I have always wanted to live long enough to see how it all ends:
A chilling Australian policy paper outlining a Doomsday scenario for humans if we don’t start dealing with climate change suggests that by 2050 we could see irreversible damage to global climate systems resulting in a world of chaos where political panic is the norm and we are on a path facing the end of civilization.
The worst thing about it, say experts, is that it’s actually a fairly calm and rational look at just how bad things could get — and how quickly — if humans don’t stop emitting greenhouse gases into the environment [Elizabeth Weise, “End of Cvilization: Climate Change Apocalypse by 2050 If We Don’t Act, Report Warns,” USA Today, 2019.06.05].
This doomsday policy paper comes from David Spratt, research director of Australia’s Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, and engineer Ian Dunlop, a former Royal Dutch Shell exec and Australian Coal Associations chair. Their scenario assumes that policymakers twiddle their thumbs for just ten more years, through 2030, at which point greenhouse gas emissions peak and begin to dwindle by the simple economics of decreased use of fossil fuels. What does sticking with the status quo get us?
Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability.
…North America suffers from devastating weather extremes including wildfires, heatwaves, drought and inundation.
…Aridification emerges over more than 30 percent of the world’s land surface. Desertification is severe in southern Africa, the southern Mediterranean, west Asia, the Middle East, inland Australia and across the south-western United States [David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, “Existential Climate-Related Security Risk: A Scenario Approach,” Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, May 2019].
Retired Australian Admiral Chris Barrie forewords the paper with this call to action:
A doomsday future is not inevitable! But without immediate drastic action our prospects are poor. We must act collectively. We need strong, determined leadership in government, in business and in our communities to ensure a sustainable future for humankind [Chris Barrie, foreword to Spratt and Dunlop, May 2019].
Democrats, keep that in mind when we get to primary season. Whatever snowballs we throw at each other as we pick our nominee, the survival of snowballs and human civilization depend on shaking hands at convention, uniting around our nominee, and removing the current regime, which promises not only inaction but counterproductive action on climate change, the primary threat to our continued existence.
wow. no surprise if you have been paying attention, avoiding rightwing talk show spin from FOX, Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch. The report (page four) says:
“… it is essential to build a zero emissions industrial system very quickly. This requires the global mobilization of resources on an emergency basis, akin to a wartime level of response.”
The huge energy corporation XCEL (a Black Hills Energy “partner”) wants to dither until 2050, for example. This will kill us. 2030 is the time frame. 11 years from now. Thune, Rounds, Johnson, Noem: ACT NOW. Today, not tomorrow. We can’t play political delay games like Trump and the rest of the GOP are playing.
“it is essential to build a zero emissions industrial system very quickly. This requires the global mobilization of resources on an emergency basis, akin to a wartime level of response.”
It’s not that humans will go extinct. We are a weed, so humans will survive, but it won’t be pretty.
It didn’t need to be this way, but greed and ignorance and the idea that money is speech has given us a political system that is broken, and can’t respond to real emergencies, but they are good at creating fake emergencies to fool the foolish.
My lifetime has been lived post-WWII in the USA, a time and a place that elevated itself out of reality. We have bought our delusions with greenhouse gases, and now we face the consequences.
We are lucky here where I live this week. The rain has abated and corn and soybeans will be planted at a rapid pace. But a climate-change-denying leader misconstrues the real emergency with a fake one, because he can’t figure out or won’t admit that the brown people at the southern border are the results of not addressing climate change.
Get ready for more such migrations. Not all will be as dramatic as the Hondurans. In Wisconsin, we are moving whole communities up and out of areas that had rarely flooded. In the last 20 years repeated floods have made moving communities to higher ground a less expensive option than having to rebuild every three years.
It’s too bad we didn’t start addressing the issues around a changing climate 40 years ago when it would have been easy. But humans, especially male humans who tend to be “leaders,” don’t do the easy thing. Ever.
I have to admit, I’m one of them that is good at ignoring problems if it means fixing them requires lying down on the floor sticking my head in a space that has spiders and grime that gets cleaned out once a year. My sweetie wants me to fix things now that I insist aren’t much of a problem. “I’ll get around to it,” I say. Usually, that means “I’ll get around to it when it breaks, and it’s a real emergency.”
I try to be more like my sweetie, but it’s not a man’s way of thinking. We wait for things to get really bad before we get involved. That’s why men fight wars and stick our fingers in dams: we are too dumb and lazy to fix something when it squeaks. We want a flood under the sink.
This is why we have needed women in charge for, oh, forty years. They deal with the little things so they don’t become big things. And they yell at men until they actually do something.
Trump is like the little kid who’s always afraid that someone is going to get more than he is getting, or have to do more than others are doing. But if the United States is going to be a world leader in saving our air and our water and our planet, it’s ok if we actually LEAD and give more, give as much as we can. Quit whining about others aren’t doing enough.
“Meanwhile, Trump’s government is actively undercutting science. For example, as reported in the New York Times recently, the United States Geological Service will no longer model the impacts of climate change beyond the year 2040. What’s more, the Administration is proposing that the U.S. National Climate Assessment ignore the impacts of climate change under “worst-case emissions scenarios.”
“The “worst-case emissions scenario” under attack by the Administration is one in which “emissions continue to rise as a result of fossil fuel use”—in other words, the very future this Administration is creating through its campaign to roll back years of progress in controlling carbon pollution. And reality, this is simply a “business-as-usual” scenario, forecasting the results of a passive policy of climate inaction. It isn’t even close to a true worst-case scenario. Consider, for example, this admittedly over-the-top recent Australian analysis envisioning the end of human civilization by mid-century.” Michael E. Mann
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/2333291106727078?comment_id=2333750580014464¬if_id=1559913685706686¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic
Russian scientists on methane in Siberia. More reasons to legalize recreation weed along with industrial hemp. We are kissing our arse’s goodbye, so we might as well be high.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJfOWfaP6RI
Bloomberg is launching a Beyond Carbon campaign that also targets natural gas in addition to coal.
https://www.bloomberg.org/press/releases/michael-bloomberg-launches-beyond-carbon-the-largest-ever-coordinated-campaign-against-climate-change-in-united-states/
It is a pro-renewable, anti-coal, anti-natural gas campaign. It does not mention nuclear as far as I can tell (so I definitely was not on the planning committee ;^) ). But hope springs eternal.
The focus is on reducing carbon to fight climate change. But there is not much recognition about the need to balance supply and demand without emitting carbon. Because batteries are not ready, we have been growing our consumption of natural gas. The effort is more difficult when we shut down nuclear plants and replace that energy with…..natural gas.
Biofuels and biomass tend to have carbon in them…and they tend to use natural gas to power the processing.
Beyond Fossil Fuel instead?
The latest line of BS from anthropogenic effecter deniers is “all gases are greenhouse gases”. Jeebus.
A greenhouse gas needs to have a significant capability of absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation back to the surface. Non-greenhouse gases are transparent to frequencies in the critical part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
#4Science
Apparently science is overrated. trump just declared that the Earth’s moon is not really the Earth’s moon but Mars’s moon. So by going to Mars, we have already been there and that won’t save our civilization. Take that science books, republicans are rewriting them to fit the stable genius’s view of the universe.
Wilted Weenie is too crazy to comprehend the gravity of his actions and the GOP leadership is too psychopathic to care.
doc, “Because batteries are not ready, we have been growing our consumption of natural gas.”
Actually, because domestic nuclear was not ready (and still is not), we have been growing our consumption of fossil fuels.
I keep waiting (and wanting), to hear that nuclear will save the day. certainly a spoonful of fuel runs a missile boat for years. well, how about a nuclear lift off device for a Mars shot? despite decades and billions of $$ of subsidies, nuclear keeps its head in the sand ignoring floods and tsunamis so utilities can make monopolistic profit. and like fossil fuels champions, all we hear is whining about regulation.
The race is indeed on to get to Mars. But if we can sustain a base on the Moon without any atmosphere at all, then a longer duration on Mars is more feasible.
Interestingly, NASA is looking at nuclear, solar, and energy storage to sustain bases at either location and for travel to either location.
From the “two forward and one back” department …
“White House blocked intelligence agency’s written testimony saying human-caused climate change could be ‘possibly catastrophic,'” by WaPo’s Juliet Eilperin, Josh Dawsey and Brady Dennis:
“White House officials barred a State Department intelligence agency from submitting written testimony this week to the House Intelligence Committee warning that human-caused climate change could be ‘possibly catastrophic’ after State officials refused to delete the document’s references to the scientific consensus on climate change.
“The effort to edit, and ultimately suppress, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research prepared testimony comes as the Trump administration is debating how best to challenge the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet and could pose serious risks unless the world makes deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. …
What do you mean nuclear is not ready? It has been producing 20% of our electricity for the past few decades, and over 70% of France’s electricity over the same time period.
It is more correct to say that many are not ready to accept more nuclear energy, than to say nuclear isn’t ready. We should be decommissioning today’s plants and replacing them with the advanced ones…but we are left to keep the old ones going to maintain carbon reductions until the politics work out.
NASA is currently working on nuclear thermal propulsion. The problem with chemical propulsion is that it simply takes too long to get there, which means more space radiation for astronauts.
The best thing we can do is get people there faster to reduce the dose. But I don’t think they are talking about lifting things off the surface with nuclear. They are also working on nuclear energy to power settlements (particularly for Mars when dust makes solar difficult to use all the time).
we know that Koch Brothers “regulation whining” (C) is a simplistic red herring, just like insisting a female leader or a brown leader will be better. reality is always more complicated. we need a leadership system that genuinely does the best that can be done with available resources. our separation of government and elective, divided-power exec/judicial/legislative house of cards is built on sand (white supremacy and naked greed), and so is now showing considerable wear. thanks thune, GOP, and idiot leaders who happen to be male, like bush/cheny and trump/Murdoch. we allowed “Gone with the Wind” soap operas to teach pop history, and continue to allow Kristi and Sara Palin Steve Allender idiots to revise American Indian and Russian history.
education is the only solution. pay teachers. take politics and profit out of education.
Look to China for advancement on climate change safely. https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/17/china-yutu2-discovered-moon-mantle-material/
Mr. Pay is right. Humans are a weed, or perhaps a cockroach on the kitchen floor of the earth. Every pot plant and seed on the planet will die or be eaten as salad. Some of us, the nastiest and gnarliest of the bunch, probably every one of them Rock-ribbed Republicans, will claw our gnarled visages to the surface. It will be like the Mad Max and Waterworld movies had a baby. Many of the remaining voters will bear a strong physical resemblance to grudznick.
A connecting principle,
Linked to the invisible,
Almost imperceptible
Something inexpressible.
Science insusceptible
Logic so inflexible
Causally connectable
Nothing is invincible!
Nice, Doc.
While I share a distaste for greed, maybe it’s just adaption. Adapt, or die, but either it’s adaption or maladaptation. Obviously we could do more with one another’s help but there’s always that line when everyone is out only for themselves it’s the primal instinct to survive and the basis for Darwinism.
Doc- not ready?!
“Instead of a planned, coherent system, we have the confusion of an unplanned, less than optimal system,” nuclear experts wrote in a 2018 report on nuclear waste management strategy and policy, calling the U.S. program “an ever-tightening Gordian Knot” subject to technical, scientific, logistical, regulatory, legal, financial, social, and political challenges. “This is not a situation that builds public confidence.” Slate, 6.07.19.
France leads the way but … recycling is more expensive, and without regulatory pressure to change existing systems, commercial nuclear energy plants may not want to pony up the cash.
France’s energy system is government-run, and its government has decided to invest the money to have less waste sitting around in the long term.
I don’t think one can self-consistently oppose solutions to the nuclear waste issue, while complaining that nothing is getting done because of said opposition ;^).
I agree that reprocessing or some type of consumption of the existing waste forms with an advanced reactor makes better sense in the long run. There will be less radioactivity and less volume to isolate, and less time for said isolation. The advanced reactor could also generate process heat (which would be useful in many different industries). But either route will cost more than isolation today.
In parallel, the Trump Administration is taking action at the moment with regard to defense wastes currently stored at the national laboratories: These are NOT commercial wastes from power plants. The change in approach will be based upon the actual radioactivity of the waste.
There is opposition to the plan (surprise). However, you would think that opponents would want to spend the money now allocated for isolation at national labs on other things (like renewables, or energy storage, or social programs).
“IEA rings alarm bell on phasing out nuclear energy”
IEA = International Energy Agency
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclearpower-iea/iea-rings-alarm-bell-on-phasing-out-nuclear-energy-idUSKCN1SX1XW
Replacing the power from nuclear just by renewables (and its requisite infrastructure) would be expensive. Replacing nuclear with coal and gas would cost less, but will emit more carbon.
So the IEA is recommending that current nuclear plants be supported to extend their lifetimes. The globe is on-track to lose 2/3 of its nuclear power by 2040. If the status quo holds, all of that will be replaced with natural gas.
Thus figuring out how best to deal with our nuclear waste is important to avoiding extra carbon emissions.
The costs of nuclear danger to humans must be considered. And the cost of cleanup of radioactive waste. In reality, there is no clean-up from radioactive waste. And the cost of nuclear accident. My nephew still working on cleanup at Hanford . And now the Trump admin is telling us that radioactive waste is not as dangerous as we thought, so they are lowering the standards for worker contact, without input from any science, of course. Think Fukishima. Think Chernobyl.
Plan to Reclassify Radioactive Nuclear Waste Spurs Anger
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-06-10/energy-department-plan-to-reclassify-radioactive-nuclear-waste-spurs-anger
The reclassification is based upon data for present radioactivity levels (#4Science), not about how the waste was made or what radioactivity it used to have.
But let’s be clear….or I should say unclear….it is unclear what science would be necessary to convince nuclear opponents that nuclear waste could be stored well and transported well.
They can cut doses far below what a banana truck would emit to the public, but that wouldn’t be enough. High doses in a short amount of time are what biology has a problem with. Low doses over a long time are OK with biology.
This just in…absolute zero environmental risks from solar and wind development are not possible either. We should work to reduce risks while optimizing and accruing the benefits. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming….
If they can move the low level wastes out of there, then doses to workers can go down. Space now taken up by low level waste could be replaced by shielding. And if you are really worried about leaks, the less waste there is, the less of a chance there will be of a leak, and the less that could actually leak.
Moreover, these are monies that could and should be spent elsewhere….even on things of interest to those nuclear opponents. You would think that could be part of a deal.
Industrial hemp replacing plastic would clean up a whole lot of issues. Hemp biodegrades in months not decades using less fossil fuels. Industrial hemp as a replacement to plastic is another reason why this state will not allow it to be productive.
Governor GNoem got just over $118,000.00 from energy. That is 118,000 reasons to put industrial hemp in the forgotten history bin after making such a big deal about it in the Farm Bill.
Link for that https://ministryofhemp.com/blog/why-isnt-hemp-plastic-everywhere/
And it probably would cost more too.
Here is some more information from the Department of Energy regarding the reclassification. There are multiple fact sheets at the very bottom of the page.
https://www.energy.gov/em/program-scope/high-level-radioactive-waste-hlw-interpretation
This impacts defense wastes only, not wastes from the production of electricity from nuclear power. If the radioactivity falls below threshold, then isolation in a deep geologic repository is not required.
“DOE interprets the statutes to provide that a reprocessing waste may be determined to be non-HLW if the waste meets either of the following two criteria:
I) does not exceed concentration limits for Class C low-level radioactive waste as set out in section 61.55 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, and meets the performance objectives of a disposal facility; or
II) does not require disposal in a deep geologic repository and meets the performance objectives of a disposal facility as demonstrated through a performance assessment conducted in accordance with applicable requirements.”
In trump world you can build schools (colleges included) with bricks of waste. Just put a coat of cheap paint on it and call’r good.
From James Conca on Forbes regarding the need to keep nuclear plants on-line if one is truly interested in reducing our carbon and saving money.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/14/message-to-ohio-electricity-customers-stop-closing-nuclear-plants/
“If all the nuclear plants stay open, the regions ratepayers would save $2.1 billion and prevent the release of 19.4 million tons of carbon.
If the nuclear plants close, the savings would be less at $1.6 billion and the emission of only 4.3 billion tons of carbon would be avoided.”
“Although better than coal, gas is certainly not emission-free, and every time a nuclear plant has closed in America over the last ten years, it has been replaced by gas, increasing those state’s carbon emissions.”
The requested nuclear subsidy appears to be $190 million, or less than a penny per kilowatt-hour. The equivalent renewable subsidy that would be required to deliver the same power would be $475 million.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/23/agriculture-department-climate-change-1376413
Hiding reports of climate change and non-funding of research.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/an-inside-account-of-trumps-fuel-economy-debacle/606346/
drumpf cooked the books, just like Fake Noize does, to get report to lie to the public on carbon emissions and deaths.
No surprise. That’s what Liar-in-Chief does.
New report shows Ford and GM knew back in the 60’s vehicle emissions caused climate change.
https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/522762-automakers-knew-1960s-emissions-caused-climate-change-report