After a year or two where some commentators were saying that there was no evidence that the earth was getting hotter, that in fact the trends for the last decade were downwards, the 2010 data from the world meteorological society should settle the debate. 2010 was the hottest on record. Let me say that again: the HOTTEST ON RECORD.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_906_en.html
“The 2010 data confirm the Earth’s significant long-term warming trend,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.”
Of course, evidence will not change the minds of those for who evidence is inconvenient. But at least their crazy pronouncements will become increasingly confined to a smaller and smaller cadre of the irresponsible and bloody minded.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Monday, September 13, 2010
Animals and greenhouse gases - more complex than I thought!
Check out this rather interesting admission from a strong climate campaigner about the role of animals in agriculture and their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation
I am about the read the book that sparked this change of heart, But as interesting as this main claims are (that raising and eating animals in not always a negative thing, ecologically speaking), it demonstrates the need to be led by evidence, not ideology.
Oh, by the way, in case you meat lovers get too excited, I don't think this is a carte blanche argument supporting the current animal raising practices of large agribusiness.
But I will need to be clearer about the argument before I can really come to a justified conclusion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation
I am about the read the book that sparked this change of heart, But as interesting as this main claims are (that raising and eating animals in not always a negative thing, ecologically speaking), it demonstrates the need to be led by evidence, not ideology.
Oh, by the way, in case you meat lovers get too excited, I don't think this is a carte blanche argument supporting the current animal raising practices of large agribusiness.
But I will need to be clearer about the argument before I can really come to a justified conclusion.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Battle for Haditha
Not sure I really want to post this, but here it is anyway.
In 2005 a small unit of American soldiers patrolling the town of Haditha north of Baghdad were attacked via a roadside bomb blown up by a 'terrorist' who detonated it with a cell phone. One soldier was killed and two seriously injured. The resulting reaction from the soldiers led to the massacre of 24 people, including many women and children.
In his retelling of this true story, British director Nick Broomfield, well known for his documentary approach, used both current and former American servicemen to create a devastatingly realistic piece of cinema. I shan't review it, as many have already. But I do want to say that this is one of the most morally complex movies I have seen. Broomfield takes us into the lives of the soldiers, the families who get massacred, the Iraq men who plant to bomb (and are paid $1000 by Al Qaeda), into the complexities where violence is the inescapable logical outcome. There is no simple black and white truth here. There rarely is in life.
The moral complexity does not overshadow the fact that this was an illegal and brutal act by the soldier. (Some of the soldiers were eventually prosecuted). But the strength of this film is that it humanises the people involved. Even the older terrorist, after planting and setting off the bomb, safely escapes back to his family. When he holds his young daughter, he shakes with regret as he wonders what he has unleashed. He is a pawn in a political game.
But then, they all are. There is no simple pathway through this environment of fear, distrust and violence. I felt angry at the soldiers, but then you see the retching behind the Humvee, the violence surrounding them, their desire to simply survive the next patrol, the latent fear that haunts them at night. Forgive the brutality, never. Understand how they acted like this, most certainly.
We yearn for a simple world where the boundaries are clear. Broomfield allows us to see behind these simplistic categories, to understand. That itself is an achievement.
In 2005 a small unit of American soldiers patrolling the town of Haditha north of Baghdad were attacked via a roadside bomb blown up by a 'terrorist' who detonated it with a cell phone. One soldier was killed and two seriously injured. The resulting reaction from the soldiers led to the massacre of 24 people, including many women and children.
In his retelling of this true story, British director Nick Broomfield, well known for his documentary approach, used both current and former American servicemen to create a devastatingly realistic piece of cinema. I shan't review it, as many have already. But I do want to say that this is one of the most morally complex movies I have seen. Broomfield takes us into the lives of the soldiers, the families who get massacred, the Iraq men who plant to bomb (and are paid $1000 by Al Qaeda), into the complexities where violence is the inescapable logical outcome. There is no simple black and white truth here. There rarely is in life.
The moral complexity does not overshadow the fact that this was an illegal and brutal act by the soldier. (Some of the soldiers were eventually prosecuted). But the strength of this film is that it humanises the people involved. Even the older terrorist, after planting and setting off the bomb, safely escapes back to his family. When he holds his young daughter, he shakes with regret as he wonders what he has unleashed. He is a pawn in a political game.
But then, they all are. There is no simple pathway through this environment of fear, distrust and violence. I felt angry at the soldiers, but then you see the retching behind the Humvee, the violence surrounding them, their desire to simply survive the next patrol, the latent fear that haunts them at night. Forgive the brutality, never. Understand how they acted like this, most certainly.
We yearn for a simple world where the boundaries are clear. Broomfield allows us to see behind these simplistic categories, to understand. That itself is an achievement.
Political dysfunction
One problem with contemporary politics is that it is very difficult to run a government on the basis of sound or evidence-led policy. Underlying this is, actually, an issue that goes to the heart of, er, the brain! If you will forgive the mixed metaphor, I am referring to what philosophers call limited human reason.
It goes like this. We human learn about our environment through trial and error (we do this collectively over time). Because our cognitive capacity is limited, we rely on others to help test our ideas. We never get it right all the time, and often get it wrong. Accurate understanding of the world around us is a collective endeavour.
The bottom line in all of this is that there is always a possibility that we are wrong. Apart from a few simplified bits of knowledge such as basic 'facts' about our world, most of what we 'know' is actually an interpretation from our personal or cultural lens. We can't really talk about such things as right or wrong in a simplistic binary sense. Anyone who has had exposure to quite different cultures will understand this. This means we will always need to be open to change, to modify our ideas. This is as true for individual as for societies.
A health mental attitude is open to new information, ideas, and perspectives that will enrich our understanding of an issue. This is especially true of complex issues.
The trouble in politics is that politicians are not given that freedom. If they 'change their minds' over an issue, they are castigated for flip-flop policy. We want consistency. We want them to stand for their values and policy position come hell or high water. But this locks them into the position of not being able to revise their position as the situation changes or as new information comes to light. And that is irrational, and at times dangerous. President Bush saw the world in simple terms: them and us, the good and the bad. (See the movie 'The Battle for Haditha' and tell me the world is not morally complex).
A black and white world is a simpler world and that is what many many people want.Yet, it is dysfunctional because we get stuck in our far-too-simple- versions of life, and we are only left with power.
I am not suggesting that politicians abandon broad policy positions at all, but rather we should celebrate a politician or party that, in light of new information and understanding, modifies their position. That is how healthy individuals function, and also how a healthy polity functions.
It goes like this. We human learn about our environment through trial and error (we do this collectively over time). Because our cognitive capacity is limited, we rely on others to help test our ideas. We never get it right all the time, and often get it wrong. Accurate understanding of the world around us is a collective endeavour.
The bottom line in all of this is that there is always a possibility that we are wrong. Apart from a few simplified bits of knowledge such as basic 'facts' about our world, most of what we 'know' is actually an interpretation from our personal or cultural lens. We can't really talk about such things as right or wrong in a simplistic binary sense. Anyone who has had exposure to quite different cultures will understand this. This means we will always need to be open to change, to modify our ideas. This is as true for individual as for societies.
A health mental attitude is open to new information, ideas, and perspectives that will enrich our understanding of an issue. This is especially true of complex issues.
The trouble in politics is that politicians are not given that freedom. If they 'change their minds' over an issue, they are castigated for flip-flop policy. We want consistency. We want them to stand for their values and policy position come hell or high water. But this locks them into the position of not being able to revise their position as the situation changes or as new information comes to light. And that is irrational, and at times dangerous. President Bush saw the world in simple terms: them and us, the good and the bad. (See the movie 'The Battle for Haditha' and tell me the world is not morally complex).
A black and white world is a simpler world and that is what many many people want.Yet, it is dysfunctional because we get stuck in our far-too-simple- versions of life, and we are only left with power.
I am not suggesting that politicians abandon broad policy positions at all, but rather we should celebrate a politician or party that, in light of new information and understanding, modifies their position. That is how healthy individuals function, and also how a healthy polity functions.
The trend to a warmer world is now incontrovertible
Well, despite what some still persist in believing, just published data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),shows that June 2010 was the hottest in recorded history (since records began in 1880). Not only that, but there is a consistent warming trend in-line with modelling what happens as greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere.
But pay attention to the statement that a warmer world is now incontrovertible. This does not mean there are not some places which have colder than average temperatures (Victoria, Australia did; I was here and it was cold), but that on average, the earth was warmer.
This is not a good thing, by the way.
For the Guardian article go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/16/june-2010-warmest-recorded
But pay attention to the statement that a warmer world is now incontrovertible. This does not mean there are not some places which have colder than average temperatures (Victoria, Australia did; I was here and it was cold), but that on average, the earth was warmer.
This is not a good thing, by the way.
For the Guardian article go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/16/june-2010-warmest-recorded
Sunday, June 13, 2010
We need a new story
Every culture, epoch and civilisation has a grand narrative that defines it. A grand narrative is a flash way of talking about a story. Humans are defined by the stories we tell about ourselves, the language we use, the way we weave words and ideas into large conceptual maps that help give us meaning. These stories help provide a sense or purpose that guides the way we live on the planet.
When God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply and have dominion over the earth, it was about the only commandment that humans actually obeyed! This story has provided a powerful collective understanding sense of humans place on the planet for some millennia, but most recently since the industrial revolution when dominion over nature actually became possible.
Or at least so it seemed! This myth of continued abundance is being challenged by the increasing evidence that we have overreached in our desire for more and more material consumption. In much the same way as Prometheus overreached his power and place in the cosmos, to his eternal regret, we have been exploiting the earth's resources without pausing to consider where the limits are. Our collective story of abundance for all and ongoing material well-being as natural is now highly problematic.
This grand narrative has a number of dimensions. It assumes that we will not run up against material limits in present or future development, or if we do, we can substitute through human ingenuity. It assumes that we are clever enough to figure out answers to all the technological challenges we face. It assumes that material consumption will provide happiness. Each of these assumptions fail.
We have already run up against significant material resource challenges, particularly when looked at in light of an expanding human community of at least 9 billion by 2050, all who want a share of the materially defined good life. The end of cheap oil is clearly on the horizon, and with it not just energy but the manufacturer of plastics and nitrogen fertiliser.
Our intellectual capacity to resolve the major challenge of climate change is highly suspect. We are very clever in technological developments, and our species is genuinely remarkable at discovery and innovation. But the challenges we face pose unprecedented challenges in their very scope and scale. We have to be integrationists now, and that is hard. Our brains struggle to deal with he complex interconnections, because the scale of our problems goes way beyond what we can easily intuit or understand.
As to happiness, there is a significant body of research now that clearly shows that above a certain amount of material well-being, more stuff does not make us happier. It doesn't, by any measure, except on a very short term basis (the high of shopping! Though the buzz we get from the released dopamine in our system only happens when we are anticipating an exciting opportunity. It has less to do with the end result, so we are tricked, in effect, by our brain chemistry).
As in our personal lives, if childhood stories (internalised beliefs about ourselves and our roles in life) no longer serve us well, then we do well to replace them with more useful stories. It is time for our civilisation to create a new story that drives us forward into an uncharted future. The old story, like the Emperor's new clothes, has lost its way. The world into which it spoke no longer exists. There is coming a new heaven and a new eaarth (sic), and we need a story that is up to the task.
I will explore this idea in my next blog.
When God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply and have dominion over the earth, it was about the only commandment that humans actually obeyed! This story has provided a powerful collective understanding sense of humans place on the planet for some millennia, but most recently since the industrial revolution when dominion over nature actually became possible.
Or at least so it seemed! This myth of continued abundance is being challenged by the increasing evidence that we have overreached in our desire for more and more material consumption. In much the same way as Prometheus overreached his power and place in the cosmos, to his eternal regret, we have been exploiting the earth's resources without pausing to consider where the limits are. Our collective story of abundance for all and ongoing material well-being as natural is now highly problematic.
This grand narrative has a number of dimensions. It assumes that we will not run up against material limits in present or future development, or if we do, we can substitute through human ingenuity. It assumes that we are clever enough to figure out answers to all the technological challenges we face. It assumes that material consumption will provide happiness. Each of these assumptions fail.
We have already run up against significant material resource challenges, particularly when looked at in light of an expanding human community of at least 9 billion by 2050, all who want a share of the materially defined good life. The end of cheap oil is clearly on the horizon, and with it not just energy but the manufacturer of plastics and nitrogen fertiliser.
Our intellectual capacity to resolve the major challenge of climate change is highly suspect. We are very clever in technological developments, and our species is genuinely remarkable at discovery and innovation. But the challenges we face pose unprecedented challenges in their very scope and scale. We have to be integrationists now, and that is hard. Our brains struggle to deal with he complex interconnections, because the scale of our problems goes way beyond what we can easily intuit or understand.
As to happiness, there is a significant body of research now that clearly shows that above a certain amount of material well-being, more stuff does not make us happier. It doesn't, by any measure, except on a very short term basis (the high of shopping! Though the buzz we get from the released dopamine in our system only happens when we are anticipating an exciting opportunity. It has less to do with the end result, so we are tricked, in effect, by our brain chemistry).
As in our personal lives, if childhood stories (internalised beliefs about ourselves and our roles in life) no longer serve us well, then we do well to replace them with more useful stories. It is time for our civilisation to create a new story that drives us forward into an uncharted future. The old story, like the Emperor's new clothes, has lost its way. The world into which it spoke no longer exists. There is coming a new heaven and a new eaarth (sic), and we need a story that is up to the task.
I will explore this idea in my next blog.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Between earth and eaarth
It is becoming much clearer to me that we are now living on a planet that is quite different from the one on which I was born. Let me elaborate.
First, I did the WWF environmental footprint calculator (again) the other day to discover that no matter what I do, I need at least 1.4 earths to provide enough resources for everyone on the planet to live like I do. And that is by going vegan, no car, walking or riding my bike, living on a farm (no food miles) and no grid connection. The life styles we enjoy are literally unsustainable by many metrics. This simply means we will run out of key resources and not have alternatives.
Second, the speed of change we need to make from an oil based economy and society is simply too slow to seriously limit changes to the global climate system. For example, the world's current investment in oil infrastructure is worth around 10 trillion dollars and needs between 10 and 50 years before the capital costs are paid off. Who is going to pay for this? There is tremendous inertia in the investment system and even on the best case scenario this asset investment will not be given up without a major fight.
Third, how long will it take to replace the transport fleet? We are seeing hybrids and electric vehicles enter the market place (hybrids are ahead of electrics in Australia), but it will probably take 20 years to replace the stock. In the meantime, we continue to pollute.
Fourth, the alterations in the climate system due to historically unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases will be very hard to pull back. But this is no longer a future scenario, as it was when concerns about climate change first emerge over 30 years ago. We have increasingly frequent extreme storm events from drought to forest fires. We have always had these but there is clear evidence that these events are increasing. This is not a future impact of climate change, it is a current impact.
I am not sure our political systems are up to the task. I simply cannot see a clear pathway through the complex policy, economic, and political landscapes. We will make some progress, and I do think there will be unprecedented innovation and technological development. We may be able to hold the climate system to a limited temperature increase overall. But we not only cannot stop change, change is here, now.
Bill McKibben states this most powerfully in his new book, 'Eaarth; Making a life on a tough new planet'. The old earth we grew up with has actually gone, and we now live on a new eaarth.
For more on McKibben
For another interesting take on this see The Dark Mountain Project
First, I did the WWF environmental footprint calculator (again) the other day to discover that no matter what I do, I need at least 1.4 earths to provide enough resources for everyone on the planet to live like I do. And that is by going vegan, no car, walking or riding my bike, living on a farm (no food miles) and no grid connection. The life styles we enjoy are literally unsustainable by many metrics. This simply means we will run out of key resources and not have alternatives.
Second, the speed of change we need to make from an oil based economy and society is simply too slow to seriously limit changes to the global climate system. For example, the world's current investment in oil infrastructure is worth around 10 trillion dollars and needs between 10 and 50 years before the capital costs are paid off. Who is going to pay for this? There is tremendous inertia in the investment system and even on the best case scenario this asset investment will not be given up without a major fight.
Third, how long will it take to replace the transport fleet? We are seeing hybrids and electric vehicles enter the market place (hybrids are ahead of electrics in Australia), but it will probably take 20 years to replace the stock. In the meantime, we continue to pollute.
Fourth, the alterations in the climate system due to historically unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases will be very hard to pull back. But this is no longer a future scenario, as it was when concerns about climate change first emerge over 30 years ago. We have increasingly frequent extreme storm events from drought to forest fires. We have always had these but there is clear evidence that these events are increasing. This is not a future impact of climate change, it is a current impact.
I am not sure our political systems are up to the task. I simply cannot see a clear pathway through the complex policy, economic, and political landscapes. We will make some progress, and I do think there will be unprecedented innovation and technological development. We may be able to hold the climate system to a limited temperature increase overall. But we not only cannot stop change, change is here, now.
Bill McKibben states this most powerfully in his new book, 'Eaarth; Making a life on a tough new planet'. The old earth we grew up with has actually gone, and we now live on a new eaarth.
For more on McKibben
For another interesting take on this see The Dark Mountain Project
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
