A Voice for Earth

Environmental and social justice and my personal experiences in the area.


3 Comments

Another Warning Sails on By

In three years time, avoiding a temperature rise of two degrees Celsius will be impracticable, unless we reach peak carbon emissions by then. That is the finding of the Carbon Tracker in London, the Climate Action Tracker consortium, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut in a joint report.

What it boils down to is that we have a carbon budget. Depending on the varying ways this budget is calculated and subtracting past emissions, our remaining carbon credit falls somewhere in the range of 150-1050 gigatonnes of total emissions. This is the maximum we can emit if we are to have any serious hope of achieving the Paris Agreement’s aspirational goal of keeping warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius, or even below 2 degrees.

At the current rate of emissions of 41 gigatonnes annually, that would mean that at the lower end of that scale that we would cross the threshold in four years, so let’s hope somewhere in the middle or upper end of the range is closer to reality. Otherwise, we’ll have to deploy large-scale carbon capture technology and drop carbon emissions to zero right now, which would likely crash the economy, god forbid, when we’re on course to crash all of civilization.

So they’re presuming a 600-800 gigatonne carbon credit. Peaking emissions now would give us 25 years to get them down to zero, which, let’s face it, isn’t happening and won’t in the near-term, but we must do it by 2020 to have a reasonable chance to accomplish decarbonisation of the economy in time. If we do it by then, we should achieve zero emissions before 2040 with a 600 gigatonne credit. However, with an 800 gigatonne credit, we can push this out to 2050 but with a greater risk of crossing the two-degree threshold. Waiting till 2025 to peak emissions or even keeping them level until then will put that goal out of reach for all intents and purposes.

So here we are, pretty much being told it’s crunch time for climate action, but there doesn’t seem to be any corresponding increase in urgency. Things are being left to mosey along at a woefully insufficient pace. Let “market forces” drive change they said, the economy will fix the problem they said.

Yes, the capitalistic, growth at all costs, money-hooked machine is going to resolve a crisis that ultimately requires that it rejects itself. Corporations do not want to do anything that’s going to affect profitability. Competitiveness is what is inclining many companies to favour renewables and electric transport, as they know where things are going long-term, but they won’t jump the gun from their perspective if it risks them losing money.

Ideally, governments would regulate corporations and national bodies, forcing them by means of legislation to change how they operate. However, governments are nearly more scared of regulations these days than the corporations themselves. They don’t want to be seen as impeding businesses that bring jobs and wealth into their respective countries by whatever trickle-down argument they want to use.

We can pretty much be assured that in most countries that this will continue. A few like the Scandinavian nations are committed to more appropriate targets for complete decarbonisation, but even their plans would fall short if the actual carbon budget is less than the 600 gigatonnes we’ve allowed ourselves.

I imagine at this point that even 2 degrees is the aspirational goal, and 1.5 is already out of reach without actions so drastic that it would make the US mobilisation for WW2 pale by comparison. On our current course, we could be threatened with up to 3 degrees Celsius of warming at least. There are some estimates that say that we’ve grossly underestimated climate sensitivity and warming of up to 7 degrees Celsius is possible by 2100.

It’s hard to fathom what that much warming could do but assuming even the lower value of 3 degrees, we can be assured of massive upheaval, perhaps civilization-toppling effects. We could see the collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, raising sea levels tens of feet. We could see desertification in the equatorial regions, the complete annihilation of the rainforests, and the loss of major breadbaskets. We could assume that all this along with major natural disasters would lead to mass migration and inevitable conflict over reduced space and resources.

Even if we “only” warm the world by that much, we can’t be positive that it would end there because of all the feedbacks in the Earth’s systems.

So, again, here we are, poised to unleash disaster on a scale no human has witnessed since the rise of civilization, if ever. We could potentially set back our development centuries, if not right back to the Stone Age. Hell, if the higher climate sensitivities to GHGs are correct, we could be galloping towards our own extinction like so many lemmings charging towards a cliff edge.

I really hope that we can avoid that world. I hope that what momentum there seems to be from Paris and the drive for renewables and zero emissions transport really will continue on the up and up. I hope that our leaders can start to see beyond short-term economic gain and begin assuring a safe future for our children and all the generations to come. I hope, I hope, I hope!

It really does feel like instead of putting it out, we’re playing with the fire that is catching. I feel as though we’re all living on a prayer with this carbon credit shot in the dark. We’re hoping the credit is higher, and we are depending on probabilities of achieving that below two degrees goal. However, the reality is that we could see a sudden upshot in warming any year now. 2016 proved that, having crushed the two previous warmest years, 2014 and 2015. If that happens, we’ll be forced into drastic action one way or another, and it still might not be enough.

I still believe we can do better, that we still have a chance to do so, to leave the world better than the generations before us have and how we have it now. However, the margins are tightening and time is slipping away from us. Just because we don’t know exactly how tightly we are bound doesn’t mean we should assume the most optimistic scenario, that we still have plenty of time. We should assume the worst and act accordingly. It seems to me to be the only responsible thing to do.

Image Source: List of Polluted Earth Wallpapers (allwidewallpapers.com)

Disclaimer:

All opinions put forth in this post are my own. I respect other people’s rights to their own opinions.


3 Comments

Evacuate Earth? Hold your Horses Hawking

Lately, there’s been a lot of talk from the likes of Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking that we must become a “multi-planetary species” in order to protect ourselves from the risk of total annihilation upon our one little home. Being interested in space myself, I can understand their reasoning. So let’s examine the logic behind investing our resources into putting humanity firmly beyond the Earth for good.

The solar system and the wider galaxy are not the most secure places for a living world hurtling through the void. Within our own planetary system, the big risk factors are asteroids and comets, the former being a giant chunk of rock and/or iron, and the latter being mostly water ice. Certainly, many have impacted the Earth, leading most famously to the extinction of the dinosaurs. An asteroid capable of causing an extinction level event would most likely be detected long before impact, and a coordinated international effort could launch a mission to deflect it. Comets, however, are often not visible until they pass the orbit of Jupiter and given the velocity at which they travel, that would give us probably less than six months warning. There’s currently no method conceived of for deflecting a comet.

So that’s suitably terrifying, but the galaxy has far more nasties to offer up. A close pass by another star could disrupt the Oort Cloud, sending countless comets into the inner solar system to relentlessly bombard the Earth. A nearby star could go supernova, bathing our fragile biosphere in ionizing radiation. A rogue neutron star or black hole could cut right through the heart of our system, slowly strangling the life out of our world with their immense gravity before finally tearing it asunder.

Hell, the Earth itself could kill us.

During the Permian Mass Extinction, also known as the Great Dying, over 90% percent of all life was lost. It was initiated by massive volcanic activity in the Siberian Traps that was of such a scale that it released enough greenhouse gases to raise the Earth’s temperature by five degrees Celsius. After a series of volcanic winters and periods of rapid warming, the dust finally settled allowing the released GHGs to properly cook the Earth. This warmth in turn destabilized methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean, which is a greenhouse gas up to 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide. This raised temperatures a further five degrees. The ocean ecology collapsed, and Earth’s waters became one giant acidified dead zone. The land became inhospitable, searingly hot and bone dry. Even oxygen levels dropped, suffocating some of the fauna.

The ironic thing is that there’s an experiment being carried out right now to replicate the conditions of the end Permian extinction. It is entitled “Global Industrial-Scale Fossil Fuel Combustion to Generate Electricity and Fuel Transport for Human Civilization”. You should look it up some time!

One would think after all that that we’re screwed. One or more of these events is bound to transpire at some point, but that’s the thing, some point could mean tomorrow or ten million years from now. Granted, we can already be pretty damn certain that we’re killing ourselves, but that is a choice, one we are moving painfully slowly away from, but I have hope that self-preservation will slam the accelerator one of these days.

However, putting the pedal to the metal on preserving our living planet and all the life it supports will require massive investment and focus globally. Climate change and general degradation of the Earth’s systems have already progressed far further than they ever should have been allowed for the sake of economic growth and greed. We need a massive overhaul of not just how we produce energy but of our economy and societal values. We need to put the living systems that support our civilization before the profit motive.

What we cannot, for the moment, factor into this equation is an elitist escape plan. We cannot invest in building a lunar base, or founding a Martian metropolis of a million souls, or trying to develop viable ways to travel to the outer reaches of our solar system and to the stars beyond. Not right now at any rate. I imagine Stephen Hawking would wholly disagree. He believes we are at our most vulnerable right now as a species because we possess the means to destroy ourselves and the Earth, but we lack the means to escape it.

But what do we think we’re escaping to? The Moon? Mars? The gas giants? We’re certainly not getting any further with current technology, so forget about some “potentially Earth-like planet” that the Kepler telescope has spied in the depths of the universe. There ain’t no warp drive or wormhole to get you there just yet.

The fact is that if Earth faced an imminent and dire external threat and was surely doomed then very few of us would be escaping. It would probably be the privileged who could afford it like the escape tunnels of the kings of old, and they wouldn’t be taking refuge in some celestial idyll. They would be in cold, sterile, self-contained bases, shielding them from the inhospitable environment they are condemned to see out the rest of their miserable lives in, as they attempt to perpetuate some semblance of the human species.

Even if we could get to the nearest potentially habitable planet, Proxima Centauri B, what then? What if it has its own diverse ecology, probably something incompatible with our own? Are we honestly going to carry with us the thinking that drove us from our home and bend another living world to our will for the sake of our own survival? What right have we to do that? Are we to become the antagonists of such alien invasion movies as Independence Day and War of the Worlds, harvesting the resources of another world because we have so thoroughly ransacked our own?

Really, for people who dream of evacuating Earth to save us from ourselves and the grave threats of the universe, it is more to make the vision of spacefaring humanity become a reality rather than any practical reason. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the allure. I grew up watching Star Trek and Stargate and any sci-fi I could get my hands on, and the idea of zooming off into the void, seeing what’s out there, finding new life, all that is exquisitely compelling.

Yet, I think it’s unlikely that we will reach those heights of technological achievement in time to make any difference to our survival, not on the business-as-usual path we are currently sprinting down. It’s likely that in this century and the next that we’re going to experience some society-stopping shocks. Water scarcity, food insecurity, conflict, natural disasters, all beyond our capability to adequately respond, and then complete breakdown as civilization slips away into the fires of a second Great Dying. Even if we survive the Armageddon we instigate, all else will be lost.

No one who survives such a calamity will remember Elon Musk or Stephen Hawking or the dream of humanity amongst the stars. All they’ll know is a grim reality of anything beyond bare survival being a luxury.

But as I said before, we have a choice in that.

We can be the fools who ran their only home into the ground with the slight possibility that some will seek shelter on the nearest dead rock, or we can be the visionaries who see the value of Earth and take whatever steps are necessary to preserve it for future generations, so that they may seek out greater knowledge and higher things.

My wife told me a story once of a couple who’d been together over fifty years. They were asked how they did it for so long, did they not ever fight? They said that of course they do but in their day, when something was broken you fixed it, you didn’t just replace it. We are breaking our world, our only home in all the universe, and that fact isn’t going to change in time to save us, no matter how much we dream.

Yes, sure, a rock could fall out of the sky and smite us, or a black hole could swallow us whole, but those events are beyond our control. What we can control are our own actions on this Earth. So let’s work on the issues here and make our planet the haven of humanity and all Earthlings that it should be rather than chucking it on the trash pile in the vain hope that another Earth will come our way.

 

Image Source: Random Ramblings of Celeena Cree from National Geographic documentary “Evacuate Earth”

Disclaimer:

All opinions put forth in this post are my own. I respect other people’s rights to their own opinions.

 

 


Leave a comment

Dumbass Trump Blustering as Earth Burns

When Trump was elected last year, it seemed surreal, like a ridiculous practical joke played by the American electorate and the electoral college on the rest of the world. As the disbelief dispersed afterwards, I think myself and many others wondered how could this be and what could this mean. Seven months on and despite his behavior on the campaign trail, it’s still hard to believe so much madness transpired in that amount of time. It’s like he’s had two terms already (by God, I wish that were the case).

I’ve been so bombarded with the constant awfulness coming out of his administration, and the now Republican dominated House and Senate, that it’s an effort not to grow numb to it all. Everything environmentally and socially responsible seems to be going out the window. Trump’s presidency is like shit-show the musical comes to crazy-town and now he’s taken his tour of insanity international with comically disastrous consequences. If only he weren’t the president of the United States, the greatest military power on Earth, the second greatest carbon polluter, and greatest cumulative carbon polluter, well, then I’d be able to laugh.

I could account for my lack of blogging with things happening in my own personal life but really, it’s been this nutty parade of unmitigated crap, falsehoods, and travesties that has put me off. It’s enough to read about it, let alone write about it, and so here’s to the journalists that keep on reporting on the the corruption and challenging the nonsensical. Still, I can’t let what happened this weekend pass without comment.

Trump exited the Paris Climate Agreement just 18 months after the vast majority of countries in the world negotiated it. He has joined a rather small club of nations who have not ratified it. Syria did not do so for obvious reasons, the country is war-torn and unable to make any such commitments. Nicaragua did not sign because they regard the treaty as not being strong enough.

That I have to give them.

The Paris Climate Agreement would have been a step in the right direction in the 80s or 90s and while it still technically is, it’s woefully insufficient in the face of the scale of the problem. At this stage, we need rapid decarbonisation and equally speedy deployment of renewable energy. Our transport and agricultural practices would also have to radically change, and we would need to also consider investing far more in carbon capture technology to make it viable. I’ve often heard that we need to react globally on the scale the US did in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor and joining WWII. Some people don’t care for the analogy, but what are we if not at war? The only difference is our enemies are not other nations but time, the forces of nature, and ourselves.

Paris only calls for nations to make modest reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, targets which they can set for themselves, and those self-determined goals are not legally binding. Therefore, Nicaragua’s leaders are right. The treaty is weak, entirely dependent on the goodwill of its participants, but at least it had the support of almost all nations on Earth including the largest carbon emitters, or at least it did until Trump stuck to his inane campaign promise (and in my opinion, stuck it to Europe who failed to adequately fawn all over him on his clusterfuck overseas trip).

I could go on for several essays on how Paris is only the very beginning of what we need to tackle climate change, and how we need to make the bulk of the big changes necessary in the next two decades.  However, this is me venting and raging against the orange buffoon who now sits in the Oval Office, so I’m going to stay on topic.

Trump is moronic. He completely lacks understanding of what the climate accord is or does. He doesn’t even properly realize that he can’t just immediately pull the US out of it. At the earliest, nations can pull out with a year’s notice after it goes into effect, meaning that the earliest he could do this legitimately would be the day after the next presidential election.

Of course, he can do what he has been doing already, and this is the reason that Paris is so shamefully weak, and that is to keep the voluntary commitments but not implement them and even backtrack to whatever extent he wants on environmental and energy policy. Realistically speaking, him reneging on the Paris Agreement was more of a symbolic middle finger to the world, letting everyone know that he really means it when he says America first.

It is ironic that his primary motivation, at least officially, for pulling out was to bolster the US economy and protect jobs. He seems to be, either willfully or not, oblivious to the fact that the clean energy sector is producing more jobs than fossil fuels, especially coal which is in decline. Solar alone in 2016 created 17 times more jobs in the US than the rate of the overall economy. Wind power also employs far more people than coal, and renewables are on the up and up.

He also campaigned on ending what he perceives to be the US’s losing streak to China. Yet China has plowed funding into renewables and is seeing job growth in the sector, and the investment is forecast to create 13 million jobs by 2020. His policies and leaving the Paris Agreement will ultimately only make the US less competitive in a rapidly growing sector while giving China, India, and other nations an edge. His policies will, at best, stagnate the fossil fuel industry rather than accelerate its decline, which is what Obama’s policies would have done. Yet, given how dire our situation has become, we cannot afford even a stagnant fossil fuel industry. Emissions have to start coming down rapidly from here on out.

This is what drives me insane. In his arrogance, his bluster, and his stupidity, Donald Trump has thrown the US paddle overboard, folded his arms, and now sits there sullenly, while the rest of us desperately try to get our boat towards a horizon we need to reach, for behind us is the precipice of a waterfall, and we will not all survive the descent, if any of us.

The only thing that gives me solace is that as powerful as his office is, he cannot flip a switch and undo all the progress that has already been made, nor can he put the brakes on the inevitable changes in the energy sector. Renewables are still the future, as is climate action, if not in certain segments of American society and industry then it is so globally. It’s heartening that Trump faces massive backlash to his decision from around the world, that he faces dissension from within his own borders.

The US Climate Alliance, which started with three states, California, Washington, and New York, now includes Oregon, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island with more possibly to follow. They plan to continue to adhere to the Paris Climate Agreement, and they represent a massive chunk of US GDP and carbon emissions, meaning their continued efforts will have a significant impact on the US economy with them favoring the domestic clean energy and electric transport industries over fossil fuel energy and transport.

Though this may be enough for some to have cause for optimism, it’s still wholly inadequate. At the moment, we are allowing the free market and economics to be the sole drivers of investment in renewables and other technologies we need to face this crisis. Governments need to have a more hands-on approach and stop throwing out soft legislation and meager subsidies and instead focus policy on getting these technologies mainstream and dominant over fossil fuels as soon as is feasible. Doing less at this point is just irresponsible if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change and have a livable planet for future generations.

It is unfortunate that the current US president is a bull in a china shop who has surrounded himself with snakes in the grass. However, unlike Kyoto or other international agreements, we cannot let this administration dictate policy worldwide, nor can we allow its stubborn non-involvement to be an excuse to scale back action elsewhere.

Though Paris still leaves a lot to be desired, it’s all we’ve got so far, and the vast majority of the world seems to be sticking with it. What needs to happen now is that we continue to rapidly build on the successes of the agreement, to exceed our targets and exceed the next ones, and hope this eventually leads to stronger, more binding treaties that will ensure decarbonisation of the global economy happens, regardless of the current actions of the US federal government.

What we can also hope for, and what US citizens can work towards, is a political shift in 2018 and 2020 to boot Trump and representatives who are in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry, so that further action is not impeded and maybe it’ll be possible to get binding international climate treaties past the houses of Congress. If not, then we can still count on the autonomy of individual states. If enough of them are taking action, it’s going to be hard for those that are supporting fossil fuels and suppressing renewables to remain competitive nationally or globally.

In conclusion, trump sucks, but his suckiness is not a cause for falling into despair. He is one foolish man whose own arrogance and selfishness will be his undoing anyway. It can’t be long until at least some of his base realize he’s screwing them over, too. We can all live in hope that he’ll be only a one-term wonder. So as he bumbles on, we need to take our eyes away from Washington in hope of leadership and start being the leaders ourselves. Our governments, our mayors, our local councils, you and I need to demand change and make changes that will put further pressure on corporations and recalcitrant politicians to get in line on climate action.

So the world is still nearing the flames, but Donald Trump’s little hands can’t push us all the way in. Only we can do that by collective inaction or half-measures. Let’s hope we have the courage to pull back from the brink.

 

Image Source: The Daily Banter

Disclaimer:

All opinions put forth in this post are my own. I respect other people’s rights to their own opinions.


3 Comments

An Outsider’s Opinion on the US Presidential Race

Image Source: billboard.com

First off, I have to be honest about my level of interest in politics; beyond its direct impacts on things I actually care about, it’s pretty much non-existent. However, in these times, there are a lot of concerning trends, both environmentally and socially-speaking, that are impacted hugely by the decisions made by our political leaders. Climate change, austerity, extinction and habitat loss, conflict, water and air pollution, poverty, and the increasing wealth gap are a few I can think of straight off. The threats we face from environmental destruction and the social and economic marginalization of the majority of the world’s people (the already impoverished most of all), are things that, in order to tackle and remedy, would require tremendous political will translating to firm action on the ground.

Given the state of modern-day politics almost everywhere, that is something citizens in most nations have learned not to even imagine, let alone expect.

But why? Why do we bother to elect leaders if not to lead our societies forward? To encourage innovation and development? To tackle the issues and deal with them as much as conceivably possible to the benefit of as many people as possible? In essence, it’s their job, and we are their employers. We pay them through our taxes to provide us with a specific service, essentially as national managers of all matters of interest and impacting upon the populace. In most workplaces, a manager of poor ability doesn’t hold their post long, let alone one who is mean to the customers or double-crosses the business. Yet politicians, in their equivalent roles as managers of state, seem to escape all but the direst of scandals.

Politicians today are increasingly becoming intertwined with Big Business and banking interests. The donors and lobbying groups who aid their campaigns are more often than not representing these sectors. Given all this, one is left to question how anyone could operate independently and honestly given the many strings tied to them. After all, nothing is for nothing these days, and you expect businesses and moneyed individuals to want a return on their investment. Charles Koch said just as much in regards his political spending.

So in a world where our politicians are in bed with bankers who would gamble national wealth and economic stability for a quick buck, and those who pollute our environment and destabilize our climate in the name of profit, what way out is there?

In my view, towards the left, towards green, towards democratic socialism. These policies are the only ones truly opposed and active in combating the problems we face. That is because they require the people’s interests, the greater good, be put first, not those of banking groups and corporations or the millionaire/billionaire class. So, if I were a US citizen voting, Jill Stein of the US Green Party would be an option, but Bernie Sanders would probably get my vote.

Before I get into my reasoning, I’ll just briefly jump over to the other side of the US political fence and talk about the Republican race for president. There’s not much to say for most of the candidates who have gone or are still in the running. Most of it seems to have been a televised mud-throwing fight against each other and everyone else. It made great reality TV but in the end people are looking for their next head of state, not voting on I’m A Celebrity: Get Me out of Here. For sure, many people wish they would just get lost, but we have to endure the crazy and the pettiness.

It’s remarkable that such people who don’t believe climate change is real or who propose building walls between the US and Mexico can hold any credibility with anyone, much less advance this far onto the public stage. I don’t think their supporters realise that by voting for the likes of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, they are hurting their own self-interest. If many of them knew of the benefit of voting in more left-leaning politicians to Congress and to the White House, perhaps they’d consider Bernie. Beyond that, though, I’m largely ignoring the Republican side of things, as none of their candidates seem eminently electable.

That leaves the Democrats’ race for the nomination, a race that was considered a foregone conclusion in favour of Hillary Clinton before it even started. I mentioned Jill Stein of the Green Party, a candidate who in some respects is probably more radical than Bernie Sanders, but, unfortunately, with the two-party domination of American politics, it would be exceedingly hard for her get a platform where she could become more visible to voters, which is why I said I’d use my vote on Bernie.

Let’s face it, Bernie has a lot going for him as a candidate. He wants to bring in universal healthcare, break-up too-big-to-fail banks, he wants to tackle climate change by encouraging renewables and banning the practice of fracking, he’s against pro-corporate trade deals, he’s pro-LGBT rights, he has reached out to every community, including Native Americans. He’s in Main Street’s corner, not Wall Street’s. With policies like that and a record to back them up, it’s no wonder he has so much grassroots support.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, while not lacking popular support, has something else backing her. It’s called a SuperPAC, and she also has the support of a lot of big money donors. Bernie has chosen to avoid that route to the presidency and instead is taking donations from small individual donors only. The average donation to his campaign in the last three months has been $27, but Hillary’s average is much greater and more from large donors over $200.

The way I see it, though, what really counts here is their past records as politicians and how they compare. Bernie came out against the Iraq War, Hillary was for it. Bernie has been against free trade pacts including the Panama Free Trade Agreement, which has, as recently revealed, allowed the wealthy from all over the world to avoid paying taxes. Hillary supported it. Bernie Sanders has come out against fracking, a natural gas extraction method which has poisoned many communities’ air and water and released massive quantities of methane to the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide. Hillary’s state department under the Obama administration is accused of selling fracking to the world, thereby proliferating this toxic process not just across the US but in other countries.

Hillary has ties to Wall Street, Monsanto, and as much she might deny taking money from the fossil fuel industry, getting the donations through a proxy isn’t much better.

There’s a lot more I could say about both candidates’ policies and their past decisions. Guaranteed there’s a lot I don’t know about either or haven’t heard. However, as an outsider looking in, it seems to me that Hillary’s supposedly unstoppable march to the White House has been too easily accepted by some voters and overly emphasized by US media outlets. It seems the hype over her potentially being the first female president of the United States of America has overtaken nearly all reason on the part of some.

What it comes to, in my opinion, for American voters is a simple question: Is it more important to have a woman in the Oval Office or the right person? Is setting this single precedent worth maintaining the political and social status quo in the US and beyond?

A recent article by Naomi Klein would lead me to answer no on the basis of its content alone. Setting aside my other grievances, the threat of climate change and how unsuited she is to meet that threat given her corporate-friendly outlook is good enough reason to count her out on eligibility to be president. As Naomi stated, her links to Big Business and banking would lead her to try an “everybody-wins” strategy in tackling the problem. This would essentially be an attempt to implore the rich to do the right thing, for fossil fuel CEOs to put the brakes on new extraction projects, scale back activities, and transition away from dirty energy. It would also look to their funders, the banks, to redistribute their funding to clean tech and away from dirty energy power plants and mines.

Sounds great, but it would never happen. At best, these corporations and banks would throw a bone at clean energy and maybe look into R&D to burn their dirty product cleanly. What will likely result is watered-down agreements and promises that will never actually be fulfilled, and the climate crisis will get ahead of us before there’s time to properly intervene.

This is her world; win-win-win. She and her establishment fellows look better for trying, the corporations look a little less evil for “trying” and continue raking in massive profits at the expense of people and planet, and the Greens and left-wing activists are placated as far as she’s concerned. Well, that isn’t good enough. Such a strategy wouldn’t even have been meaningful during her husband’s presidency, let alone today, as now, the threat is graver, and we risk reaching a critical tipping point with every year of delay. No, the pro-corporate, pro-banking, appealing to the goodwill of the already-empowered approach is not what we need from someone who means to be president, who means to be a leader.

So if her solution to the greatest threat we face is to slap a band aid on it, what can we expect from her on other less apocalyptic issues? If everything has to be win-win, does that mean that the betterment of education, healthcare, air and water quality, social security, civil rights, economic disparity, and the growing wealth gap will be constrained by the wants of the corporations, the banks, and the rich? The answer to the latter is yes, and that leads to the answer to the former which is a whole lot of nothing.

How can the social, economic, and environmental problems we endure today be improved if we are empowering those who cause them to make them worse? Half-measures in this day and age aren’t good enough anymore, and that is something Hillary either doesn’t realise or just rejects out of hand. It goes against her entire ethos to do what needs to be done. She will not be the one to interfere directly in the economy for the greater good. She will not be the one to take on the banks. She will not be the one to put the corporations back in their boxes. She will not be the one to lift up the impoverished and the persecuted at the expense of the wealthy and the powerful. Bernie will.

Because he isn’t beholden to any corporate or banking interests, I think he is entirely more trustworthy and likely to keep to his promises, unlike Hillary who will be playing a balancing act between keeping the masses relatively content/apathetic and keeping Big Business exceedingly happy. Bernie presents the possibility of politics making a real difference in people’s day-to-day lives, and that is why his movement is called a revolution. Hillary, on the other hand, offers only a slow evolution towards marginally better for the majority (and as good as ever for the wealthy minority) and in the long run with climate change, marginally better will be lost in the mire of tragically worse.

To finish, I think I should say why this is so important to me as someone from another country. It is because the president of the US may wield power nationally but that translates into impacts around the world, on national governments, businesses, and communities. The US sets the bar in a lot of cases and if I return to the example of climate change, the lack of US involvement is probably the main reason the Kyoto Agreement failed. On this critical issue, we need the wholehearted support of the White House. President Obama has managed to do quite a bit during his two terms but not as much as he potentially had the power to do and much like what Hillary might do, he often played both sides of the field between the interests of combating climate change and those of the fossil fuel companies.

Bernie is a completely different kind of politician, in it for the people alone rather than the corporate elite and the 1%.  I believe in his message and that he can bring about the changes he plans to as president. He has the will and even without the support of Congress, there’s much he can do executively. Even as a candidate, he has raised people’s expectations of their leaders. It’s out there now that what has passed for leadership doesn’t cut it anymore. People want to see real action, real change, and not the hyped-up campaign promises that are later broken.

Even in my own country now, having recently had general elections, we are undergoing our own political upheaval as the vote has pushed our two largest political parties together, forcing them to come to some co-operative agreement in order to govern. It is looking dicey at best that they will come to terms and put the people first, in which case, we may need our own Bernie Sanders to carve a new political path for our country. However, the US has that opportunity now, to take a new route towards greater prosperity, security, and environmental stewardship. This kind of thing is game-changing and truly once in a lifetime. A candidate like Bernie won’t come along again soon enough to tackle climate change, an issue universal to us all. The next decade is critical, and we need the right person with the right motivations in the driver’s seat.

That is why I would urge anyone in the US who is thinking of voting for Bernie to just do it. The worst that could happen is that he won’t overcome all of the roadblocks thrown up by Congress, and he’ll still probably make a lot more progress on the issues that matter than Hillary. And who knows, maybe having seen what a Sanders presidency can do unsupported, maybe voters will clean house at Congress and vote in representatives more likely to work with their president to achieve even greater ends. It’s all up for grabs. It’s between change very little or nothing and change everything.

Let’s hope more of you out there feel the Bern!

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton-isnt-just-her-corporate-cash-its-her-corporate-worldview/

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-smashes-record-donations/

http://www.politifact.com/nbc/statements/2016/mar/21/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-her-campaign-depends-small-do/

https://www.rt.com/usa/338576-clinton-fossil-fuel-money/

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/11/12966/kochs-morning-joe

Disclaimer:

All opinions put forth in this post are my own. I respect other people’s rights to their own opinions, and no offence is intended to anyone.


4 Comments

Three Documentaries That Shaped My 2015

When it comes to activism and doing my part to help the environment and curb my footprint on the Earth, I think 2015 marked the point at which posting articles to social media to raise awareness wasn’t enough anymore. Anyone sitting at home at a computer can do that and make no mistake, I continue to do that because although sometimes it can feel like you’re shouting in an echo chamber, preaching to the choir, it’s worth it to reach even a few people who’ve never considered these issues before and perhaps change their outlook a little.

Yet, increasingly, I’ve felt the need to take real action myself, to consider what I do on daily basis that I could tweak or stop to make my impact less. There are a number of things that influenced me onto this course in 2015, but perhaps none more than documentaries on the subject of how our activities are damaging the environment and risking our futures and those of the generations to come.

That way I’ve come to see it is that it doesn’t have to be this way. There’s so much potential for innovation and remediation of harm already done but between painfully slow, gridlocked politics and incessant corporate lobbying, they are not being implemented fast enough. So perhaps leadership on the issues facing us is not to be found with government or Big Business, it is within ourselves. It lies with us. Every person, everywhere, has the power to create some kind of positive change that taken together could shift the balance towards clean energy, better agricultural practices, protection of habitats and biodiversity, preserving air and water quality, and leaving a world with possibilities other than mere survival for our descendants.

In that spirit, I’ve laid out, in my opinion, the three best and most important documentaries of 2015, and how they influenced me to makes changes in my life currently and also in my plans for the future.

 

Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret

Cowspiracy came out back in April. I knew the basic premise beforehand from the trailer and reading up on it prior to watching it. Simply put, animal agriculture, more than any other human activity, is devastating our planet. Nothing contributes more to climate change, ocean acidification, deforestation, water depletion, species extinction, and ocean dead zones.

It’s one thing to hear that, it’s another to see it in images, in undeniable science and numbers. Feeding animals to feed us is remarkably inefficient, consuming fossil fuels, water, and arable land at an unsustainable rate, and the return on calories and nutrition is far less than if we actually ate the plants used to feed livestock.

This changed my whole outlook on issues of the environment, especially climate change. Everyone was so focused on fossil fuel burning and, of course, it is an important contributor to climate change, but it is merely a feed-in to the emissions total for animal agriculture, which by some estimates is responsible for over 50% of all emissions. On top of this, we have emissions of methane and CO2 coming directly from animals and destruction of carbon sinks to create more pastureland such as the deforestation of the Amazon.

What got to me even more was the fact that major environmental groups were largely ignoring the issues in favour of combating relatively softer targets like fracking or the tar sands, which are climate disasters in their own right, but tackling them seems to be a lot easier to swallow. As I said in a blog post I wrote after initially watching Cowspiracy, I think these groups underestimate the willingness of their members to combat these issues, but I can’t speak to whether or not they have other motivations to ignore this one in particular.

I think this documentary inspired my biggest personal change, the choice to become vegan. I’ve wavered about it before, having initially come across the subject in relation to the health benefits of a wholefood plant-based diet portrayed in Forks Over Knives. However, concern for my own personal well-being was only enough to get me to reduce my meat intake and cut eggs and dairy. However, having seen how much my dietary choices were flying in the face of my environmental concern, I made the choice to go fully vegan late last year.

The decrease in my carbon footprint, my water footprint, my use of arable land, grain, my contribution to deforestation, the tainting of our oceans with excess nutrients from animal waste, the lessening of animal suffering. Even if my contribution is small, that’s the point. A lot of people making this one decision could make a massive difference to the state of our planet.

I think it was one of the most influential documentaries of 2015, and I cannot wait to see what Kip Andersen, it’s creator, has in store with his follow-up documentary, What the Health, coming this year.

 

This Changes Everything

This Changes Everything was influential to me for one main reason, it verbalizes an idea that almost all people, especially in the West, have, but that we never really think about. It is the concept of Earth as machine and man its wielder. It is the idea that the Earth is an animal whose spirit must be broken and tamed, that we must and can become its masters. Everything it has to offer, all it can provide for us, can be exploited without limit and without consequence.

It is this plot that we have been following since the beginning of the industrial revolution, when fossil fuels allowed us to detach ourselves from the rhythms of nature. It was this supposed decoupling that gave us the notion that we humans are somehow apart from the rest of the biosphere, that our choices and actions could be carried out irrespective of Mother Nature and that any negative impacts would only affect the environment, not us, as if we live somewhere other than the environment.

We have crowned ourselves kings of the mountain and so have perpetuated an economic model based upon the concept of infinite growth on a finite planet. The only problem is that nature has caught up with us in the form of climate change, probably the biggest environmental problem to come back and bite us on the ass.

This documentary tells it how it is. Our consumerist culture, our free-for-all capitalistic system, has overshot the Earth’s ability to sustain it, and we are now in ecological debt that we sink into deeper every single year. We have a mammoth task on our hands if we want to change that. We not only have to turn our ship around, but we have to completely overhaul it so it sails causing the smallest wake possible.

The fossil fuel era is coming to a close. We can all see that, even those who are heavily invested in keeping it alive as long as possible. Climate change does change everything, but whether that change runs its course quickly or not, whether fossil fuels croak quickly or peter out with painful slowness is, once again, up to us.

In most cases, our governments have done a poor job at standing up to the fossil fuel industry and have even promoted it with the Obama administration’s support for fracking, and the Canadian government’s overwhelming support for the Alberta tar sands. At the moment, Big Energy is rowing our boat through their political oarsmen. Only we can wrest the oars back by making better energy choices.

I currently do not have my own home, and I drive a ’97 1.3 litre engine Toyata Starlet. I hope that once I get on my feet, and my energy and transport choices are in my own hands that I can afford to use renewable energy sources and purchase an electric car. For now, all I can do is not be wasteful with energy where I live, turning off lights and appliances not in use, minimising their use also, air-drying clothes, not leaving heating or the boiler going for longer than absolutely needed, walking if I can, and trying to consume as little as possible in terms of unnecessary purchases, or choosing digital media where possible rather than physical copies. In time, I hope to be free of fossil fuels completely and the consequences of their use.

 

Racing Extinction

As much as the other two documentaries had a great impact on me, I think Racing Extinction touches a more personal note. I think it’s because it’s one of the first I shared with my new wife and because of the impact it had on her. She’d told me before that the state of world makes her angry and when I asked her why, she said she believes the people of the world have both the intelligence and the technology available to fix what we have broken. However, from her point of view it didn’t seem like anyone could be bothered to do it, and this had left her feeling hopeless. I have to admit I often shared those feelings even if I did my best to stay positive.

However, as dire as the message of this documentary is, that we risk losing 50% of all species in the next hundred years, that we risk compromising the habitability of our world, that we are poised to cause a sixth mass extinction of life on Earth, that we have become the meteor with the power to change everything for the worse on our planet, and it comes down to our own inability to change with anything like the urgency needed to avert catastrophe, it still gave both of us hope. Why? Because despite all the negatives portrayed in this documentary, it was moving for both of us to see so many who do care and who are working to save our world.

Having watched it, my wife said she found it moving, and it had taken her from a state of pessimism about our world to one of cautious optimism, and it encouraged her to watch the documentaries above, including Cowspiracy which she laughed at every time she heard the name because it sounded silly but has now actually become her favourite.

If it showed me anything, it is that other people do care, a lot of them, and they are willing to take bold actions to force change if they have to. It is knowing you are not alone when it comes to wanting to protect the only home we have, to protect something that was billions of years in the making and is irreplaceable.

Together, we can make better choices about the food we eat, the cars we drive, the sources of our energy, how we dispose of our waste, and taking care of what industries we may be supporting. We can all be doomsayers, we can all resign ourselves to defeat and extinction and the collapse of society as we know it, perhaps even our own demise, that’s easy, but I don’t choose that. My favourite quote from the documentary was that it’s “better to light one candle than to curse the darkness”. I truly believe in that statement, and I know there are others who do, too. We are in a race against extinction and time, but we still have enough time on our side to change the course, and that is what I want to be a part of.

So, here’s to 2016, and making better choices for our planet and ourselves.

 

Disclaimer:

All opinions put forth in this post are my own. I respect other people’s rights to their own opinions, and no offence is intended to anyone.

 


4 Comments

If We Burn, You Burn with Us

Last weekend, people rejoiced over the signing of the Paris climate agreement, the first time since Kyoto that something has been accomplished in the fight against climate change. There was much pomp and celebration by the negotiators and political leaders, and the mainstream media generally put a positive spin on the agreement, and there was definitely some cause for all this.

Paris marks the first time that nations around the world recognized the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, if possible, is far more desirable than capping it at 2 degrees, which had been the mantra of climate negotiations prior. This was a matter of simple justice for small island nations and vulnerable coastal regions, as warming of 2 degrees is seen by them as a death sentence.

Other positives about the agreement include funding to help developing nations potentially leapfrog fossil fuels straight to a clean energy economy or, at least, expedite their transition between the two. The involvement of major nations like the US and China, major developing countries like India and Brazil, and major oil producers like Saudi Arabia, was also quite a refreshing state of affairs from the usual discord and haggling that has marred previous COPs.

Indeed, there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic. The treaty does have some promise, but promise is the key word here, for our leaders really haven’t made us anything other than promises, and not commitments. There are no enforcement mechanisms written into the treaty, everything contained within it is voluntary, except perhaps agreed further conferences and tracking each nations’ progress towards its climate mitigation goals. Goals, mind you, that are self-imposed and also, voluntary.

I’ve heard it said that COP 2015 is an excellent treaty, had it been agreed in 1995. Our political leaders have always lagged behind the times when combating the climate crisis, so perhaps any success, no matter how meagre, seems like something ground-breaking and worthy of applause and commendation.

I know it seems like I’m completely trashing what was achieved in Paris, and I kind of am to be honest. I’m not trying to be overly pessimistic, but we still need to be realistic here. Climate change demands a monumental collaborative effort across all nations, across all levels of society. Paris, in this regard, is like needing to jump clear over a raging river when you’re being chased by a lion and instead, jumping to a stepping stone about a foot from the river bank.

In essence, it’s a good starting point, had it been enacted twenty years ago and at that time had been mandatory. Well, it’s not the 90s any more when climate change might have been easier to take in hand, and nothing legally compels our leaders to adhere to the agreement, so what does that leave us with? Probably not exactly at square one still but definitely not at square two.

So, let’s assess where the treaty takes us relative to where we actually need to be. First off, the climate pledges that the majority of nations made in the run-up to COP21. As I mentioned already, they are voluntary pledges to lower emissions through various means with no national or international legal obligations to undertake them. However, that isn’t the worst part. Taken together, the collective climate pledges will not hold warming anywhere near 1.5 degrees, they won’t even keep us under 2 degrees. Current estimates given our emission cut commitments as they stand place us on track for around 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels.

As Tim Gore, head of food and climate policy at Oxfam put it, “While this round of pledges is a step in the right direction, they only take us from a 4 C catastrophe to a 3 C disaster .”

Next up, funding to aid developing nations to transition to clean energy and adapt to climate change already locked in. The money will come from developed nations and larger developing nations with the capacity to contribute such as China which has pledged $3 billion dollars. In total, the established floor for the so-called Green Climate Fund is $100 billion annually. I don’t pretend to know much about the value of such a contribution in economic terms, but it seems to me a pittance to help every developing nation in the world to kick fossil fuels in favour of clean energy whilst simultaneously dealing with climate-related stresses and natural disasters.

So far, the text of the agreement is unclear as to the role or the trajectory of the fund from 2020 onwards when the Paris agreement comes into effect. So, even though, the sum promised is a floor, not a ceiling, there is nothing to say how much nations will, in future, contribute or if the fund will be kept alive long-term.

Next, it is interesting to consider what the agreement doesn’t mention rather than what it does. For one, the words coal and oil do not appear anywhere in the document. There is no commitment or even a suggestion that the majority of known fossil fuel reserves should be kept in the ground, as the science demands, let alone putting an end to further exploration for new reserves.

There is no mention of agriculture, responsible for at least a third of all emissions, nor is there any mention of the emissions caused by international flights and shipping.

There is no hint of reparations to developing nations for the damage that has been caused and will be caused by climate change. In fact, the US played a key role in weakening the agreement in this regard, having categorically refused to include any mention of compensation in the final draft of the agreement. Their negotiators even wanted wording in the document to insure Western nations against any liability for future climate damages to developing nations, but that got kicked out of the final draft. They, of course, promised in return that they would sign up to the 1.5 degree goal, so long as it wasn’t binding and they didn’t have to pull their weight with lowering emissions, which they could ask for because they had the power to bring the talks to a screeching halt.

And the final stop on this train-wreck, what the treaty includes that hasn’t been part of an international agreement before. Forest offsets are the sustainable management of forest ecosystems in order to capture our carbon emissions. However, it’s not really known how effective this is because it’s hard to tally how much carbon any given forest absorbs exactly. More to the point, these offsets give countries an out for not actually reducing their emissions, so the pollution still occurs, and the offsets may not necessarily be countering all of it.

Moreover, anyone who has read Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything knows that these projects are often plagued by mismanagement and the displacement of indigenous peoples who more often than not know more about the sustainable management of their lands than the foreign companies who take them over and exclude them from places they have lived in for perhaps millennia.

The fact is that carbon offsets, carbon trading, and other market mechanisms for tackling climate change often fall flat and do little to solve the problem compared to actual intervention in the economy and tangible climate action. It was these so-called solutions to climate that led to the failure of Kyoto, as it took a decade to get them up and going and then they were marred by mismanagement and fraud.

So, if you look on the very bright side, yes, the agreement gave us a 1.5 degree target, yes, all the nations of the Earth are involved, yes, we’re getting money to developing nations to combat climate, but where are the tools to achieve all this? They’re not in the Paris document. In order to achieve even the target of 1.5 degrees Celsius would require a WWII-scale mobilization, starting right now. We would need to entirely de-carbonize our economies worldwide by 2030 and invest massively in carbon capture technology to draw down carbon dioxide that we have already emitted out of the atmosphere.

Why is such an undertaking necessary? Because the threat is that huge, far worse than that of Nazi Germany or any other human enemy from history. We need to stop thinking of climate change as simply an environmental problem. The fact is that we are at war, a war with time and with ourselves. We can’t let the jubilation that surrounded the “successful” Paris climate talks to trick us into complacency. The root of the threat we face is Big Energy, Big Agriculture, and Big Transport. They all need a massive overhaul if we are to have any hope of stemming the rise in temperatures and averting future disasters.

However, corporations with vested interests were heavily involved with the talks, and their lobbyists no doubt sunk their teeth into many a negotiator. My belief now is that the solutions to the climate crisis are no longer to be found in the political process. Governments can no longer act in an effective or timely manner because they are tied down by too much red tape and are strung up on too many corporate strings.

It is now the turn of the people to make the transition, to make the leap to a fossil-free future. We can do this by making personal to changes to our energy usage, what we eat, how we get around, and by acting together as communities to build better from the ground up, from local, to regional, to national. I’m not saying that state governments are totally obsolete. They still have the power to effect change and, unfortunately, to get in peoples’ way or worse, add to the problem. After all, not long after the COP, the UK decided to expand fracking, and New Zealand handed out new oil leases.

Only a loud, convincing voice, a massive people’s movement can topple them off their high seats of apathy and lethargy. The Paris agreement is one more example of our leaders treating an existential threat as a remote and manageable problem. Climate change is happening now. It is on our TVs, it’s in our communities and for some unfortunate people in my own country and the UK this Christmas, it is in their homes. We can no longer abide by governments throwing a bone at the problem when it demands we give it everything we’ve got.

Ultimately, people power will overwhelm this complacency, I believe, I hope, but our chances of achieving the lofty goals of COP21 would be much greater if politicians engaged with the problem with the seriousness it deserves. I’ll end with a message to world leaders, a quote by one of my favourite fictional characters, Katniss Everdeen, fire is catching and if we burn, you burn with us.

Links:

Good Reasons to Cheer the Paris Climate Deal

World’s climate pledges not yet enough to avoid dangerous warming – UN

Green Climate Fund seeks clear role in post-2020 climate aid

Trading Carbon: How Paris Set Us Up for Failure

Seven Wrinkles in the Paris Climate Deal

The Paris Climate Talks and the 1.5C Target: Wartime-Scale Mobilization is Our Only Option Left

Disclaimer:

All opinions put forth in this post are my own. I respect other people’s rights to their own opinions, and no offence is intended to anyone.

 


1 Comment

Purveyors of Bullshit

After watching the documentary, Merchants of Doubt, you really have to question humanity, our modern-day values, and what we’ve become as a society. I don’t say that lightly, and it’s not to say that other documentaries I’ve seen haven’t had as great or an even greater impact on me, but it is the particular subject matter of this one in particular that really gnaws at your insides. It is the thought that businesses and individuals have knowingly placed people’s lives at risk for the sake of profit.

To be clear, the general premise of the documentary, that Big Business sells us lies so that we keep buying their product, is a well-known fact. Everyone’s heard of the lengths that the tobacco industry went to in order to defend their deadly product. Everyone with even passing knowledge of the environment knows what a climate denier is, and that it is generally the fossil fuel industry that promotes such views through complicit individuals and front groups. Yet it is realising the depths of their deception that really galls you.

We are being conned everyday by companies who care for nothing but their bottom-line, and that’s not the worst part. The worst part is that we often can’t do anything to address their deceit, at least not easily or quickly. These corporations make sure that they have their tendrils in all the right corners of government and the larger bureaucracy in order to subvert the regulatory process and streamline their route to profits. It also helps when independent research comes out against them to have government back-up.

The fact that those we elected are often a party to the dissemination and cover-up of corporate lies is an affront in itself and a can of worms I won’t get into here. I think it is telling enough that recently, Charles Koch was on the record as saying that he expects “something in return” on his political investments. That he and his brother, David, expect to spend nearly a billion dollars on the 2016 US presidential race makes you wonder what demands they could possibly make for that sum, and it is more than a little disturbing given their hard right-wing agenda.

Back to the documentary itself, based on the book of the same title by Naomi Oreskes, this game that businesses are playing has been ongoing for decades and probably became common practice after the tobacco industry started engaging in these tactics in the mid-20th century. Through their own research, it was discovered that smoking causes cancer (the late ‘50s), it contributes to heart disease (the 60s), and not long after that they confirmed that nicotine is addictive. So, having discovered that they were selling a lethal product which was highly addictive, what did they do?

They hired a PR firm to make their problem go away.

If that wasn’t bad enough, later in the 70s a link was drawn between cigarettes and rampant building fires. Instead of admitting the problem and investing money and research into designing a less incendiary product, the industry redirected the fault for the problem towards the furniture makers. It wasn’t that cigarettes cause fires, it’s just that furniture was too damn flammable. By infiltrating fire-fighting unions and getting them behind the idea, the furniture industry responded by stuffing their products with chemical fire retardants, thereby bringing more toxicity into people’s lives.

So to sum up, through acts of misdirection and confusing the public by muddying the science, the tobacco industry was successful for a long time in keeping the heat of its product and its profits. The same is happening now with climate change.

At this very moment, Exxon Mobil is under investigation for covering up evidence of climate change that its own scientists discovered would be a consequence of fossil fuel burning. Moreover, they stand accused of attempting to do exactly what the tobacco industry did; trying to create doubt the problem even exists.

They’ve done this by funding front groups to spread denialist propaganda, talking points that spread through the media like wildfire, or attempting to intervene in legislation for these problems through organisations like ALEC.

So, as much as I found this documentary informative, it made my blood boil. Again, I’m left wondering what have we become? Has greed and the money game come to dominate our collective psyche so much that we’re willing to put our own existence at risk? After all, money and the economy are just human constructs. They have no real physical value or meaning, only those that we give them.

Yes in order to perpetuate a free-for-all capitalistic society, built on rampant consumerism and the unsustainable extraction and consumption of the planet’s resources, we will make an existential threat into a minor trouble to be dealt with by future generations, or we’ll just make it into a none-thing, not something that is happening at all.

At least that’s what the fossil fuel industry have done with support from elements of government and other industries that profit from a delay in action on climate change.

People and companies responsible need to be held accountable. It needs to be made clear that misinformation that they have helped disseminate is an insidious attempt to protect their bottom line over the lives and livelihoods of people.

We cannot afford any further delays in action on the climate crisis if we have any hope of preserving our civilization and a recognisable, liveable world.

The message that I take from this documentary is that there are nasty, self-centred people out there out who are on a mission to delay any response to climate change for their own selfish ends, and to hell with what happens to the rest of us or the wider environment. However, there are also people out there who will speak the truth, and repeat it, and shout above the interference and the bald-faced lies.

We live in a time much like when people fought against slavery, for women’s rights, for labour rights, against apartheid. This is, as John Kerry put it, “the fight of our time”. Well, all we have built, all the hard-won rights and liberties are infringed upon by climate change to the extent that if we allow it to progress far enough, none of it will matter. Anything beyond survival will be a luxury.

Just like in all those social battles, there are people on the other side who want to maintain the status quo and will do so by nefarious means if they must. Climate change is either going to be the greatest challenge we collectively rise to and will put us on a path to an even better world, or it will be the challenge that overcomes us and decimates all we have achieved in the past few centuries, maybe even threatening our survival as a species.

Right now, the choice is in our hands. Do we stand up to those who would oppress the truth and us through their conniving deceptions, or will we stand by, say nothing, and watch the house burn down around us, long after the fossil fuel industry started it having pillaged the contents?

Disclaimer:

All opinions put forth in this post are my own. I respect other people’s rights to their own opinions, and no offence is intended to anyone.