural order and “storm and occupy her castles and strongholds, and extend the boundaries of human empire, as far as God Almighty in his goodness may permit.” This inquisition wasn’t born out of mere scientific curiosity, but a male desire to exert his apparent dominance. This was quite the departure from the school of thought first developed by the ancient Greeks, who viewed the natural world as an expression of beauty, or a ‘beautiful-order’ as Pythagoras put it; However, from the 17th century, nature would no longer be considered a beguiling wonder but a commodity, with no inherent value, and this sentiment would ironically create the foundation for an age of ‘enlightenment’.
However, back then, the idea of man’s dominion over all else was still somewhat of an ambition rather than a practised reality. Modern medicine would not take off for at least another couple of centuries, peasant farmers were still subservient to the will of mother nature, and humans were yet to have developed safe and quick ways to cross continents; in other words, when Bacon spoke of nature as being a “slave to mankind”, it wasn’t strictly true — humans didn’t have the means to alter the world around them, and so a philosophy centred around human domination, fortunately, wasn’t as fanged as it could have been in theory.
So what happens when we have both? When we believe in our divine right and capacity to sculpt the world around us (seemingly) without consequence but also have the tools to do so? When we reach a point where we can enact real, devastating damage to our surroundings, but our ideology of inherent supremacy doesn’t evolve in parallel. The result leaves us in a particularly sticky situation; unbridled, rampant and limitless capitalism; a mutated conception of Bacon’s ideology that has the capacity to alter the very fabric of our planet. And this isn’t an exaggeration; there have been six mass extinctions on earth since life first evolved, and the most recent one is ongoing. The great Anthropocene extinction comes 65 million years after the fifth mass extinction, which arose after a huge asteroid crashed into what is now modern-day Mexico and wiped out the dinosaurs. It is also the first mass extinction that has been almost entirely facilitated by a species born from this world; yours truly, Homo sapien.
So what happens when we have both? When we believe in our divine right and capacity to sculpt the world around us (seemingly) without consequence but also have the tools to do so? When we reach a point where we can enact real, devastating damage to our surroundings, but our ideology of inherent supremacy doesn’t evolve in parallel. The result leaves us in a particularly sticky situation; unbridled, rampant and limitless capitalism; a mutated conception of Bacon’s ideology that has the capacity to alter the very fabric of our planet. And this isn’t an exaggeration; there have been six mass extinctions on earth since life first evolved, and the most recent one is ongoing. The great Anthropocene extinction comes 65 million years after the fifth mass extinction, which arose after a huge asteroid crashed into what is now modern-day Mexico and wiped out the dinosaurs. It is also the first mass extinction that has been almost entirely facilitated by a species born from this world; yours truly, Homo sapien.
There has been almost a 60% decline in wildlife on earth in just 40 years, and, already, 50% of all animal species that have cohabited earth with us over the millennia are gone[14]. Now, to be involved in a historical event (of which there have only been 5 like it ever) is one thing, but to be facilitating it yourself is entirely another. You would think it would be making bigger news? You would think the prospect of having fish-less oceans in less than 35 years[15] would have us in a frenzy, but, instead, there’s nothing. And this kind of stoic apathy is something that is incredibly interesting, because it is indicative of the kind of post-industrial change to humanity that I think is in a large part responsible for the current crisis; when humans began to frame everything around them as separate and ‘other’, they started to lose sight of the fact that we, too, are biological entities who are wholly reliant on a synergistic ecological system from which all life is derived.
In 2017, the developed world is rooted more in the construction of consumerism than in its own biology, which has given us a false sense of immunity and dominion over nature. Because, indeed, Bacon was fundamentally wrong in his analysis of humanity; we are no less dependent on the produce of mother nature than any other creature on earth, and will never be able to overcome the challenges of a world made inhospitable by our own doing. The sixth mass extinction won’t be the last, and there will be dozens more, millions of years after humans are no longer here; life was here before us and will be here long, long after us, and the thing that we once ‘enslaved’ will continue to breed life for a time period we cannot even begin to comprehend. We will be but an unrecognizable, forgotten spec in the history of our planet, nothing but a dim flickering in an endless space-time.
Now, I say this not because I think a bleak existentialism is the key to the climate crisis but because addressing our 17th-century-arrogance as a species is fundamental if we plan on inhabiting this planet for the foreseeable future. Indeed, sustaining human life in a 7-billion-strong post-industrial world will inevitably require more than a mere change to our economic system, although that would be a crucial start. It demands that we rewire our relationship with the natural world — acknowledging that our survival doesn’t exist in isolation to the world outside and that we are but a component in a symbiotic relationship, just like every single life form on earth.
Decade zero and beyond
“It is an illusion to hope that man can change and develop a new, more appropriate personal adaptability to climatic conditions to which he is not genetically adapted today. What has been achieved in nature through evolution over thousands of years cannot be improved in one or two generations of man. If climatic changes in an area exceed his adaptive capacity man will succumb” — R. White.
So what is being done about it now and where does it leave us? Well, in the almost 40 years since WCC-1, nations have been involved in dozens upon dozens of protocols, conferences and accords, which were all devised, apparently, to solve the problem of climate change. This image of progress becomes marred however when you consider that we are now up to are 22nd UN climate change conference. And for all the words, promises, and signatures, the planet is currently at its highest CO2 levels for 3 million years[16]; you can’t help but wonder, at what number conference will meaningful change be decided upon? The 23rd COP conference is about to end, perhaps it will be at this one?
But in analysing the history of these conferences, it becomes clear that the motivations behind these huge, inter-continental affairs are slightly more cynical than meets the eye. The second world climate conference in 1990, Geneva is a useful example for understanding this. Like in the first conference, scientists from myriad disciplines came together and created a statement in summary of their findings. Although this time, they felt compelled to underlie the urgency of the issue; it had been a decade since the first conference, and by this time many scientists had gathered that motivating governments to act would be easier said than done. Despite this, the ministers that were there on behalf of their respective governments fought to remove the urgency out of their own ministerial statement[17] — specifically, the parts which prompted an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions … It must have dawned at this point that the fossil-fuel giants had won, and were backed all the way by state power.
But in analysing the history of these conferences, it becomes clear that the motivations behind these huge, inter-continental affairs are slightly more cynical than meets the eye. The second world climate conference in 1990, Geneva is a useful example for understanding this. Like in the first conference, scientists from myriad disciplines came together and created a statement in summary of their findings. Although this time, they felt compelled to underlie the urgency of the issue; it had been a decade since the first conference, and by this time many scientists had gathered that motivating governments to act would be easier said than done. Despite this, the ministers that were there on behalf of their respective governments fought to remove the urgency out of their own ministerial statement[17] — specifically, the parts which prompted an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions … It must have dawned at this point that the fossil-fuel giants had won, and were backed all the way by state power.
Things didn’t get much better as the years went on; technology was improved and theories made even more robust, and yet elected officials remained in a state of tentative indifference. Following the 2009 Copenhagen summit, climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf expressed his frustration over this climate lethargy: “I’m frustrated, as are many of my colleagues, that 30 years after the US National Academies of Science issued a strong warning on CO2 warming, the full urgency of this problem hasn’t dawned on politicians and the general public”. And following a climate conference in Canberra just earlier this year there was a similar sentiment among scientists: “You can explain to them as long as you like but if they don’t wish to understand, they won’t,” said Dr Andrew Glikson, an understandably fed up Earth scientist who echoed the words of Bert Bolin, the IPCC chairman at the time of WCC-2: “you never teach a minister anything at a conference”.
But some would argue that what was agreed in the Paris agreement is a break away from this political stagnancy around climate change; indeed, almost 200 parties have agreed to keep global temperatures “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial times and “endeavour ([you can see where this is going]) to keep levels below 1.5°C”. Why 2°C was picked as some sort of doom-day indicator is not really clear, but it’s widely accepted that things start to get very, very bad once we reach this ominous benchmark.
The problem here though is the exact same problem the past 20 COP conferences had: the targets that have been proposed are not legally binding, and parties will not be penalized for missing them — in other words, COP21 was much a charade as any other diplomatic PR stunt veiled as a climate conference. It’s perhaps not shocking at this point to discover that many of the countries that attend these conferences do so to ensure that their economic interests are being preserved, and that they are not being shorthanded by meaningful attempts to protect the planet. And If you don’t believe me about that, perhaps the UN’s own climate chief Chrstiana Figueres will be more convincing: “They’re doing it [their pledges/INDCs] for what I think is a much more powerful political driving force, which is for the benefit of their own economy… the United States or China or Tuvalu … none of them are doing this to save the planet,” she explains.
Which makes a lot of sense when you consider the science behind the ‘pledges’ made at COP21. As not only are countries not obliged to meet their targets, but it is most likely already impossible to do so anyway. Indeed, 2°C is extremely optimistic, because even if all emissions stopped tomorrow, temperatures would continue to rise for decades (if not centuries) as the oceans slowly equilibrate with the carbon in the atmosphere[18]. This ‘committed warming’ due to thermal inertia is something that is rarely considered, and neither is the fact that greenhouse gases can last for around 100 years; the carbon we currently emit into the atmosphere isn’t replacing old pollutants, it is added on top of them, and there is a cumulative increase in gases which means that there is only so much we can emit if we want to objectively stay below a 2°C limit. This ‘carbon budget’ currently stands at 565 more gigatons of CO2, which on the face of it sounds like a lot, right? But not so much when you realize that the fossil fuel companies have at least 2,800 gigatons of CO2 left in their reserves… almost 5 times the apocalyptic amount[19].
In fact, in a paper released by Science Advances, a temperature increase of between 4.78–7.36°C was reported as being a possible outcome[20]. “If you’re serious about 2°C, the rates of change are so significant that it begs the way we see the world. That’s what people aren’t prepared to embrace…essentially you’d have to start asking questions about our current society and how we develop and grow” says Kevin Anderson, a climatologist at the Tyndall Centre. Essentially, we don’t stand a bat in hells chance of meeting our targets unless there are seismic changes to the way we conduct 21st-century economics. It is a bleak statistic indeed that if current emissions continue, the 1.5°C carbon budget I spoke of could potentially be used up within the next 4 years[21]… things must change. And fast.
Of course, it can’t really be known in detail what life will be like in a 2-degree world, but the first thing that becomes clear is that intolerable heat waves will become the new normal; “By the middle of the century, this kind of extreme heat in June will become the norm in western Europe unless we take immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” explains Robert Vautard at the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences. The worst-case scenario being that if summers get too hot, high ‘wet-bulb’ temperatures will be reached and the ability of moisture to evaporate becomes seriously hampered. In essence, this will bring us to the “threshold of survivability” as Dr Elfatih Eltahir calls it, where our capacity to sweat and cool becomes so restricted that most would die within hours. In the Middle East and Southern Asia, wet-bulb temperatures that are non-conducive to human life have almost been reached, with 3,500 people in Pakistan and India dying in the summer of 2015 (REF. [22]).
In fact, in a paper released by Science Advances, a temperature increase of between 4.78–7.36°C was reported as being a possible outcome[20]. “If you’re serious about 2°C, the rates of change are so significant that it begs the way we see the world. That’s what people aren’t prepared to embrace…essentially you’d have to start asking questions about our current society and how we develop and grow” says Kevin Anderson, a climatologist at the Tyndall Centre. Essentially, we don’t stand a bat in hells chance of meeting our targets unless there are seismic changes to the way we conduct 21st-century economics. It is a bleak statistic indeed that if current emissions continue, the 1.5°C carbon budget I spoke of could potentially be used up within the next 4 years[21]… things must change. And fast.
Of course, it can’t really be known in detail what life will be like in a 2-degree world, but the first thing that becomes clear is that intolerable heat waves will become the new normal; “By the middle of the century, this kind of extreme heat in June will become the norm in western Europe unless we take immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” explains Robert Vautard at the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences. The worst-case scenario being that if summers get too hot, high ‘wet-bulb’ temperatures will be reached and the ability of moisture to evaporate becomes seriously hampered. In essence, this will bring us to the “threshold of survivability” as Dr Elfatih Eltahir calls it, where our capacity to sweat and cool becomes so restricted that most would die within hours. In the Middle East and Southern Asia, wet-bulb temperatures that are non-conducive to human life have almost been reached, with 3,500 people in Pakistan and India dying in the summer of 2015 (REF. [22]).
But this would just be the beginning. Once 2 degrees is reached, a cascade of potential events could occur which would see the crisis spiral further out of control. The main ones being the incineration of much of the Amazon rainforest in forest fires and the unlocking of billions of tonnes of carbon from the melting Arctic permafrost[23]. It’s difficult to comprehend the effects of these two things; although the rise in sea level, destruction of biodiverse ecosystems and an increase in drought and natural disasters would spell ruin and untold suffering for billions. The refugee crisis, for example, is a picnic compared to what we could see in the following decades, with scientists anticipating a ‘great-trek north’ (REF. 20) as temperatures get closer to 4 degrees. So what options, if any, do we have when the reality is that any one of the three biggest emitters, China, USA, and India, could single-handedly effect this) without any help from each other?
a Fortunate Coincidence?
After the financial crash, the world got an insight into how unpredictable and ineffective the still-relatively-new neoliberal agenda was. The banks which had been given unlimited freedoms to do as they pleased came crumbling down and brought many countries to the brink. This was it, surely? The time to remodel and re-think our economic doctrines, and to consider, once again, bringing the finance system under more intense scrutiny, albeit state control. Instead, we chose to bail them out and restart as if nothing had happened. In the UK, the people who brought the country to its knees were reimbursed for their troubles and given a second chance to try again, and, of course, it would be the poorest in society who would be forced to foot the bill and endure a generation of austerity. Ten years on, and the effects of this has been devastating; wages have now been falling for the longest period since the mid-19th Century (during the Napoleonic wars)[24], thousands are dependent on the generosity of foodbanks, homelessness is at an all-time high[25], 4 million children live in poverty[26], 16 million have less than £100 in their bank account[27], and house-building hasn’t been this low in peace time since the 1920s[28] — 2 years after Britain ended the largest war it had ever fought.
It’s therefore no wonder that people are starting to question Thatcher’s consensus… things are not getting better, no matter how many times we are told that the money will start to trickle down, or that work precarity is a price to pay for a booming economy, or that ‘living within our means’ is a necessary, somehow patriotic, state of being. These things just won’t cut it anymore, and so the hunt for alternatives is on; Trump, Brexit, and the death of centrism are all indicative of a waning ideology that can no longer justify its own existence. A vacuum for a new, hopeful kind of politics is emerging — but those of us who want to take advantage of that need also to be strategic — because while opportunities are created at the expense of capitalism, the climate issue remains just a fierce, and just as pertinent as ever. A socialist movement not only has to understand that, but incorporate it entirely into its politics. The health of our planet needs to be the lens through which everything else is discussed — a climate umbrella — that promises the things that a left-wing project should: jobs, houses, healthcare, wages, but all within the context of ensuring environmental vitality. Naomi Klein I think explains this best in her book This Changes Everything, where she outlines how climate change could provide the purpose that the left has perhaps lacked in recent years. As not only is societal change desired, it is now essential. Our argument is as strong as ever but we must seize the occasion; the climate movement should no longer be seen as a disparate sector of a generally left agenda, but should be infused with it. A ‘new’ brand of politics, which promises transformative changes that coincide with improved standards of living and a release from corporate hegemony. We will never get an opportunity like it again.
But for this to succeed, a cultural change needs to happen. And what is need is nothing short the Christian reformation of the 1500s; the attitude cemented by Bacon and his friends must be discarded and replaced by something more ingrained in nature. Things like the livestock industry will (unfortunately) need to be addressed for its unsustainability in the modern world: 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock[29], which generates 37% of all human-induced methane[30]. But even more than this, half of the people on earth are classified as being in poverty and yet *over* 50% of the world’s crops are used to feed livestock animals and not people[31]. With the world population set to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, the west will need to overcome its insatiable relationship with consumption. In anticipation of this and the other myriad consequences of unfettered climate change, it is imperative that the left begins a mission not only of electoral success but of public opinion at large, which could, perhaps, start with holding the mainstream media to account in its reporting, or lack of, of climate-related issues. Importantly, we also now have a chance now to refute the consensus of the scientific revolution that laid the foundations of capitalism, address our addictions with consumerism, and plan for a society in which community, and nature, are no longer neglected. This isn’t just about saving the world; it’s about healing our own wounds, fears and anxieties, which we have adopted through an exhausting and unsustainable individualism that has pulled us away from our own humanity.
It’s therefore no wonder that people are starting to question Thatcher’s consensus… things are not getting better, no matter how many times we are told that the money will start to trickle down, or that work precarity is a price to pay for a booming economy, or that ‘living within our means’ is a necessary, somehow patriotic, state of being. These things just won’t cut it anymore, and so the hunt for alternatives is on; Trump, Brexit, and the death of centrism are all indicative of a waning ideology that can no longer justify its own existence. A vacuum for a new, hopeful kind of politics is emerging — but those of us who want to take advantage of that need also to be strategic — because while opportunities are created at the expense of capitalism, the climate issue remains just a fierce, and just as pertinent as ever. A socialist movement not only has to understand that, but incorporate it entirely into its politics. The health of our planet needs to be the lens through which everything else is discussed — a climate umbrella — that promises the things that a left-wing project should: jobs, houses, healthcare, wages, but all within the context of ensuring environmental vitality. Naomi Klein I think explains this best in her book This Changes Everything, where she outlines how climate change could provide the purpose that the left has perhaps lacked in recent years. As not only is societal change desired, it is now essential. Our argument is as strong as ever but we must seize the occasion; the climate movement should no longer be seen as a disparate sector of a generally left agenda, but should be infused with it. A ‘new’ brand of politics, which promises transformative changes that coincide with improved standards of living and a release from corporate hegemony. We will never get an opportunity like it again.
But for this to succeed, a cultural change needs to happen. And what is need is nothing short the Christian reformation of the 1500s; the attitude cemented by Bacon and his friends must be discarded and replaced by something more ingrained in nature. Things like the livestock industry will (unfortunately) need to be addressed for its unsustainability in the modern world: 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock[29], which generates 37% of all human-induced methane[30]. But even more than this, half of the people on earth are classified as being in poverty and yet *over* 50% of the world’s crops are used to feed livestock animals and not people[31]. With the world population set to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, the west will need to overcome its insatiable relationship with consumption. In anticipation of this and the other myriad consequences of unfettered climate change, it is imperative that the left begins a mission not only of electoral success but of public opinion at large, which could, perhaps, start with holding the mainstream media to account in its reporting, or lack of, of climate-related issues. Importantly, we also now have a chance now to refute the consensus of the scientific revolution that laid the foundations of capitalism, address our addictions with consumerism, and plan for a society in which community, and nature, are no longer neglected. This isn’t just about saving the world; it’s about healing our own wounds, fears and anxieties, which we have adopted through an exhausting and unsustainable individualism that has pulled us away from our own humanity.
Let us begin a process that will usher in a new era of sustainability, equality and collectively. Let us celebrate the planet for everything it bestows while we relearn compassion and empathy for those who have been crushed by merciless economics. Let us make our leaders answer to us, and not the wishes of an elite, corporatized 1%, who continue to profit from the suffering of others. And let us create a new turning point — one of action instead of dormancy — a new earthquake that will alter the human experience forever and prove once and for all that our Neanderthal ancestors were not genetically destined for greed and destruction. Nobody said it would be easy, but it is “essential that we develop a clear strategy: that we plan a set of long-term actions which will enable man to avoid the adverse consequences of such changes. Such a long-term programme may have to be started in the very near future”. Robert White may not have imagined the ‘very near future’ to mean 40, arduous years, but I expect he would have welcomed the late start nevertheless.
[1] World Meteorological Organization. Extended summaries of papers presented at the conference. (1979).
[2] Union of Concerned Scientists. The Climate Deception Dossiers. (2015).
[3] HER Institute. Business-managed education: fossil fuel Industries. (2017).
[4] Jonathan Hiskes. Lobby firm forges anti-climate-bill letters from Hispanic group and NAACP. Grist (2009).
[5] Suzanne Goldenberg and Helena Bengtsson. Oil and gas industry has pumped millions into Republican campaigns. The Guardian (2016).
[6] A Mariyam Alavi. Tamil Nadu farmers return to Jantar Mantar with skulls and chains. Hindustantimes (2017).
[7] Tamma A Carleton. Crop-damaging temperatures increase suicide rates in India. PNAS (2017).
[8] Oxfam. Extreme carbon inequality (2015).
[9] Lori Pottinger. Too big not to fail: India blackouts highlight need for change International Rivers (2012).
[10] Tianyi-Luo. Droughts and Blackouts: How Water Shortages Cost India Enough Energy to Power Sri Lanka. World Resources Institute (2017).
[11] United Nations. UN agencies aid millions affected by flooding, landslides in South Asia. UN News Centre. (2017).
[12] Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Jonathan F. Donges, Reik V. Donnera & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. Armed-conflict risks enhanced by climate-related disasters in ethnically fractionalized countries. PNAS. (2016).
[13] John Vidal, The Guardian. China and India ‘water grab’ dams put ecology of Himalayas in danger. The Guardian (2013).
[14] Gerardo Ceballosa, Paul R. Ehrlich & Rodolfo Dirzob. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. PNAS (2017).
[15] Boris Worm, Edward B. Barbier, Nicola Beaumont, J. Emmett Duffy & Carl Folke. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science(2006).
[16] Natasha Geiling. The Earth just reached a CO2 level not seen in 3 million years. ThinkProgress (2017).
[17] Peter Aldhous. Two declarations at odds. Nature (1990).
[18] Bob Holmes. Ocean heat store makes climate change inevitable. NewScientist (2005).
[19] 350.org. Do the math. (2017).
[20] Tobias Friedrich, Axel Timmermann, Michelle Tigchelaar, Oliver Elison Timm & Andrey Ganopolski. Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming. Science Advances (2016).
[21] CarbonBrief. Carbon countdown. (2016).
[22] Andrew Griffin. Going outside could be deadly in some parts of the world by the end of this century, scientists warn. The Independent (2017).
[23] Mark Lynas. Six steps to hell. The Guardian (2007).
[24] Owen Jones. Brexitland: With pay so low for this long, no wonder there’s anger in Sheffield. The Guardian (2017).
[25] Patrick Butler. Number of rough sleepers in England rises for sixth successive year. The guardian (2017).
[26] End Child Poverty. 4 million children now living in poverty in the UK (2017).
[27] Brian Milligan. Millions have less than £100 in savings, study finds. BBC News (2016).
[28] Owen Bennet. House Building Under The Tories Drops To Lowest Level Since The 1920s. HuffPost (2017).
[29] Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Livestock’s long shadow. FAO (2006).
[30] WorldWatch. Livestock and climate change. (2009).
[31] Mark Notaras. Agriculture and food systems unsustainable. Our World(2010).
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten