catastrophic climat change

anonymous asked:

why do you people everything’s going to come crashing down over the next few decades like that’s... depressing

industrial agriculture will probably collapse dude to industrial scale monoculture, erosion of top soil, teamed with catastrophic climate change that will change global weather patterns and lead to more storms and more rain and in general more unpredictability plus the fact that 40% of the earth’s surface is used for agriculture, i mean, it’s a recipe for disaster

the introduction of artificial nitrogen via fertilizers made from petroleum products has allowed earth’s population to balloon way past what is probably ecologically rational

This is what colonialism looks like

“If you ever wondered what colonialism looks like, this is it. It’s a country that ignores a catastrophic disaster in its colony while people draw “SOS” signs on the street that they need water and food, yet responded with surprising agility to make sure they passed a law protecting Wall Street investors and their profits in the island.

It’s a President that tweets how “sad” it is that millions are starving, with no electricity or water and reminds them that it’s because they owe bankers billions of dollars, which they will need to repay (before aid is shipped?).

It’s an imperial power whose denial of climate change and undeterred capitalism contributed to the destruction of whole island nations and yet when calls of aid are demanded to respond for their crimes, silence.

Colonialism is not being able to control your borders, air space or ports so you can’t receive aid shipments from nearby countries wanting to help and show solidarity because your colonial power is MIA, except for their military planes which hover nearby to keep away other countries’ aid.

This is what colonialism looks like. This is what capitalism looks like. This is what climate change and our future looks like.”


Raise a Paddle: a journey from the Pacific Islands to the tar sands

In May 2017, a group of Pacific Islanders travelled half way across the world to visit the Canadian tar sands.

Justin Trudeau’s recently approved pipelines will unleash catastrophic climate change — for Pacific islanders this means rising sea levels threatening their homes, communities, and cultures. The Pacific Climate Warriors embarked on this journey in order to bear witness to the project responsible for unleashing destruction on their homelands. Along the way, they built solidarity with Indigenous Peoples in Canada whose traditional territories are threatened by tar sands.

anonymous asked:

A lot of conservationists try to maintain an ecosystem that would exist without human intervention, but climate change is affecting every ecosystem globally. How can conservationists respond to climate change while still maintaining a "natural" ecosystem?

Rather than trying to preserve protected areas such as national parks as little pictures of a past to which we cannot return, conservation science and practice are examining how we can conserve ecosystem function, such as fire, and individual species across landscapes under potential future scenarios. Integration of historical and projected climate change trends and ecosystem changes and future vulnerabilities into resource management can allow us to manage ecosystems and species under climate change. Fire management re-targeted to areas of higher risk of catastrophic fire under climate change, conservation of potential climate change refugia for endangered species, invasive species control targeted to areas more vulnerable under climate change, and other measures can help conserve ecosystems and species.

When I was, young and fantasized about becoming a wildlife filmmaker, I imagined I would be living in some remote wilderness meticulously documenting the wildlife that lived there. But it soon became clear that my idea of wilderness was in grave need of revision. In my travels around the world it became clear that our influence extends to every corner of this globe, and there are few natural ecosystems, if any, that are not in some way managed by humans. While working on our most recent film in Yosemite National Park, I asked a few forest ecologists this same question, how do you manage the forests of the Sierra’s in the face of a rapidly changing climate? They told me that they are now looking at climate models to help craft conservation strategies based on what they think the future climate may be. Part of that strategy is to identify refugia, places where special environmental circumstances may enable some species to survive as the climate grows warmer. During past climatic events it is believed that these refugia allowed some communities of species to survive, while others in the surrounding area, passed into extinction. But this is just a piece of that conservation puzzle, and curbing carbon emissions must be a part of that solution, because every species has a tipping point from which recover is impossible. An interesting read that has made me think a lot about our role in conservation (not specifically climate change) is Jon Mooallem’s book: “Wild Ones: A Sometimes Dismaying, Weirdly Reassuring Story About Looking at People Looking at Animals in America” a fascinating and thought provoking read.

This is something I mentioned on twitter: my favorite idea lately for stories to work with is “humanity’s struggle to come to terms with the unknowable.” That’s as fine a point as I can put on it, I guess. It seems like an important and politically resonant idea, and a lot of my thinking lately revolves around how to articulate a position at odds with extremist claims of absolute knowledge, while still existing in a world of provisional material truth.

Here’s a list of media that I’ve really loved and that approaches this idea from different angles. Nothing comprehensive, just a list I’ve been adding to.

  • Moby-Dick by Herman Melville, 1851. This is a book I have spent too much time with, and its focus on the failure of human intellect and ideology to make sense of nature/the transcendent/god is important to me.
  • Solaris by Stanisław Lem, 1961. One of my favorite scifi novels; more about philosophy of science than about scientific ideas. Moody and intense satire. The Tarkovsky adaptation is beautiful but doesn’t quite engage with the same ideas.
  • Roadside Picnic by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, 1971. Bewildering pseudo-first-contact story that really interestingly ties into USSR politics (this point is made really well in HyperNormalisation). Also adapted by Tarkovsky, interestingly; haven’t seen it tho
  • Alien, 1979. One of a hundred examples of a story that works elegantly with little exposition of its fantastical elements, to be undercut by the more explicit approach of its sequels. Really cool to read as a chaoskampf story; alien representing the archetypal dragon/chaos monster. Beowulf should maybe be on this list but I don’t remember it too well
  • 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968. I mean obviously.
  • Shin Godzilla, 2016. Extremely smart use of an entrenched pop-culture genre as essentially political satire. I read a lot of people saying it didn’t make sense if you aren’t familiar with Japanese politics but I disagree!!
  • Arrival, 2016. The aliens are satisfyingly Weird to me but understanding them is treated as an achievable intellectual goal, so maybe it doesn’t belong on this list. anyway good movie
  • Dark Ecology by Timothy Morton, 2016. Ambitious and mystifying book that’s sort of about building a new way of relating to ecology and humanity, in the context of catastrophic climate change. A lot of time spent deconstructing mythologies of absolute truth that proceed from the invention of agriculture. Plato’s Revenge (2011) is a book that deals with some similar ideas but I did not like it so much
  • Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong, 1982. Broad & fascinating book on linguistics and the cultural shift represented by the invention of writing. The idea that literacy in particular concretizes our language and our models of the world is why it’s on this list.

imagine being a leftist in a world where we’ve already stepped over the edge of catastrophic climate change and we’re witnessing in real-time the picking up of speed that disaster climate change is making, and when presented with a totalizing critique of not only just capitalism but civilization itself, the form of social organization that has been the precedent for every large-scale human atrocity on the planet throughout history and your response is: “hmmm ur right but ur kinda too negative for me so im gonna stick my head in the sand”

anonymous asked:

To Patrick, how do you expect to adapt NPS efforts to the consequences of climate change which alters how environment responds to conservation efforts negatively? I mean that the ecosystem does not respond to removing invasives, rehabilitating endangered species of animals, etc. in the same way (regenerate as quickly, return nutrients, , etc) as before.

Based on published scientific information on human climate change, the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) is developing measures to achieve its mission of conserving national parks for future generations. NPS has re-examined the goals of resource management. Rather than trying to preserve parks as little pictures of a past to which we cannot return, the agency now seeks to manage for potential future scenarios. Integration of historical and projected climate change trends and ecosystem changes and future vulnerabilities into resource management can allow us to manage species and ecosystems more effectively under climate change. Fire management re-targeted to areas of higher risk of catastrophic fire under climate change, conservation of potential climate change refugia for endangered species, invasive species control targeted to areas more vulnerable under climate change, and other measures can help conserve species and ecosystems.

I’m actually really curious what environmentally-minded lefties plan on doing about the fact that people in Africa are having way too many goddamn babies

Like Macron just recently pointed out that this was a huge problem and a lot of lefties went bonkers and got really mad but the African population boom and all the resulting effects are going to be more or less catastrophic for the planet


‪Climate Collapse Outpacing Scientific Model‬
Is the world really better than ever?
The long read: The headlines have never been worse. But an increasingly influential group of thinkers insists that humankind has never had it so good – and only our pessimism is holding us back
By Oliver Burkeman

By the end of last year, anyone who had been paying even passing attention to the news headlines was highly likely to conclude that everything was terrible, and that the only attitude that made sense was one of profound pessimism – tempered, perhaps, by cynical humour, on the principle that if the world is going to hell in a handbasket, one may as well try to enjoy the ride. Naturally, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump loomed largest for many. But you didn’t need to be a remainer or a critic of Trump’s to feel depressed by the carnage in Syria; by the deaths of thousands of migrants in the Mediterranean; by North Korean missile tests, the spread of the zika virus, or terror attacks in Nice, Belgium, Florida, Pakistan and elsewhere – nor by the spectre of catastrophic climate change, lurking behind everything else. (And all that’s before even considering the string of deaths of beloved celebrities that seemed like a calculated attempt, on 2016’s part, to rub salt in the wound: in the space of a few months, David Bowie, Leonard Cohen, Prince, Muhammad Ali, Carrie Fisher and George Michael, to name only a handful, were all gone.) And few of the headlines so far in 2017 – Grenfell tower, the Manchester and London attacks, Brexit chaos, and 24/7 Trump – provide any reason to take a sunnier view.Yet one group of increasingly prominent commentators has seemed uniquely immune to the gloom. In December, in an article headlined “Never forget that we live in the best of times”, the Times columnist Philip Collins provided an end-of-year summary of reasons to be cheerful: during 2016, he noted, the proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty had fallen below 10% for the first time; global carbon emissions from fossil fuels had failed to rise for the third year running; the death penalty had been ruled illegal in more than half of all countries – and giant pandas had been removed from the endangered species list.

Why we are taking Arctic oil to court With this historic court case a new generation is now taking action to stop oil companies from kidnapping our future.

Nature & Youth and Greenpeace Nordic, alongside a broad coalition, have filed an unprecedented people-powered legal case against the Norwegian government.

It has the potential to become a rallying point for people resisting fossil fuel exploration around the world. This case is about holding back the oil industry at the final frontier. It is about protecting the fragile Arctic. It is about a new generation stepping up to hold governments accountable to their climate promises.

We will argue in court that we must take action to keep the Paris climate agreement on track, and we will invoke the Norwegian people’s right to a healthy and safe environment, as it is written in article 112 of Norway’s Constitution. This lawsuit demands that Norway upholds its constitutional guarantee for future generations. Norway was among the first countries in the world to ratify the Paris Climate agreement and has promised to reduce its emissions by ambitious targets. At the same time, the Norwegian state-owned oil company, Statoil, has announced a major new exploration campaign in the Barents Sea. They want to drill up to seven new exploratory wells in the Arctic next year.

How can it be right to agree to a 1.5 degree limit on global warming in Paris and just weeks later announce you are starting a new chapter for Arctic oil? The science is already clear, we have to keep 80% of the proven fossil-fuel reserves in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change.

This will be a case of the people vs. Arctic oil. This is not just a Norwegian issue, but a global one.

As the polar ice cap melts, desperate oil companies are attempting to move even further north to drill for more of the same oil that is behind the global warming and which threatens the Arctic nature and wildlife with devastating oil spills. If we, together, don´t stop them, they could destroy one of the world’s last great wilderness areas forever and push our climate beyond saving.

This is a critical moment. Oil is warming our world and polluting our oceans. No one wants this to be the legacy we leave for future generations. But if enough people join us in this case, it can be a catalyst for similar legal actions in other parts of the world to keep the fossil fuels in the ground. As millions of us come together and take the climate crooks to court, we continue to build a movement to take back our future. Starting in the Arctic, it is time to end the oil age.

Please help us have the best chance possible - we need thousands of people to show their support - add your name and it will be submitted to the court to demonstrate this is a global concern.

Ingrid Skjoldvær is Head of Nature & Youth Norway

When I post about veganism, I lose poc followers.

When I post about racism, I lose [white] vegan followers.

I see this pattern as a perfect illustration of the failure of the mainstream vegan movement to include already marginalized people. I am sick of getting comments and msgs about how animal lives are more important than cultural food traditions, how I’m siding with the enemy when I criticize veganism, blah blah blah. 


I don’t see veganism as the answer to all of our world’s problems. Speciesism is not the origin of racism. Eating animals is not the cause nor main factor for catastrophic climate change. Patriarchy did not arise out of the practice of using animals for human benefit. 

Arguments like these turn POC and others off to veganism and animal rights in general. When you try to boil down all the world’s problems into one issue, you do so at the expense of everyone else’s pain and suffering. I’ve said this so many times before but I’ll say it again. To white vegans and animal rights activists–want to get others to care and join your movement? Make YOUR activism intersectional instead of expecting all marginalized people to be on board with your movement–that assumption that people must not “really care” about social justice/climate change/etc because they don’t follow your method of abstaining from animal products is PEAK WHITE ARROGANCE.
Big Insurers Brace for Perilous Future as Climate Risks Escalate
After one of the worst Atlantic hurricane seasons in history, the world’s biggest insurers say the industry needs to get its act together if it wants to survive climate change.

The insurance companies that provide catastrophe insurance are the elephants in the climate change room. Because of their reliance on statistics and science, they understand and fear climate change more than most business corporations and clearly more than politicians, particularly the idiot politicians (i.e., republicans and a few Democrats) in the US. Once they decide they can no longer insure against losses from natural catastrophes, or jack their premiums up to unaffordable levels, then watch the republicans and the trumpsters suddenly become believers in climate change. Or not.


Insuring against weather natural disasters could reach unaffordable levels for households and companies, while the potential damage is so unpredictable it may be impossible to model – an unacceptable risk to insurers.

“Sometime in the future there will be the situation where people cannot afford any longer to buy catastrophe insurance – this is what we want to avoid,” Ernst Rauch, the head of the Corporate Climate Centre at Munich Re. The world’s largest reinsurer suffered a 1.4 billion-euro ($1.63 billion) loss after hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria sent claims soaring.

Contrary to Warren Buffett’s view that climate change will spur demand for coverage and boost profit at his insurance companies, the risk is the opposite unfolds as shifting weather patterns render disaster-prone areas uninsurable. Finding ways to prevent this is on the agenda of United Nations-backed climate talks in Bonn, Germany this week.

The onus of bearing the expense of rebuilding after hurricanes, floods and earthquakes already falls disproportionately on governments.

Insurers are on the hook for only about 10 percent of $75 billion of damage in Texas caused by flooding after Hurricane Harvey, according to AIR Worldwide. That’s because most standard U.S. home insurance policies don’t cover flooding covered by most policies. It’s a similar story in Fiji, hit last year by its worst cyclone ever, where less than one in ten people own insurance.

“It’s a big concern of Swiss Re that there’s such a huge gap between the economic losses and what is insured,” said Peter Zimmerli, the head of atmospheric perils at Swiss Re, the second-biggest reinsurer. “Some of the signals of global warming are just there – they can’t be debated any more.”

I don’t think that shifting to renewables would, of itself, be enough to prevent catastrophic climate change, but I do think that if the fossil fuel industry collapsed, organised climate denialism would pretty much evaporate overnight. 

Experts reveal latest 'Doomsday Clock' estimate

The world remains perilously close to a nuclear disaster or catastrophic climate change that could devastate humanity, according to Stanford experts and California Governor Jerry Brown, who were on hand to unveil the latest update to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ “doomsday clock” on Tuesday.

The symbolic clock was created in 1947 when Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer (the father of the U.S. nuclear program) founded the publication.

The closer the minute hand gets to midnight, the closer their Board of Science and Security predicts humankind is to destroying itself.

Keep reading

If Donald Trump wins, the paranoid style in climate politics — the belief that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast international conspiracy of scientists — will become official doctrine, and catastrophe will become all but inevitable.
—  Paul Krugman in his New York Times Op-Ed, What About The Planet?