The world’s most famous climate scientist just outlined an alarming scenario for our planet’s future

[steve2470]

Last edited Mon Jul 20, 2015, 08:06 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/20/the-worlds-most-famous-climate-scientist-just-outlined-an-alarming-scenario-for-our-planets-future/

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484
A handout photograph provided by NASA shows glaciers and mountains in the evening sun during an Operation IceBridge research flight, returning from West Antarctica, 29 October 2014. EPA/MICHAEL STUDINGER / HANDOUT

James Hansen has often been out ahead of his scientific colleagues.

With his 1988 congressional testimony, the then-NASA scientist is credited with putting the global warming issue on the map by saying that a warming trend had already begun. “It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here,” Hansen famously testified. Since then, he has drawn headlines for accusing the Bush administration of trying to muzzle him, getting arrested protesting the Keystone XL Pipeline, and setting forward the case for why carbon dioxide levels need to be kept below 350 parts per million in the atmosphere (they’re currently around 400).

Now Hansen — who retired in 2013 from his NASA post, and is currently an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute — is publishing what he says may be his most important paper. Along with 16 other researchers — including leading experts on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets — he has authored a lengthy study outlining an scenario of potentially rapid sea level rise combined with more intense storm systems.

It’s an alarming picture of where the planet could be headed — and hard to ignore, given its author. But it may also meet with considerable skepticism in the broader scientific community, given that its scenarios of sea level rise occur more rapidly than those ratified by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its latest assessment of the state of climate science, published in 2013.

[msongs]

1. I get my planet advice from that eminent scientist, George Carlin

Save the planet

[onehandle]

9. 'The planet isn't going anywhere... We are!'

That's his greatest monologue ever.

[Octafish]

2. Sea level rise of at least several meters in as little as 50 years. Ha ha.

I'd say let's put our thinking caps on, but it's really getting better to put on a life preserver and buy a luxury lifeboat from the Carlyle Group.

[jalan48]

14. The wealthy don't undersatnd that they are building their own prison.

They can escape the initial catastrophe but will have to constantly be on guard against those who will try and take what they have. It's an existence of fear on many levels for them. I'm reminded of O'Neill's "The Emperor Jones".

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, steve.

[pampango]

4. We are the frog in the pot of water, "It's just a little hotter. It's just a little hotter...."

The longer we wait to take decisive action on a global level to deal with climate change:

1. The problem gets worse every year, we talk about it but do little or nothing. Eventually the 'pot' boils.
2. We eventually decide as a global community to do something. The longer we wait, the more costly and problematic any potential 'solution' will be.

Too many of us - and certainly most politicians who have a 4-year time horizon at most - don't want to worry about what will probably happen years down the road, maybe even after we are dead. Many conservatives talk about the world we hand our children and grandchildren when it comes to national debt but not when it comes to climate change, perhaps because of where that 'concern' might lead us in terms of policy changes.

[xocet]

5. K & R n/t

[pscot]

6. Could be headed? It's WHERE we're headed

Could implies there are other possible outcomes. Hansen telling us we're there. It's on top of us now. It's not a distant prospect or a shape in the clouds. It's rolling up the beach right now.

[DirkGently]

7. KNR.

[locks]

8. If only we would listen to our prophets

before it's too late to change our ways.

[GliderGuider]

10. "before it's too late to change our ways"

If we could just go back 300 years and undiscover fossil fuels we might have a chance. As it is, the changing of our ways will happen after the shit hits the fan, not before.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

11. If only we would get serious about human overpopulation.

It's getting real hard to smile and say congrats to all the breeders.

[AOR]

13. Overpopulation is not the problem...

The overpopulation argument is a blame the people and victims meme. The capitalist modes of production are the problem. Capitalist societies produce for greed rather than need and destroy everything that gets in their way.

The problem is how production and resources are organized, managed, distributed, controlled and by whom. Capitalism can never provide an equitable distribution of resources in a way that puts the population before profit and doesn't consume and devour everything around it as it does now. It is not the way forward for the human race. The means and distribution of production and resources, belong in the hands of the people as a whole - democratically distributed for need not greed - and not a ruling class of global capitalist parasites that are strip mining the planet for their own ends.

[airplaneman]

18. well said. n/t.

[Xithras]

19. There are no victims.

Some share more guilt than others, but every human on Earth has a hand in the environmental destruction we're seeing today. All animals, by the nature of their existence, take a toll on the Earth. When a species like humanity enters a period of runaway expansion like we're seeing, deleterious environmental impacts are unavoidable. Even with the most fair and equitable of systems, humanity would be destroying the global ecosystem due to its sheer numbers.

Human population needs to be drastically reduced. It will happen eventually, one way or the other.

[AOR]

23. No victims ?

starving kids across the globe living in squalor and abject poverty are the victims of Western Imperialism and the march of Global Capitalism. To deny that is deny material reality.

Blaming overpopulation and not confronting the question of private ownership of the commons, the land, and the commodification for profit of nearly every resource and human need is a very reactionary stance. The very simple fact that the depopulationists continue to use memes like "too many humans" instead of exposing Capitalism for what it actually is says it all about whose side the depopulation crowd is on and it's not the side of the people and the poor as a whole. Malthus and his ideas and population bomb nonsense were a stain on human history.

[Xithras]

24. It's not a one or the other choice

Global capitalism has created serious inequities and environmental problems, but the mere fact that you are sucking air, living in a house, and consuming food means that you are also contributing to the environmental destruction we see on the Earth. That contribution is inherent in your very existence. You and I, as human beings, share guilt for the destruction that our presence brings to the planet. It is NOT possible to exist without harming the environment.

The ecosystem has the ability to adapt to a certain amount of destruction, but we exceeded the Earths carrying capacity long ago. The cumulative weight of our mere presence is enough to destroy the planet, without a single capitalist dollar being spent. Capitalism is speeding things along, but it's our species-wide focus on making babies that is the real problem.

The human population WILL crash, and the problem WILL be solved at some point. The only question is whether there will be much of an ecosystem left when that day finally arrives. It is mathematically impossible to sustain ourselves at current population levels and growth rates. Ending global capitalism may be a good thing, but at the end of the day it just buys us a bit of time.

[AOR]

25. The planet will survive until it doesn't...

to claim "human guilt" for evolving as part of the Universe is the height of absurdity and egoism. We are not that important but we do owe it to ourselves to try and survive as a species. Why would we not try to eliminate a system of destruction that causes great human misery that is speeding up our eventual demise ? When the sun lights its last fire the planet is no more and there will be no environment to harm. We know this. It is our responsibility to lift the human condition on our way trough not to demonize human civilization on our way through.

[The2ndWheel]

30. I would say you're too hung up on capitalism as some singular evil

The resource concentration mechanism we call human civilization is the privatization of the planet.

[nolabels]

39. I agree that it is not a choice but i see it more a chance and a change

If you can see your way to your demise, then you must almost always recognize your way out. Sure our trajectory looks bleak but that is often when we become our best. And go ahead and give up too, the world will still be here tomorrow

[snooper2]

20. no, we have too many humans as well- It's not just 1 problem

makes for a nice meme that somebody looks at for 7 seconds but problem is bigger than that-

What is North Korea doing about the environment....oh yeah

[AOR]

27. Red-baiting with North Korea is not helpful...

to any discussion.

[snooper2]

38. red baiting?

you trying too hard

[Adrahil]

40. How is that Red-baiting?

No offense, but communism isn't going to solve any problems here, even assuming it could be implemented in some functional manner.

Really, the problem, in my view, IS one of profit, however. But we don't need a Bolshevik revolution to change that. We need people to recognize that there are better ways. Renewable green energy could fix our problem. But it will take massive investment in advancing technology, and developing infrastructure to support the transition away from fossil fuels.

The REALLY sad thing is that in the U.S. we could have made a huge dent in that if we had spent the trillions we spent on Iraq on green energy infrastructure instead.

[Enthusiast]

22. It's both overpopulation and the consumer society.

I do agree about the ruling class of global capitalist parasites. If they could only back off on their greed just a little. Geez.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

28. You're promoting a myth

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/

HUMAN OVERPOPULATION AND EXTINCTION
We're in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction crisis. Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that 30,000 species per year (or three species per hour) are being driven to extinction. Compare this to the natural background rate of one extinction per million species per year, and you can see why scientists refer to it as a crisis unparalleled in human history.

The current mass extinction differs from all others in being driven by a single species rather than a planetary or galactic physical process.
...
Humans annually absorb 42 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial net primary productivity,30 percent of its marine net primary productivity, and 50 percent of its fresh water [3].
Forty percent of the planet’s land is devoted to human food production, up from 7 percent in 1700 [3].
Fifty percent of the planet’s land mass has been transformed for human use [3].
More atmospheric nitrogen is now fixed by humans that all other natural processes combined [3].

The authors of Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems, including the current director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, concluded:

"All of these seemingly disparate phenomena trace to a single cause: the growing scale of the human enterprise. The rates, scales, kinds, and combinations of changes occurring now are fundamentally different from those at any other time in history. . . . We live on a human-dominated planet and the momentum of human population growth, together with the imperative for further economic development in most
of the world, ensures that our dominance will increase."

http://www.postconsumers.com/education/10-facts-overpopulation/

10 Lively Facts About Population Growth
We don’t talk much about overpopulation at Postconsumers because, frankly, we’re more concerned with how the people who do populate the planet choose to live and find their own individual level of satisfaction (paired with responsible choices). But the rate at which the world population is compounding is staggering, and it has some major implications for one of our favorite topics, the sustainability of the planet. Today, take a look around you and then think about these ten facts regarding population growth.

There were TONS of articles on the subject. Popular press AND Scholarly. These are just two, because trying to pick out a few most salient was overwhelming.

[AOR]

32. Malthus and population bomb theories have been completely debunked...

I choose to view the human race as somewhat of a good thing and not parasites to be depopulated so the "chosen ones" can live a lifestyle they've become accustomed to. Overpopulation arguments lead to a very slippery slope of ideas. How would we go about "depopulating" and who exactly will be making the decisions on population control and by what methods. Surely you can see where something like that might lead.

Don't get the wrong idea here Blanche. This is not to deny climate science and the effects on the environment that are taking place. The point being made is that the capitalist modes of production and western capitalist consumption - that relies on infinite growth and the debasement of the environment - are the problem and not overpopulation. I would take my chances eliminating capitalism rather than depopulating the planet by means of coercion and forced methods of population control.

What are your views on the capitalist modes of production and rampant over-consumption in capitalist society ?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

34. War is one big way we depopulate.

And when organisms overwhelm their resources, community violence increases as well--that's a well observed result seen among all species. The niche gets overrun, and individuals fight to survive.

There doesn't need to be a slippery slope. Overpopulation deniers always claim that's the reason not to address the situation.
There are compassionate, reasonable ways to address the situation--free birth control for males and females, education, accessibility, and spreading the truth, in the time honored fashion of public service announcements. For industrialized and developing nations.

Though the window for self motivated change may have closed by now. Probably.

The old ways will continue...resource wars, community violence over lack of space, privacy and opportunity....disease, disasters....
We COULD do it the kinder, WISER way--encourage non-breeding, create incentives....but too many people deny the problem, claim technology and economic redistribution can solve it.

[Alittleliberal]

29. The problem is infinite growth on a finite planet.

That applies to both population and rapid capitalism driven consumption.

[AOR]

31. A different view...

Zombie Apocalypse and the Politics of Artificial Scarcity
by Colin Jenkins

Capitalism and Artificial Scarcity

“In order for capitalism to survive, scarcity must exist, even if through artificial means.”

(Snip)

"It is no secret that capitalism thrives off exploitation. It needs a large majority of people to be completely reliant on their labor power. It needs private property to be accessible to only a few, so that they may utilize it as a social relationship where the rented majority can labor and create value. It needs capital to be accessible to only a few, so that they may regenerate and reinvest said capital in a perpetual manner. And it needs a considerable population of the impoverished and unemployed – "a reserve army of labor," as Marx put it – in order to create a "demand" for labor and thus make such exploitative positions "competitive" to those who need to partake in them to merely survive. It needs these things in order to stay intact – something that is desirable to the 85 richest people in the world who own more than half of the world's entire population (3.6 billion people)."

(Snip)

" But wealth accumulation through alienation and exploitation is not enough in itself. The system also needs to create scarcity where it does not already exist. Even Marx admitted that capitalism has given us the productive capacity to provide all that is needed for the global population. In other words, capitalism has proven that scarcity does not exist. And, over the years, technology has confirmed this. But, in order for capitalism to survive, scarcity must exist, even if through artificial means. This is a necessary component on multiple fronts, including the pricing of commodities, the enhancement of wealth, and the need to inject a high degree of competition among people (who are naturally inclined to cooperation).

Since capitalism is based in the buying and selling of commodities, its lifeblood is production. And since production in a capitalist system is not based on need, but rather on demand, it has the tendency to produce more than it can sell. This is called overproduction"

(Snip)

" When overproduction occurs, it must be addressed. There are multiple ways to do this. Marx addressed three options: "On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones." Another is through the destruction of excess capital and commodities. Whichever measure is taken, it is paramount that the economy must emerge from a starting point that is different from the ending point where the crisis began. This is accomplished through creating scarcity, whether in regards to labor, production capacity, or commodities and basic needs.

Maintaining scarcity is also necessary for wealth enhancement. It is not enough that accumulation flows to a very small section of the population, but more so that a considerable portion of the population is faced with the inherent struggles related to inaccessibility. For example, if millions of people are unable to access basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare, the commodification of those needs becomes all the more effective. On the flip side, the mere presence of accessibility – or wealth – which is enjoyed by the elite becomes all the more valuable because it is highly sought after. "

(Snip)

"In this sense, it is not the accumulation of personal wealth that creates advantageous positions on the socioeconomic ladder; it's the impoverishment of the majority. Allowing human beings access to basic necessities would essentially destroy the allure (and thus, power) of wealth and the coercive nature of forced participation. This effect is maintained through artificial scarcity – the coordinated withholding of basic needs from the majority. These measures also seek to create a predatory landscape – something akin to a post-apocalyptic, zombie-filled world where manufactured scarcity pits poor against poor and worker against worker, all the while pulling attention away from the zombie threat. "

Full article at link...


http://www.blackagendareport.com/node/14600

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Link doesn't work, but I presume it's this:

http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/zombie-scarcity.html#.Va5dpflVgSU

It is an alternative viewpoint to what you were saying before - rather than saying we consume too much already, it's saying that we could organise society so that we could consume as much as we desire, by having machines produce whatever we want with little human intervention. Not very useful for lessening the impact of humanity on the environment, but it is food for thought.

[foxface666]

36. there

is no such thing as infinite growth of population.

[progressoid]

43. More people mean more production and resources used.

Regardless of how and who manages and controls the resources, more people means more stress on the system.

The population can't continue to grow in a finite system without consequences.

[Duppers]

44. Not the problem???

Wow.

[Skittles]

26. when TV shows about people who cannot stop breeding are popular

you know nothing serious will be done anytime soon

[BlancheSplanchnik]

33. Seriously. Babies mean biiiiig profits.

[foxface666]

35. america

Americas fertility rate is around 2.

[Skittles]

37. don't factor in the Duggars, whatever you do

[Shankapotomus]

12. If you don't believe in climate change, don't worry

You'll warm up to it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. LMAO

DUZY

[deathrind]

16. We will be lucky if his...

predictions are as bad as it gets. Climatologists are correct on the cause and effect of their climate models but they regularly short change the time frames for those effects.

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. And meanwhile...

people on this forum cheer lower gasoline prices and react to the idea of nuclear power the same way they would if you suggested building a power plant that used dead babies as fuel. "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former", as Einstein said...

[The2ndWheel]

42. Short term beats long term

Not because we're stupid, but because that's how we're built. You can make plans to eat a big expensive meal out at a restaurant at the end of the month, but if you don't eat between the beginning and end of the month, you probably won't make it to that big dinner.

Keeping more people alive, be it through better hygiene, or the Green Revolution, or whatever, is great in the moment. Eventually, all those people will need jobs, and homes, and this, and that, which will all require more resources to be used, which will require more mining and building, etc, etc.

We're not stupid, we're just a form of life. Right now matters more than 10 years down the line. Civilization has given us a way to think about the future as a thing, but the infrastructure of civilization requires massive amounts of energy today. Cut that off, and you're not thinking about 10 years from now.

[snooper2]

21. So, the housing market is doing pretty good now, why aren't people moving from the coasts

Seems if you want your family to be safe and secure envisioning worst possible scenario- 20-30 years out.....

Move now-
or start a plan to make it happen in 1-2 years...

Handouts from the government aren't going to be great when Miami is underwater-