Bringing Environmental Activism Home

Recently, I’ve reviewed environmental policies and legislation promulgated by our local Santa Cruz County and its municipalities (Santa Cruz, Capitola, Scotts Valley and Watsonville). County government has a good General Plan and well crafted County Code, but the municipalities are woefully inadequate. But even in County government, those codified policies are rarely followed to the letter, or in most cases even unto intent.

A recently published petition: William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M Newsome, Phoebe Barnard, William R Moomaw, World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency, BioScience, , biz088, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088) includes descriptions of immediate actions needed to reduce human impacts on the biosphere. While they are predicated on reducing greenhouse gases and climate change, they also apply to very real immediate human impacts on the non-human world.

In my next post, I’ll compare these actions with local existing county and municipal codes, and suggest new policies to bring our local government into alignment with these global concerns.

Energy
The world must quickly implement massive energy efficiency and conservation practices and must replace fossil fuels with low-carbon renewables and other cleaner sources of energy if safe for people and the environment. We should leave remaining stocks of fossil fuels in the ground and should carefully pursue effective negative emissions using technology such as carbon extraction from the source and capture from the air and especially by enhancing natural systems (see “Nature” section). Wealthier countries need to support poorer nations in transitioning away from fossil fuels. We must swiftly eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels and use effective and fair policies for steadily escalating carbon prices to restrain their use.

Short-lived pollutants
We need to promptly reduce the emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, including methane, black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Doing this could slow climate feedback loops and potentially reduce the short-term warming trend by more than 50% over the next few decades while saving millions of lives and increasing crop yields due to reduced air pollution. The 2016 Kigali amendment to phase down HFCs is welcomed.

Energy
The world must quickly implement massive energy efficiency and conser- vation practices and must replace fossil fuels with low-carbon renewables and other cleaner sources of energy if safe for people and the environment. We should leave remaining stocks of fossil fuels in the ground and should carefully pursue effective negative emissions using technology such as carbon extraction from the source and capture from the air and especially by enhancing natural systems (see “Nature” section). Wealthier countries need to support poorer nations in transitioning away from fossil fuels. We must swiftly eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels and use effective and fair policies for steadily escalating carbon prices to restrain their use.

Short-lived Pollutants
We need to promptly reduce the emis-sions of short-lived climate pollutants, including methane, black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Doing this could slow climate feedback loops and potentially reduce the short-term warming trend by more than 50% over the next few decades while saving millions of lives and increasing crop yields due to reduced air pollution. The 2016 Kigali amendment to phase down HFCs is welcomed.

Nature
We must protect and restore Earth’s ecosystems. Phytoplankton, coral reefs, forests, savannas, grasslands, wetlands, peatlands, soils, mangroves, and sea grasses contribute greatly to sequestration of atmospheric CO2. Marine and terrestrial plants, animals, and microorganisms play significant roles in car- bon and nutrient cycling and storage. We need to quickly curtail habitat and biodiversity loss, protecting the remaining primary and intact forests, especially those with high carbon stores and other forests with the capacity to rapidly sequester carbon (proforestation), while increasing reforestation and afforestation where appropriate at enormous scales. Although available land may be limiting in places, up to a third of emissions reductions needed by 2030 for the Paris agreement (less than 2°C) could be obtained with these natural climate solutions.

Food
Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products (figure 1c–d), especially ruminant livestock, can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions (including methane in the “Short-lived pollutants” step). Moreover, this will free up croplands for growing much-needed human plant food instead of livestock feed, while releasing some grazing land to support natural climate solutions (see “Nature” section). Cropping practices such as minimum tillage that increase soil carbon are vitally important. We need to drastically reduce the enormous amount of food waste around the world.

Economy
Excessive extraction of materials and overexploitation of ecosystems, driven by economic growth, must be quickly curtailed to maintain long-term sustainability of the biosphere. We need a carbon-free economy that explicitly addresses human dependence on the biosphere and policies that guide economic decisions accordingly. Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality.

Population
Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day, the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women.

 

Uncivil-ization

e6660-pulling-out-hairSomething is wrong. Something has gone terribly wrong, deep inside our dominant culture.

Recently, during a City Council meeting in Our Fair City, a council member exploded in a childish tantrum, stood up at her seat on the dais, red in the face, and screamed about being called a racist on a Facebook page. When she finally ran down, she flounced down in her chair, rolled it back from the dais and sat unspeaking, arms crossed, frowning at the shocked audience.

The surprising result was … there were no consequences. The Mayor proposed a three minute recess, but was talked out of it by other council members, and the meeting continued as if nothing had happened. The petulant council member sat at her seat and leafed silently through the agenda packet for the rest of the meeting.

If this were an isolated incident in local politics, it wouldn’t be so troubling. But this is happening, in one bizarre way after another, all around the world, from Trump to Johnson, from Congress to Parliament, from the United Nations to our local Democratic Central Committee.

Polite, civil discourse, political and personal, is disappearing, replaced by anger, disrespect, name-calling, foul language and violence.

In England, Parliament, which has always been rowdier than the US Congress, has been called to task for increasingly vituperative public rhetoric. The US President rants, whines and lambasts perceived opponents on social media, before the unprotesting press and on unguarded, but recorded telephone calls to international rulers.

Here at home, local politics has descended into personal attacks, wildly exaggerated recall campaigns, special interest lobbying groups and divisive local government policies and campaigns.

I’ve been trying for some time to puzzle out common denominators of this seeming shift in public social relationships that pop up in unexpected places, especially those places where civility has long been the norm.

Based on decades of observation of the public scene, I think several factors are at work here.

In the United States, the Trump phenomenon is a negative influence, dredging up the worst in our society’s underlying thoughts and motivations. Trump is a bully, an ignorant thug, self-centered and supremely egotistical, an isolated, frustrated corporate CEO with absolutely no experience in deliberative bodies or cooperative endeavors. Judging by his supporters, Trump is leading this country down the path to ignorant and uninformed political rebellion and social collapse.

Internationally, ubiquitous cell phone use is raising generations of young people totally devoid of social skills, ignorant of the world outside their electronic devices, expectant of on-demand responses to their slightest desires, unable to read, write and think critically about the world around them.

Corporate media has created a world of newsertainment in which information is indistinguishable from disinformation, entertainment is the desired end (as long as it brings in the bucks) and personality is the supreme quality for legitimacy and meaningfulness.

So-called “Progressive Education” (an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive) has produced an adult cohort that is self-centered, devoid of social norms, and deficient in basic reading, writing, comprehension and critical thinking skills.

Finally, and most recently, climate change fear-mongering is creating apocalyptic hysteria among adults and children alike, misunderstanding of science and the scientific process, and ignorance of ecology, conservation and the very real threats of human population and economic growth, habitat destruction and profligate consumption of resources.

What to do, what to do?

Got me there, haven’t a clue.

This next election, whether or not Trump participates, will be dominated by climate change hysteria, the Green New Deal and homelessness. I think the best we can hope for is for Elizabeth Warren to be elected. Perhaps a woman in the White House can calm the troubled political waters, set an example of civility, empathy and compassion and pull our troubled uncivilization back from the brink.

It’s a lot to expect from one person, history argues against it, the future is in the hands of young people ill prepared to deal with it.

“More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

Woody Allen

 

Is CO2 really Earth’s “control knob”?

 

I rarely devote an entire blog to promoting other blog posts, but this one has a great deal of data relative to the role of atmospheric CO2 concentration on climate variability.

Thanks to Kenneth Richard on NoTricksZone.

CO2 Control Knob? A 15-22°C Warmer Arctic With Sea Levels 25 m Higher When CO2 Ranged From 300-400 ppm

I’ve long (since 1992) suspected that the atmosphericCO2/global average surface temperature correlation is spurious. The steadily rising CO2 data just doesn’t correlate with the cyclicity of global average surface temperature, before or after recent adjustments in the available data.

As an archaeologist, I find paleoclimate data to be compelling in looking for climate mechanisms to explain modern variability. It’s clear to me that natural climate cycles are responsible for the bulk of modern climate variability as well as long-term climate change.

Click HERE for more on the difference between climate variability and climate change.

Climate Hysteria

climate-change-hysteria-400x225

I recently made a mistake by posting an entry on the Edward Abbey Matters Facebook page about the subjugation of environmentalism by climate hysteria (See HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE) speculating that “If Ed Abbey were alive now, he’d turn over in his grave.” For those unaware of Edward Paul Abbey and his works (1927-1989), see my Ed Abbey web page.

I was surprised at the virulence of the response my post received from those who thought I was attempting to speak for the late Ed Abbey, and that I was denying climate change. Yes, I should have known that irrational climate change hysteria dominates the Internet and all other forms of communication these days, to the exclusion of any rational thought about the science or the realities of climate variability and the nature of global climate change. (See Rowdy College Students Protest Campus Forum Debunking Climate Alarmism, for an extreme example.)

Much of the response to my post was in the form of “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real and humans cause it,” “What are your qualifications to question the climate change consensus?”, and “Show me scientific publications that disprove human caused climate change.”

Of course, there are a plethora of publications on both sides of the climate change argument. There is no scientific consensus, even if consensus were important in scientific investigation. Most importantly, one needs only to search the Internet and read to find a myriad of articles questioning the human caused climate change hypothesis and providing data pointing to other climate variables, such as Milankovic cycles, cloud formations, natural ocean/atmospheric dynamics and chaos and complexity theory that demonstrates that climate is basically unpredictable.

Rather than attempting to provide pointers to this documentation on Facebook, which is unsuited to such complex discussion, I’ve created pages on this blog (HERE and HERE, and more to come) to provide a detailed explanation of my position, with links to relevant documents. This is a work in progress, so bear with me for a bit as I pull this all together.

Just to let the climate cat out of its changing bag, the take home message is this:

Climate change and climate variability are natural physical processes that are influenced by the complex interplay of numerous variables, one of which is human greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmentalism vs Climate Hysteria

memorials_ed_abbey

If Ed Abbey were alive now, he’d turn over in his grave.

Ed died in 1989, a month before the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Bad for us environmeddlers, bad for wilderness, bad for mountain lions, cone-nosed kissing bugs, tortoises and desert rats of the two-legged and four-legged varieties.

What is fortunate, from Ed’s perspective at least, is that he didn’t live to see environmentalism gut shot, hog tied and neutered by overweening climate change alarmism and hysteria.

Today’s environmentalists are an endangered species, skulking about the fringes of “Extinction Rebellion” strikes and “Climate Emergency” media events with “Climate Denier” badges hung about our necks. Climate hysteria is the be-all and end-all of all things environmental in these sad and frustrating times, as we contemplate accelerating habitat destruction, air, water and soil pollution and natural resource destruction at the hands and feet of profligate humans.

One of these days they’ll discover that climate changes all the time, with or without human help. They’ll learn that we can’t slow down, stop, reverse or change the direction of climate change. All we can do is learn to live with the climate as it is, and stop destroying what little is left of the natural world that once was.

Long live the weeds and the wilderness, and real environmentalists, too!

“Extinction Rebellion” Comes to Santa Cruz

ER-logo-4col-Black-Linear-1A recent Guest Commentary by Michael Levy in the August 26, 2019 Santa Cruz Sentinel revealed upcoming activities by the local “Extinction Rebellion” (XR) group in Santa Cruz. You’ve not doubt read about XR in international news, as groups of climate change activists who lobby for change in government in response to what they perceive as “climate breakdown” and a “climate emergency.”

XR spokesman Levy explains that “global heating is a direct threat to the survival of the human race,” without specifying what source is heating the globe and why that would present an emergency for the human race.

Levy also claims that “We are currently losing 200 species per day, and are indeed facing our own extinction if we do not drastically limit CO2 emissions,” again without revealing the source of the extinction claim nor the connection between species extinction and CO2 emissions. The Center for Biological Diversity states: “Nobody really knows how many species are in danger of becoming extinct.” “In the past 500 years, we know of approximately 1,000 species that have gone extinct…” That’s two species per year, not 200 species per day.

What does “XR” propose to do about this”climate emergency”?

From the XR website: “XR is committed to non-violent civil disobedience against the inevitable, global collapse of the biosphere if human societies do not stop burning fossil fuels.”

“XR is committed to the idea that local, self-organized non-violent action, along with seeding a regenerative culture of love, compassion and understanding, is not only the best remedy for the isolation and sense of powerlessness brought about by “apocalypse fatigue,” but the only way to bring about meaningful change in the time left to us.”

“XR” is calling for a Global Climate Strike and Week of Actions on September 20th, to draw attention to the United Nations Climate Summit in New York, and the Youth Climate Summit on the 21st, followed by the COP25 Climate Summit in Santiago, Chile, in December.

The group’s website contains a list of their “demands” (My comments follow each point, emphasis mine):

  • That the Government must tell the truth about the climate and wider ecological emergency, it must reverse all policies not in alignment with that position and must work alongside the media to communicate the urgency for change including what individuals, communities and businesses need to do.

Presumably “the truth” referred to is that human produced CO2 is causing “global heating,” and reducing these emissions will stop, reverse or otherwise reduce climate change. Science doesn’t do truth, and there is no evidence to support the claim that reducing human CO2 will significantly influence climate change.

  • The Government must enact legally-binding policies to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and take further action to remove the excess of atmospheric greenhouse gases. It must cooperate internationally so that the global economy runs on no more than half a planet’s worth of resources per year.

“The government” in Santa Cruz, that is, the Santa Cruz City Council and the County Board of Supervisors, have passed Climate Emergency Declarations (Click HERE for the City, and HERE for the County), and have Climate Action Plans in place, along with the cities of Capitola and Watsonville. There is nothing local government can do to remove the excess of atmospheric greenhouse gases, nor does anyone know what constitutes an excess of these essential constituents of our planet’s atmosphere.

  • We do not trust our Government to make the bold, swift and long-term changes necessary to achieve these changes and we do not intend to hand further power to our politicians. Instead we demand a Citizens’ Assembly to oversee the changes, as we rise from the wreckage, creating a democracy fit for purpose.

Citizen involvement in local government is always a good thing. It’s unclear how a “Citizens’ Assembly” would differ from our current representative form of government, with its commission and committee structure.

  • We demand a just transition that prioritizes the most vulnerable people and indigenous sovereignty; establishes reparations and remediation led by and for Black people, Indigenous people, people of color and poor communities for years of environmental injustice, establishes legal rights for ecosystems to thrive and regenerate in perpetuity, and repairs the effects of ongoing ecocide to prevent extinction of human and all species, in order to maintain a livable, just planet for all.

This is the most difficult part of XR and Green New Deal (GND) demands. Human “justice” has nothing to do with human impacts on the environment. In fact, focusing on human justice often blinds activists to effective solutions to environmental problems (e.g., immigration and population control) that affect all species. Movements for human social justice have attached themselves to climate change activism as another rationale to support their causes. This is the case with XR and GND, and is abundantly evident in Santa Cruz, as well as nationally and internationally.

Environmentalists, real environmentalists not climate change activists, have been long frustrated by the co-optation of environmental activism by social activism, which displaces scientific data-based research and discourse with non-scientific opinion and emotional rhetoric.

If climate change presents a real emergency for Santa Cruz and its human and non-human residents, a claim I do not accept, let our local government response be based on science, not hyperbolic, media driven, emotional demonstrations designed to drum up support for national and international social, economic and political programs.

Can Renewable Energy Replace Fossil Fuels?

Solar-Calatagan-1

The modern obsession with Climate Change and its presumed primary cause in the burning of fossil fuels, has led to the unchallenged assumption that modern civilization can and must switch its energy production from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and hydrokinetic (wave and tide) sources.

The question is rarely asked: “Can renewable energy sources replace fossil fuel energy sources to provide all of the energy that human civilization demands, now and into the foreseeable future?”

The usual technocratic response is “Sure. There is no technical barrier to producing all of our energy needs from renewable energy sources.”

The follow up question is never asked: What would be the environmental cost of attempting to produce present and future energy demands with renewable energy sources?”

While it may be *feasible* to produce all our energy needs from “renewable” energy sources, this technological infrastructure comes with large and severe environmental impacts. Mining minerals and rare earth metals necessary to build and maintain renewable energy systems results in habitat loss and natural resource depletion. The enormous physical sites required for wind and solar farms (see above) reduce the availability for natural ecosystems and their native species. Hydroelectric requires dams that inundate huge swaths of natural ecosystems and result in unpredictable seismic changes.

Here is an overview of the environmental impacts of renewable energy sources from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

The question is not “Which is best, renewable energy or nonrenewable energy?” The only question that is meaningful in terms of the full biosphere is: “How can we reduce our impacts on the natural world by reducing our energy demands?”