Can We Save Ourselves?
Last month was the hottest July on record for much of the planet and August is shaping up to be the same. Some of the results include hundreds of human deaths, devastation of wildlife, crop loss, droughts and extreme fires. It has been so hot in some countries that nuclear power plants had to shut down because the rivers that cooled them became too hot. Demands for air conditioning have caused blackouts in several countries. Temperatures in many parts of the northern hemisphere have been consistently 8-10°C higher than normal for much of the last year and the past four years have been the hottest in human history, but from the Earth's perspective, global warming and climate change are just getting started. We have triggered the planet's self-destruct mechanism, which is releasing massive amounts of methane and CO2 from the Arctic. The impact of intense concentrations of greenhouse gases on the Arctic are clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Arctic was 60-70°C above normal this past winter, which has never happened before in known human history. The extreme heat we have been experiencing is not merely a heat wave and this year we can't blame it on El Niño. It is the new norm, but not for long, since it will likely be even hotter next year. Thanks to human activity, atmospheric CO2 levels have jumped from 280 ppm to close to 410 ppm since industrialization, while more than half of the planet's carbon absorbing forests have been destroyed. Since the 1960s the global growth rate of CO2 has nearly
quadrupled. According to the American Meteorological Society, 2017 saw the highest levels of CO2 in at least the last 800,000 years. Other, more potent greenhouse gases have risen even more than CO2. CO2 levels have certainly been higher in Earth's history but they have never risen so fast or when half of the forests are gone. Normally, the oceans would absorb much of the extra heat and excess CO2 but we have released far too much carbon into the atmosphere far too quickly for the oceans to keep up and help stabilize the climate. We are now well past the point of no return. The tipping points have been exceeded and feedback loops have firmly kicked in. Because it takes about 100 years for CO2 to cycle out of the atmosphere (with a healthy planet), no matter how much humans reduce their emissions it won't be enough to stop the rapid melting of the Arctic and the release of vastly more carbon than all human emissions for all time. Even the conservative U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) admits that if somehow humanity "stopped the greenhouse gases at their current concentrations today, the atmosphere would still continue to warm for [the] next couple [of] decades to maybe a century." Because we didn't reduce our own emissions soon enough and have triggered the Arctic carbon bomb we can't stop nature's emissions. Atmospheric greenhouse gas levels will absolutely continue to rise and so will the Earth's temperature. The last time something like this happened was 252 million years ago during the Permian-triassic boundary in which 90% of all life was wiped out. The difference between then and now is that the rate of CO2 release was slightly below today’s rate and there were also massive volcanic eruptions. The CO2 build-up also went on for 20,000 years. Climate Denial, Lies and Inaction The relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse effect has been known to science since the 1800s. The oil industry knew exactly what was coming back in the 1960s after commissioning studies on the topic at Stanford Research Institute. The industry then conspired to keep the information secret, attack anyone who tried to sound the alarm and funded a highly effective social engineering program to mislead the public on the issue and prevent government action. Most people had not even heard of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels until 1988 after NASA climate scientist James Hansen addressed U.S. Congress, presented the proof that human activity was indeed causing the planet to heat up and warned that we had to drastically reduce carbon emissions to avoid disaster. When faced with the opportunity to avoid disaster, the corrupt and incompetent Congress chose to do nothing, as did most of the rest of humanity. Hansen was muzzled and now the predicted disaster is upon us and rapidly growing worse each year. We have had more than 30 years to do something to prevent this disaster and most still choose to do little or nothing. Like slow boiling frogs, about 30% of the human population doesn't believe in or understand what is happening and pretends that everything is ok. It doesn't help that government, media and academia tells us that the water is not really getting that hot yet and we still have time to stop it. The oil industry has spent vast amounts to make people think that maybe it isn't really getting hotter after at all and even if it is then maybe it is a good thing. Don't worry, be happy, little frogs! Only a few of the countries who signed the 2015 Paris Accord and committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions have done much. Some countries, like the U.S. and Canada are going backwards and actually increasing carbon emissions and making it harder for people to convert to sustainable energy sources. It doesn't help that the actual amount of warming is being concealed by government, academia and media who promote a fictional annual global average temperature increase that doesn't reflect the actual temperature increase, or in the regions that count most. If we had not been lied to by so many for so long then it is likely that we could have indeed made the changes necessary to stop runaway global warming and not had to sacrifice most of the life on Earth to greed, evil and stupidity. It is true that measuring the Earth's temperature is a bit complex, but that doesn't excuse the lies. Actual temperature measurements do not go back very far, thermometers and temperature sensors have varying degrees of accuracy, some data is just erroneous due to human error or fraud, there are normal long-term temperature cycles to consider and then there is the question of what to actually measure. Does one focus only on land or should ocean surface temperatures be included? Since most of the land on Earth is in the Northern Hemisphere and it is heating much more rapidly than the ocean dominant Southern Hemisphere, should data be skewed by including more data from the Southern Hemisphere?
Official temperature data varies and different organizations use different data sets, process the data in different ways and then interpret the results in their own way to support their own agenda or the agenda imposed on them by others. There is no universally accepted protocol for taking the planet's temperature.
Many countries rely on temperature data produced by the world's worst climate denier—the United States, and its partner in crime, the UK. Even the supposedly independent Berkeley Earth climate center of the University of California has been partially funded by the notorious climate denying Koch brothers and sinister Bill Gates.
Much of the Berkley Earth data is contradictory and undated, however, Berkeley Earth did publish a report in 2012 showing that the Earth had already warmed by 1.5°C, and it does report some undated average temperature increases for cities which include:
• 3.47°C - Moscow, Russia
• 3.03°C - Kiev, Ukraine
• 2.86°C - New York, NY
• 2.01°C - Los Angeles, California
• 2.63°C - Chicago, IL
• 3.06°C - Toronto, Canada
• 2.95°C - Montreal, Canada
• 2.84°C - Paris, France
• 2.74°C - Berlin, Germany
• 2.66°C - Rome, Italy
• 2.50°C - Tianjin, China
• 2.05°C - Brasília, Brazil
• 2.71°C - Casablanca, Morroco
It is likely that Berkeley Earth's city data is several years old and current actual values are much higher, especially when this year is included.
If most of the major population centers around the globe have warmed by at least 2-3°C and the globe had already warmed by 1.5°C five years ago, how is it that NASA claims the Earth has only heated to date by 1°C? One can't really blame the heat island effect for the increase in temperatures of major population centers around the globe because rural areas are experiencing the same increase. NOAA ocean temperature data actually shows ocean temperatures rose by about 2.2°C from 1910 to 2015, which means that the Earth has certainly warmed by far more than 0.6-1°C claimed by government. Even though the oceans absorb most of the excess solar energy, it is unlikely for ocean temperatures to rise more than air temperatures. In 2010, National Geographic claimed that ocean warming was only 0.1°C. The magazine receives a lot advertising money from oil companies and is a conservative propaganda organ but somehow manages to remain a respected source of information for many.
According to the industry influenced UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) web site, global average surface temperature has increased by only "0.6°C and governments can still cap temperatures below the 1.5°C ceiling agreed to in 2015 with rapid and far-reaching transitions in the world economy" but if emissions continue at their present rate, human-induced warming won't exceed 1.5°C till around 2040. Apparently they are using data different from even the Koch brothers funded Berkeley Earth and don't bother to go outside very often.
On August 13, 2018, ocean temperature near Svalbard, Norway, was 16.4°C or 29.5°F warmer than 1981-2011.
The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. It claims that it merely "reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change." It then compiles reports based on only selected data and excludes a great deal of data.
The IPCC uses data from thousands of authors, many of them funded by the fossil fuel industry to generate fraudulent data. It also has 152 observer organizations, including OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) and other organizations influenced by the oil industry.
If there is any doubt about the IPCC'S big-oil biased agenda one only has to look at the oil company sponsors of its 2015 meeting in Paris. The IPCC sponsored 2018 Cities and Climate Change Science Conference was held in the capital of Canada's tar sands industry, Edmonton, Alberta. Since the meeting, Canada has doubled down on efforts to expand its insane tar sands operations—the greatest environment disaster on Earth.
While the IPCC claims that the planet won't warm by 1.5°C till 2040, the reality is that Earth has already warmed by far more than 1.5°C. Tragically, most of humanity chooses to believe the IPCC and those who parrot its lies rather than trust their own observations or bother to access the more reliable data.
Since the IPCC was founded in 1988, it has promoted a perspective that ensures that too little would be done to prevent runaway global warming and climate change and that humans would not adapt in time to prevent mass depopulation.
The IPCC doesn't just lie about current conditions, it also simply excludes the Arctic for its predictions of future conditions. Given that the Arctic is the largest driver of Earth's climate, simply ignoring it is criminal insanity. Some of the excuses given for excluding the Arctic in climate predictions is that it is too complex, too hard to study and its role in the climate is not fully understood, which is just pure BS. Even with prior research and high school physics and math one can calculate the likely general impact of the Arctic going from a reflector of the sun's energy to an absorber when the ice is gone. It is also not so hard to come up with some basic assumptions of the melt-rates and impact of releasing so much more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. When dealing with such gargantuan drivers it is not essential to be precise. The conspiracy to conceal the reality of global warming also extends to Internet search engines, such as Google. Using Google to search for climate change data returns mostly fraudulent data, links to oil industry propaganda and old data, so those who rely on Google and most other search engines to provide them with links to data will have an unrealistic perception of climate change. Every year mainstream climate scientists are flabbergasted by how much more rapidly the climate is changing than their flawed climate models had predicted and most conveniently omit the fact that many of the events they predicted for 2040, 2050 or 2100 have already occurred. What really matters is how the climate is changing where people live, crops are grown and at the poles— where vast amounts of water is stored in ice and where the energy from the sun is reflected back into space. But for some reason, the relevant, meaningful and essential climate data we really need to make informed decisions is generally missing from the discussions of global warming and climate change. Even with the limited data we have, it doesn't take a climate scientist to understand what our future holds. Anyone can project events forward along their logical course. Even the IPCC admits global warming is irreversible without geo-engineering, which doesn't yet exist and is not a priority on the international stage. If humanity were to somehow wake up and our institutions were no longer under the control of the fossil fuel industries and other sinister forces, it really is too late to avoid runaway climate change, mass human depopulation and the extinction of most other species. Biologist Guy Mcpherson presents a compelling case for unavoidable human extinction when global average temperatures rise by 4°C, but he does not take into account that humans are capable of great things. It is not too late to avoid extinction of the human species, and some others, but we need to start now.
Just as colonizing Mars is a resource and engineering problem, surviving on an increasingly uninhabitable Earth will be a resource and engineering issue, but it will also be a financial, cultural, psychological and social issue.
We really do have a choice about what happens to us. We can choose Option A and do little or nothing, try to party on for little while longer (business as usual) and then try to cope with the increasingly uninhabitable future when it arrives. Or we can choose Option B and start to work together to help ensure our survival on a planet that will soon be too hot to support most current life-forms.
Option A - Do Little or Nothing
So far most of humanity has chosen Option A and even when pretending to do something still end up doing little or nothing. While a few countries are aggressively moving away from carbon fuels and focusing on adaptation, many countries are still building new coal fired power plants—even though solar and wind are less expensive in every way. India still uses coal to generate 80% of electricity and some countries use dirty coal almost exclusively to generate electricity. The usage of coal, natural gas and oil continue to climb every year as the population increases, more people climb out of poverty and increase their energy needs and more extreme temperatures increase energy usage. Climate Scientist Professor James Hansen said at the 2015 Paris climate conference, “It’s a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2°C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises." While fossil fuels are in reality no longer the cheapest to use in most locations, the infrastructure is already in place and it is cheaper for utilities to keep using what they have rather than build something better that will save rate-payers money later and could have saved the planet if implemented early enough. Those who continue to choose Option A should have an idea of the consequences of their collective choices. Following is some of what we can all expect: Armageddon caused by global warming and climate
change won't happen all at once, although to some people it may seem that way. The changes in some areas will continue to be somewhat gradual to the limited human perspective and most people will manage to cope for awhile. We will adapt for a few more years, maybe. Maybe only a few thousand will die next year from global warming and few will panic or feel the need do anything different than make small incremental changes. As more energy is trapped on Earth, average global temperatures can only continue to rise and will rise much higher than the 1.5 or 2°C that we are told to expect by 2040 or the actual 3°C+ average increase that many areas are already experiencing. Peak temperatures will also be even greater than the 10-20°C increase that are now common in many areas. It is important to understand that Earth is already seeing warming up to 70°C above normal in the Arctic, which was not predicted by climate scientists and has been mostly ignored by many of them. With the Arctic rapidly going from a cooling system to a heat capturing system and already spewing out massive amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, our opportunity to prevent mass depopulation has passed.
For much of the planet it won't just get a little hotter for most of the year, it will be deadly hot for at least part of the year, as it has been this year and in some previous years. Higher temperatures more rapidly vaporize surface moisture and increase humidity and the higher the humidity the harder it is for the body to cool itself by sweating.
The combination of heat and high humidity will make an increasing number of locations uninhabitable in the near future.
According to Professor Paul Beckwith,
"How hot can it actually get? What is in store for us? When you combine the heat domes sitting over many countries with high humidity, many areas around the planet will soon reach the deadly 35°C (95°F) 100% humidity (wet bulb temperature) or equivalent situation whereby a perfectly healthy person outside, in a well ventilated area, in the shade will die from the heat in 6 hours. Most people, like the very young, the elderly, and the rest of us won’t last anywhere as long, at even lower temperatures...high-risk regions in the North China Plains, Middle East, and South Asia will soon be rendered uninhabitable by combined heat and humidity."
The higher temperatures also cause forests to die and burn, putting immense amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, eliminating essential carbon sinks and contributing to more droughts.
On a healthy planet with intact forests it would take maybe 100 years for most of the CO2 to cycle out of the atmosphere but on a planet without enough healthy forests and a dying ocean it could take many thousands of years for the Earth to heal and once again be able to support a rich diversity of species, but billions of years of evolution will still have been lost forever and our planet may not recover for a very, very long time, if at all.
At the same time that CO2 is going up, oxygen levels are declining and will continue to decline as deforestation continues, forests burn and the ocean plankton which supplies about half the world's oxygen dies from warmer water, more acidic PH and pollution.
Research published by scientists in the Global Ocean Oxygen Network show that dead zones in the oceans have grown by 400% in the last 50 years and their growth is accelerating rapidly.
We are already starting to suffer from oxygen deprivation. In the near future, some parts of the planet may not have enough oxygen to support mammals and other species.
Most people don't realize that plants and the microbes that make life possible also need oxygen. An Earth without sufficient oxygen will be mostly a dead planet.
Oxygen deprivation may be one of the causes of the rapid decline in human intelligence and the loss of morality seen around the globe in recent years.
Deserts will continue their expansion, new deserts will form and there will be ever more severe droughts, fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other storms.
It will take awhile, but ocean levels will rise by about 100 meters (328 feet) and put many of the world's major cities under water and submerge vast amounts of crop land.
As temperatures continue to rise, the demand on power systems will increase and the cost of staying cool will increase. Most homes and commercial buildings are not designed to stay cool in extremely high temperatures. Without government assistance, most property owners may not be able to pay for the extra insulation and more powerful cooling systems. More people will die in their homes due to insufficient cooling.
At some point the pressure to retire fossil fueled power plants will reach a critical level and countries who have not constructed alternatives could be forced to shut down power plants and face substantial and life-threatening power shortages.
Crop failures are already high this year in some locations and will increase until it becomes impractical to grow crops outdoors in many places. Food prices will continue to rise to the point where only the rich and powerful will be able to obtain enough food.
Water shortages will increase and more communities will run out of water. Water prices will go up and drain more money from economies.
The millions of climate refugees we now have will soon turn into hundreds of millions and then at least a billion, with no place they are really welcome. The value of human life will continue to plummet as the number of needy and unwelcome people overwhelm the institutions intended to help them and become increasingly desperate.
Countries that are unable or unwilling to keep refugees out will experience increasing civil unrest and economic stress.
Economies and governments in many countries will collapse from the burdens of weather disasters, civil unrest and too great of an influx of refugees. Last year alone the direct global economic cost from climate change was more than $300 billion, with actual longterm costs being incalculable. With the U.S. federal debt now at more than $21.3 trillion and annual inter- est rates alone approaching $1 trillion, it won't take too many more mega climate disasters to push the U.S. government into bankruptcy and when the dollar collapses it will cause an economic tsunami that will sweep the planet, because the dollar is so deeply embedded in the world's economy.
In the U.S. and other western countries, societies have been deliberately undermined and power centralized to make it more difficult for people to band together to address the challenges to their well-being. These countries will be more likely to have martial law imposed.
A collapse of the U.S. government would not necessarily disable the increasingly privatized U.S. military. Funding for some segments would simply shift to the corporations that already control military policy, and build the weapons and reap the benefits.
Under the Trump regime, the Pentagon changed its mission statement from "preventing war" to one that more accurately reflects its activities. The new stated mission is to "...provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our country and sustain American influence abroad.”
And sustain American influence it does. There are approximately 1,000 military bases around the world and countless secret missions by Special Forces using advanced technology to neutralize those who might challenge American influence.
The Pentagon also practices "Full Spectrum Dominance", which means that it seeks to control or strongly influence every country's government and media. Any country not under its control becomes a target for regime change until control is obtained. It does this not to ensure the security of the American people but to support the profits of American and select multi-national corporations.
The U.S. military uses an AI program actually called Skynet, like in the "Terminator" movies, to identify people to kill using drones and other weapons. Many of those killed are absolutely no threat to the U.S. or anyone else but are killed only to foment hatred of the United States, sustain opposition and justify the war industry. These war crimes go unchallenged and are now just business-as-usual to most observers.
Without greater civilian control of military forces we may expect the U.S. military and the local forces under its influence to target vocal victims of climate change and those who promote climate adaptation and protection of eco-systems.
A good example of this is Honduras. After the Obama administration orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected government and installed a new regime loyal to Washington, environmentalists and journalists were targeted for imprisonment, torture and murder on a mass scale. Peaceful protests and demonstrations were outlawed.
In the U.S., pipeline owners have already been using military contractors to infiltrate, monitor and disable those who oppose the fossil fuel expansion.
Large corporations are also working to criminalize peaceful protest by pushing legislation through corrupt politicians. These efforts will increase as more people seek to create change and hold the fossil fuel industry and government accountable.
Peaceful and legal protesters and even journalists are increasingly targets for unlawful arrest, prosecution and imprisonment in the U.S. by city, county, state and federal authorities.
Given that U.S. Homeland Security considers those who defend the U.S. Constitution and the environment to be priority targets and closely monitors democracy and environmental activists, it may not be long till SkyNet is used to target American protesters on U.S. soil for elimination. Evidence suggests that something like Skynet is already being used to target higher priority individuals.
China, Russia and other countries already target activists who promote democracy, justice and protection of the environment.
By the time that the masses wake up to their predicament it will be far too late for them to do anything about it by creating political change or protesting.
So, those who chose Option A can expect life to grow increasing more difficult and dangerous and civilization to generally end as we know it.
Option B - Engineering Survival 1. GEO-ENGINEERING
Some believe that last-ditch geo-engineering could somehow save us all and it is likely the only thing that could save large numbers.
According to the late Physicist Stephen Hawking, without geo-engineering we run the risk of turning the Earth into another uninhabitable Venus. He recommended that humans colonize space as a way to avoid extinction. Many other deep-thinkers agree.
Geo-engineering, or climate engineering, generally falls into two categories, greenhouse gas removal and solar radiation management. At present there is no quick and easy solution but there are a number of possibilities to consider and it is likely that a combination of existing and new technologies would have to be used to make a real difference.
The biggest hurdle to geo-engineering is not technological or economic, it is social. So far we can't seem to get past the research, discussion and debate stage and get to the stage where meaningful action is taken. Geo-engineering to save the planet is not a priority for most governments or the large corporations with vast amounts of surplus cash.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Many fossil fueled power plants are already capturing their carbon emissions and putting it underground or using it in greenhouses to grow plants.
Iceland's Carbfix project has shown that pumping CO2 into underground basalt formations can turn the carbon into stone.
Carbon capture and sequestration technologies for fossil fueled power plants are of vital importance and their use should be further developed and expanded.
Removing the CO2 already in the atmosphere is a different story. The technologies to artificially remove CO2 from the air are still energy intensive and can't possibly be scaled up enough to make any significant difference in time to avoid mass depopulation, but they should still be used and further developed.
There are other more natural methods of carbon sequestration such as the use of bio-char, which can sequester carbon in the soil and increase soil fertility but for it to make a significant difference there would have to be a fundamental transformation in the global agricultural industry and agro-chemical companies such as Mosanto-bayer would have to be contained.
We can convert the kinetic energy of the wind into thermal energy in the form of refrigeration. But, we can't really create cold without shifting heat from one spot to another. Wind-powered freezers and heat exchangers could be deployed to select portions of the Arctic to slow melting and refreeze spots that have already melted. Enough refrigeration could be applied to Greenland to slow melting of some glaciers and calving of icebergs and the resulting rise in ocean levels. However, creating cold means merely moving heat to another location and no matter what type of technology is used, freezing the Arctic would mean putting some heat into the air or water and freezing parts of the Arctic would be only a tiny temporary solution, but perhaps it could be helpful and might at least be worth a try.
Volcanic eruptions can eject large amounts of fine ash and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, where it transforms into sulfate aerosols that reflect solar radiation back into space. When the Indonesian volcano Krakatoa erupted in 1883 the cooling effect is believed to have lasted for decades. However, volcanoes also release massive amounts of CO2 and already emit 180 to 440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.
Volcanic eruptions could possibly be triggered by placing explosives in the right spots under the volcanoes, or by causing earthquakes in the right spots using something like HAARP or perhaps a Tesla resonator that amplifies the natural vibration of an object.
Taking such a potentially destructive and drastic step may not be possible till we are on the brink of complete annihilation and enough people agree to try it, or unless someone just does it in secret. If not done right or the results are unexpected, causing volcanic eruptions could do more harm than good.
Geo-engineering has already been going on for the last 20+ years without any public approval, as aerial spraying across the U.S., Canada and parts of Europe. It is still being done on an almost daily basis, in secret from the public. Anyone who happens to notice the unnatural clouds forming behind high altitude jet planes is automatically consigned to the lunatic fringe by government, academia and media.
If the spraying was officially acknowledged it would result in protests and countless lawsuits, as perhaps it should, since what they are spraying may be doing more harm than good.
Previous attempts at fertilizing the ocean to increase the growth of carbon absorbing phytoplankton (micro algae) failed and subsequent research using the IPCC climate models have not been promising. However, we know that phytoplankton absorb CO2 and produce oxygen and that these plankton are essential for the survival of life on Earth as we know it.
Phytoplankton populations have collapsed in many parts of the ocean and because they are the foundation of the marine food chain, many other species are collapsing as well.
While the plankton are already likely evolving to survive in a more acidic, polluted and warm environment, evolution takes time and perhaps there is something that we could do to help them to evolve and repopulate more quickly.
Placing some type of material in orbit around the Earth to reflect or block light is a technological possibility and if large enough could block enough light to reduce Earth's temperatures.
A large reflective Mylar (bopet) balloon was placed in space by NASA way back in 1964. Sending numerous large rolls of metalized bopet film into space and unrolling then into very long reflective curtains would not be difficult or even expensive. Keeping them in place would not require a great deal of energy.
Surviving on a planet that is too hot and oxygen deficient to sustain life as we know it will require living in a highly engineered and self-contained environment that provides food, shelter and water independent of Earth's failing life support systems.
Humans are good at adapting to adverse conditions and already manage to survive in extreme conditions such as the Arctic, at high altitudes, on the water and in hot dry deserts. For a little while, it will be enough to simply allow the market and human ingenuity to provide solutions.
Buildings and vehicles will become more insulated and cooling systems increased in capacity.
Oxygen generation systems will be installed in homes, vehicles and work places. One can already buy oxygen concentrators for a few hundred dollars that remove nitrogen from air to increase oxygen levels.
More agriculture will be moved indoors. Diets will change as some types of food becomes more expensive or unavailable.
More countries will be forced to adopt and enforce better building codes and employ better flood and fire control, but those with weak governments will not and the consequences may turn them into failed states.
Designing and Building a New Civilization
Our current sprawling, energy intensive, wasteful, parasitic, violent, consumerist, greed-driven civilization is doomed to fail, even without global warming. There are no longer enough natural resources to sustain so many in the lifestyles we strive for.
The failure of our current civilization gives us the opportunity to design and build a completely new and different civilization that is climate-proof, sustainable and better than what we have now.
However, too few are choosing Option B and many of those who are don't yet really understand the scope of what it will take to create a new civilization or even have a good idea of what it might look like.
Any species that would destroy its own planet is a failed species, but we don't have to be a failed species.
If we are to avoid our own extinction we must rethink our culture from the ground up and consider what we really need and how to meet those needs without negatively impacting the planet and how we can go from being parasites to responsible caretakers.
A civilization that can be sustained in Earth's most likely future conditions will be radically different from what we have now.
The following is offered as food for further thought:
In many regions it will simply be too hot to go outside, which means that most everything will have to be indoors.
New carbon-neutral or carbon-negative sustainable communities will be smaller, more compact, more vertical, energy efficient, self-contained and mostly self-sufficient.
Communities will have to be extremely well insulated, secure, recycle waste and produce their own energy, food and oxygen. Air from the outside may have to be purified.
Food and other crops will be grown indoors using sunlight and LED lighting.
Plant-based meals would be centrally prepared for everyone and served in cafeterias. Yes, we really do have to become vegan and will be far healthier and happier in doing so.
Durable clothing and other cloth could be made from hemp and linen from flax grown indoors.
Oxygen can be split from water and produced by plants.
Waste will be converted into energy and nutrients to grow more food.
Garbage will become a thing of the past because everything would be reused or recycled and won't require packaging.
Transportation between communities can be through underground high-speed rail.
Such a civilization would also not require money to operate but there would be barter between communities. Sustainable communities will be built at least partially underground and on or in the water.
There is a growing seasteading movement and new technology being developed for floating and underwater habitats.
Using the ancient Roman formula for concrete would result in low maintenance concrete structures that last for thousands of years in seawater.
Creating such a civilization is not a technological issue. It is a social issue.
Digital currencies such as the AMERO give us a way to fund it.
New understanding of human consciousness and psychological healing techniques such as Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) and Emotion Code can enable many people to become more functional and less destructive so that they can be more compatible with a structured community.
At present, most people live to work and work to merely live, pay taxes and bills and don't really have much leisure time until they retire, if they can retire. They don't have time to continue their education, work on themselves, attend to their health, be involved in their local community or contribute to any important projects. This has led to the general deterioration of humanity.
This will change with a more intelligently designed civilization.
To get an idea of what a properly engineered sustainable community might be like, imagine if you could live somewhere kind of like a resort or cruise ship where you would only need to work part-time and you would not need to think about money.
You would enjoy a healthy diet and lifestyle with expert healthcare available as needed.
You would have the time to develop lasting and beneficial relationships, improve yourself, learn new things, enjoy leisure time and contribute to the survival of humanity and the healing of the Earth.
The European heat wave of 2003 killed an estimated 70,000 people and this summer new all time high temperature records have been set around the globe and killed at least thousands, if not tens of thousands.