[TheClimate.Vote] June 14, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest.

Fri Jun 14 12:06:41 EDT 2019

/June 14, 2019/

[BBC says]
Deep Civilisation Risk
*Are we on the road to civilisation collapse?*
Studying the demise of historic civilisations can tell us how much risk 
we face today, says collapse expert Luke Kemp. Worryingly, the signs are 
worsening.
By Luke Kemp - 19 February 2019
Great civilisations are not murdered. Instead, they take their own lives.
- - -
The rungless ladder

That's not all. Worryingly, the world is now deeply interconnected and 
interdependent. In the past, collapse was confined to regions – it was a 
temporary setback, and people often could easily return to agrarian or 
hunter-gatherer lifestyles. For many, it was even a welcome reprieve 
from the oppression of early states. Moreover, the weapons available 
during social disorder were rudimentary: swords, arrows and occasionally 
guns.

Today, societal collapse is a more treacherous prospect. The weapons 
available to a state, and sometimes even groups, during a breakdown now 
range from biological agents to nuclear weapons. New instruments of 
violence, such as lethal autonomous weapons, may be available in the 
near future. People are increasingly specialised and disconnected from 
the production of food and basic goods. And a changing climate may 
irreparably damage our ability to return to simple farming practices.

Think of civilisation as a poorly-built ladder. As you climb, each step 
that you used falls away. A fall from a height of just a few rungs is 
fine. Yet the higher you climb, the larger the fall. Eventually, once 
you reach a sufficient height, any drop from the ladder is fatal.

With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we may have already reached 
this point of civilisational "terminal velocity". Any collapse – any 
fall from the ladder – risks being permanent. Nuclear war in itself 
could result in an existential risk: either the extinction of our 
species, or a permanent catapult back to the Stone Age.
- -
Assistance in our self-imposed ruin will not come from hostile 
neighbors, but from our own technological powers. Collapse, in our case, 
would be a progress trap.

The collapse of our civilisation is not inevitable. History suggests it 
is likely, but we have the unique advantage of being able to learn from 
the wreckages of societies past.

We know what needs to be done: emissions can be reduced, inequalities 
leveled, environmental degradation reversed, innovation unleashed and 
economies diversified. The policy proposals are there. Only the 
political will is lacking. We can also invest in recovery. There are 
already well-developed ideas for improving the ability of food and 
knowledge systems to be recuperated after catastrophe. Avoiding the 
creation of dangerous and widely-accessible technologies is also 
critical. Such steps will lessen the chance of a future collapse 
becoming irreversible.

We will only march into collapse if we advance blindly. We are only 
doomed if we are unwilling to listen to the past.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190218-are-we-on-the-road-to-civilisation-collapse

[no, the question is - How many?]
*Will climate change kill everyone -- or just lots and lots of people?*
The debate over whether climate change will end life on Earth, explained.
By Rachel Nuwer - 18 April 2017
- - -
And the existential risk conversation can come across as tone-deaf and 
off-puttingly academic, as if it's no big deal if merely hundreds of 
millions of people will die due to climate change.

Obviously, and this needs to be stressed, climate change is a big deal 
either way. But there are differences between catastrophe and 
extinction. If the models tell us that all humans are going to die, then 
extreme solutions -- which might save us, or might have unprecedented, 
catastrophic negative consequences -- might be worth trying. Think of 
plans to release aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and 
cool the planet back down in the manner that volcanic explosions do. 
It'd be an enormous endeavor with significant potential downsides (we 
don't even yet know all the risks it might pose), but if the alternative 
is extinction then those risks would be worth taking.

But if the models tell us that climate change is devastating but 
survivable, as most models show, then those last-ditch solutions should 
perhaps stay in the toolkit for now.

Then there's the morale argument. Defenders of overstating the risks of 
climate change point out that, well, understating them isn't working. 
The IPCC may have chosen to maintain optimism about containing warming 
to 2 degrees Celsius in the hopes that it'd spur people to action, but 
if so, it hasn't really worked. Maybe alarmism will achieve what 
optimism couldn't.

That's how Spratt sees it. "Alarmism?" he said to me. "Should we be 
alarmed about where we're going? Of course we should be."
- - -
[concludes]...It's worthwhile to look into the worst-case scenarios, and 
even to highlight and emphasize them. But it's important to accurately 
represent current climate consensus along the way. It's hard to see how 
we solve a problem we have widespread misapprehensions about in either 
direction, and when a warning is overstated or inaccurate, it may sow 
more confusion than inspiration.

Climate change won't kill us all. That matters. Yet it's one of the 
biggest challenges ahead of us, and the results of our failure to act 
will be devastating. That message -- the most accurate message we've got 
-- will have to stand on its own.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/13/18660548/climate-change-human-civilization-existential-risk

[serious talk]
*Edge of the Great Dying: Extinction crisis--Dr Sandra Diaz 
interview--Radio Ecoshock 2019-05-22*
Published on Jun 13, 2019
At least a million forms of life hover at the edge of extinction as 
humans take over the world. Lead author Sandra Diaz on the shocking new 
2019 UN report.

How did we get into the position of trying to persuade city-dwelling 
humans we still need nature? How can we describe the speed at which life 
is disappearing? All that is in a stunning new report from the United 
Nations. Dr. Sandra Diaz, lead author of this report taking the world by 
storm: IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem 
Services. On-going human damage to other living things is as great a 
threat as climate change.

Sandra Diaz's scientific work is decorated with many awards. She's one 
of the most cited environmental scientists in the world, with over 300 
peer-reviewed papers. She works from the University of Cordoba in Argentina.

Stop Fossil Fuels researches and disseminates effective strategies and 
tactics to halt fossil fuel combustion as fast as possible. Learn more 
at https://stopfossilfuels.org

SHOW DETAILS
We should be shocked by this massive new report coming from The 
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem 
Services, the IPBES. Humans are driving out "unnecessary" life forms. 
But we can't know which species are "disposable" as we take over 
everything; don't know what species critical to our survival might 
disappear. We barely even know what species are here. Consider the chain 
of bacteria necessary in our soil for food, and in our gut, to process 
food. We are not independent of the great chain of life.

"Biodiversity and nature's contributions to people are our common 
heritage and humanity's most important life-supporting 'safety net'. But 
our safety net is stretched almost to breaking point," said Diaz.

CRITICAL ROLE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
"At least 25% of global land area is traditionally owned, managed, used 
or occupied by Indigenous Peoples. These areas include approximately 35% 
of the area that is formally protected, and approximately 35% of all 
remaining terrestrial areas with very low human intervention.

Nature managed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities is under 
increasing pressure but is generally declining less rapidly than in 
other lands--although 72% of local indicators developed and used by 
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities show the deterioration of 
nature that underpins local livelihoods."

Even if we did not have greenhouse gas emissions, nature would still be 
severely threatened.

KEY STATISTICS
75%: terrestrial environment "severely altered" by human actions (marine 
environments 66%)

47%: reduction in global indicators of ecosystem extent and condition 
against their estimated natural baselines, with many continuing to 
decline by at least 4% per decade

28%: global land area held and/or managed by Indigenous Peoples, 
including 40+% of formally protected areas and 37% of all remaining 
terrestrial areas with very low human intervention

+/-60 billion: tons of renewable and non-renewable resources extracted 
globally each year, up nearly 100% since 1980

15%: increase in global per capita consumption since 1980

85+% of wetlands present in 1700 had been lost by 2000--loss of wetlands 
is currently three times faster in percentage terms than forest loss.

8 million: total estimated number of animal and plant species on Earth 
(including 5.5 million insect species)

Tens to hundreds of times: the extent to which the current rate of 
global species extinction is higher compared to average over the last 10 
million years. The rate is accelerating.

Up to 1 million: species threatened with extinction, many within decades

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the political will to fight 
climate change has faded at the same time as it is getting worse for 
those feeling its effects. The same can be said about all the wonderful 
living species on this planet.

We may desire a planet entirely designed for us, every available space 
tailored to produce food for us, give us pleasure, or keep our mountains 
of waste out of sight. Nothing to annoy us like mosquitoes or poisonous 
snakes. That is a suicidal dream.

This is a summary for policy-makers. But in America, Brazil, and many 
other countries, there are no environmental policy-makers, but rather 
policy breakers. We are sliding backward rather than going forward.

I am worried the very frightening message in this big report may be lost 
in three things:

1. sheer size of the view and masses of numbers
2. bureaucratic and scientific language of delivery
3. seemingly obligatory optimism. Sandra Diaz says the battle is not
lost. But we must say we are losing at this point.
Algae in a pond can expand until it runs out of oxygen and then
crashes. Is there a crash point for humans and are we nearing it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC593ohgJHY

[about heatwaves]
*Repetitive Heat Waves*
*Posted on June 5, 2019, by Radio Ecoshock
*In our second interview, you hear how we will experience repeating heat 
waves more often as the world warms. That can affect global agriculture. 
We already have crop failure or smaller planting in many parts of the 
world. Due to drought, major producer Australia is importing wheat for 
the first time in 12 years. Floods have left over a million acres of 
crops partly or wholly destroyed in Argentina, another major 
international grain source. You may have heard about the crop failure in 
North Korea, bringing back extreme hunger there.

Some Canadian farmers have been unable to plant due to floods, or lost 
winter crops due to extreme and unstable weather this year. I've already 
covered major flooding damage to grain storage and fields in the 
Mid-western United States. Combined with the Tariff war, where China has 
cancelled soy bean purchases, while India stopped importing American 
Lentils, and countless U.S. farmers are not planting, and probably not 
staying in business.

Long periods of extreme heat are predicted for the Mediterranean this 
summer, at times moving even into northern Europe. There is some better 
news in Europe, where Greens won more seats in the European Union 
Parliament voting. Greens came in second in Germany, third in France and 
did better in the rest of Northern Europe. European voters are worried 
and want real climate action.
https://www.ecoshock.org/2019/06/abrupt-permafrost-thaw-repetitive-heat-waves.html
https://www.ecoshock.org/2019/02/out-of-the-smog-into-the-sea.html

*This Day in Climate History - June 14, 2005, 2014 - from D.R. Tucker*
June 14, 2005: ExxonMobil announces that it has hired former Bush 
administration official Philip Cooney, who had just resigned from the 
administration after the New York Times revealed his obsession with 
censoring climate science.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exxon-mobil-hires-former-bush-environment-aide

June 14, 2014: In a fiery commencement speech at the University of 
California-Irvine, President Obama condemns climate-change deniers as a 
"radical fringe."
http://www.c-span.org/video/?319976-1/president-obama-university-californiairvine
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries no 
images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only messages 
provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic 
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.