Can We Save Our­selves?

Trillions - - Contents -

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 "­vide 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.

Arc­tic Freez­ing

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 Ash

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.

Aerial Spray­ing

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.

Ocean Fer­til­iza­tion

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.

Space Cur­tains

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.

In­cre­men­tal Adap­ta­tion

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.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.