Climate Change

[Irrev-Black]

(Photographers, snip-snap!)

We could look to Gaza, where the occupation forces have already begun a long-running practical experiment with a large number of unwilling participants.

Well yes, i don't mean to suggest that electricity restrictions would necessarily and on their own have much impact, my point being that action is always filtered by lifestyle habits. We reject action on climate change if it inconveniences us too much and for those of us in the developed world there's so very much that would cause an inconvenience should it be no more.

Sorry, I intended it as an example for those of us who might be looking for positive means of adaptation, for future application.

[Irrev-Black]

AA.jpg (132.66 KiB) Viewed 4289 times

AB.jpg (110.25 KiB) Viewed 4289 times

This is going to be hard going.

[pipbarber]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... me-weather

The heatwaves, wildfires and floods experienced today were just the “tip of the iceberg” compared with even worse effects to come, they said, with limitations in climate models leaving the world “flying partially blind” into the future.

The 'dramatic action' that the article alludes to, and to give the whole piece a 'not too late' charm, is of course to immediately stop burning fossil fuels.

There's something a wee bit tired about this. Firstly, we have decades of GHG built into the system, so stopping now won't have much impact on the next decade or so (and make things worse if the aerosol shield theory is accurate). But more obviously, it's meaningless to say 'it's not too late if we stop burning fossil fuels,' because unless you are absolutely blind to politics on every level, in almost any nation, it is clear that we are NOT stopping the burning of fossil fuels. GHG emissions are still going up!

But what else can climate scientists say?

[stylofone]

But more obviously, it's meaningless to say 'it's not too late if we stop burning fossil fuels,' because unless you are absolutely blind to politics on every level, in almost any nation, it is clear that we are NOT stopping the burning of fossil fuels. GHG emissions are still going up!

The ignorance of the politics is an odd thing, because politics and human behaviour are within the purview of science, the scientists clearly know that "stop burning fossil fuels" is a vast over-simplification. What would it mean? No petrol, so only electric car drivers could use them. Food distribution in trucks would have to be re-organised because they run on diesel. Steel production and lots more industry would have to stop because it is done by burning gas and coal. In fact battery metals and much of the solar and wind infrastructure are made by burning coal, so it would not be possible to make new electric cars at the same scale. So no new electric cars either! That's just a few things for starters. To me it looks like it would mean the end of consumerism and capitalism, in fact the whole basis of industrial society would be completely upended, the definition of personal, corporate, national economic "success" needs to be changed. Making and owning more stuff, high GDP and employment numbers and other metrics would need to be seen as failure.

[pipbarber]

But more obviously, it's meaningless to say 'it's not too late if we stop burning fossil fuels,' because unless you are absolutely blind to politics on every level, in almost any nation, it is clear that we are NOT stopping the burning of fossil fuels. GHG emissions are still going up!

The ignorance of the politics is an odd thing, because politics and human behaviour are within the purview of science, the scientists clearly know that "stop burning fossil fuels" is a vast over-simplification. What would it mean? No petrol, so only electric car drivers could use them. Food distribution in trucks would have to be re-organised because they run on diesel. Steel production and lots more industry would have to stop because it is done by burning gas and coal. In fact battery metals and much of the solar and wind infrastructure are made by burning coal, so it would not be possible to make new electric cars at the same scale. So no new electric cars either! That's just a few things for starters. To me it looks like it would mean the end of consumerism and capitalism, in fact the whole basis of industrial society would be completely upended, the definition of personal, corporate, national economic "success" needs to be changed. Making and owning more stuff, high GDP and employment numbers and other metrics would need to be seen as failure.

I couldn't agree more, but the vast majority of climate scientists would be fools to openly state the obvious, we need to end capitalism. Can you imagine the uproar?

So i guess i can forgive the reticence on an individual level but what are we, therefore, actually doing? It's like we've all decided collectively to believe the unbelievable. I'm no different. I'm still basically doing what i'd be doing if climate change didn't exist. I'm as utterly flummoxed as everyone else. Moreover, being cognisant of all the other reasons to end capitalism seems like an impediment to the conversation now. We actually need rusted on capitalists calling for its end on the grounds that we're all going to die if we don't abandon the dominant economic system and i'm not holding my breath on that.

[stylofone]

So i guess i can forgive the reticence on an individual level but what are we, therefore, actually doing? It's like we've all decided collectively to believe the unbelievable. I'm no different. I'm still basically doing what i'd be doing if climate change didn't exist. I'm as utterly flummoxed as everyone else.

I have a vague manifesto in my head. Truth-telling would have to be a big part of it, or perhaps "facing facts" would be a better term. Energy transition economics is specious. Net zero and offsets are a fiction. Getting an electric car doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse, just at a slightly slower pace than if you have a petrol car.

Another part of my manifesto is that we should search for a baseline. With current knowledge and abilities, what sort of lifestyle can we have which will not destroy the planet? How much do we keep, how much do we have to dump, what do we replace it with? Work towards the baseline and do it with joy, even as the baseline shifts.

The other part of my manifesto is that if individual or grass roots action is unable to solve the problem, we should do it anyway. Yes it would take a massive government-led global shift to make a difference. The role of small-scale or individual actions is a political act, it provides a model for how the collective action should proceed. It's also good for mental health. How can you live happily if you know you are destroying the planet? Doing anything other than individual action is surely a pathway to misery. It might not save the world, but you'll feel better if you can honestly say you're not the one destroying it.

[pipbarber]

Latest ENSO and other updates released by the bom today.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

No El Nino, yet. The big change from last fortnight is the IOD, which has moved from neutral into positive territory, which is somewhat alarming.

The latest weekly Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) index is +1.05 °C. This is the second week it has been above the positive IOD threshold of +0.40 °C. However, before an IOD event is declared, several more weeks of the IOD index above the positive IOD threshold are required. Climate models suggest a positive IOD is likely for spring. A positive IOD typically decreases spring rainfall for central and south-east Australia and can increase the drying influence of El Niño.

[stevebrooks]

Authorities in the southern US state described Idalia and its potentially deadly high surging waters as a once-in-a-lifetime event for Florida’s northwest coast, ordering mass evacuations and issuing flood alerts.

The US National Hurricane Centre (NHC) said Idalia, which earlier raked western Cuba, was packing maximum sustained winds of approximately 215 kilometres per hour which it warned could be “destructive,” and life-threatening”.

The eye made landfall near the community of Keaton Beach in Florida’s marshy Big Bend area about 110km south of Tallahassee in the north of the state.

It is the strongest hurricane to hit that region in 125 years.

Huh, wonder what could be causing that?

https://www.news.com.au/technology/envi ... 6a954c7bc6

[Irrev-Black]

Never fear: Florida Preacher Man is on the job!

[stevebrooks]

Cancelled it? Just like Ron DeSantis cancelled flood insurance for millions of Florida residents?

Newsweek reached out to DeSantis' spokesperson via email for comment on Wednesday.

"As we here in Florida prepare for Hurricane Idalia, here is your annual reminder that one of Ron DeSantis's first official acts as Congressman was voting against flood insurance aid to Hurricane Sandy victims," lawyer and former candidate for Florida attorney general, Daniel Uhlfelder, wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

Uhlfelder said in a previous post on X that "DeSantis voted against [a] bill to provide $9.7 billion in flood insurance aid for Hurricane Sandy victims. The bill passed the House on a 354-67 vote. It passed the Senate unanimously by voice vote."

Many insurance companies are just refusing to insure houses in Florida now, there are only a few left and premiums are 4 times higher than for other areas in the US, many residents simply can't afford insurance, but help for people after Hurricane Sandy, amazingly the bill passed 354 to 67 in a Republican dominated house, you would think this would be a message to DeSantis, but no, he voted against it, now as Governor he has the power to block it, the same will happen this time, come on Florida, do the right thing, get rid of the piece of excrement of a human being!

https://www.newsweek.com/florida-uninsu ... in-1823350