“The question is, what if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore?”

Washington Post, March 10, 2008: Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say

“The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.”

“Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.”

“The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.”

“The question is, what if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore?” asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about.”

“‘People aren’t reducing emissions at all, let alone debating whether 88 percent or 99 percent is sufficient,’ said Gavin A. Schmidt, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

- — – — – — -

The International Energy Agency prepares medium- and long-term energy projections, which are published in the Agency’s flagship publication, World Energy Outlook. The latest edition, World Energy Outlook 2007, released in November 2007, contains global projections through 2030. … World leaders have pledged to act to change the energy future. Some new policies are in place. But the trends in energy demand, imports, coal use and greenhouse gas emissions to 2030 in WEO-2007 are even worse than projected in WEO-2006.”

- — – — – — -

On the one hand we have increasingly alarming reports on global warming, climate change, and actions required. On the other hand we have statistical evidence indicating that humanity as a whole is not ready to make any admissions. All official projections of fossil fuel use are up, up, up.

It’s what I call a contradictory development of sorts. On the one hand we have the science. On the other hand we have the social fact. Few people feel any need to take the science seriously, in the sense that all this science is requiring of us to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions; it may seem as if people and societies are quite ready to sacrifice the future for the convenience of increased fossil fuels use as of today. It may seem as if people and societies are bracing themselves for the extreme weather events, floods, draughts, climate change to come while doing absolutely nothing of what would be required for us to bring global warming to a halt.

WHAT WILL BE, WILL BE. — Now, as it is becoming clearer and clearer that societies of people just aren’t ready to respond to the science indicating global warming and climate change as a result of increasing fossil fuel use, I wonder how the politicians are going to go about making people respond when they just don’t want to do that?! I mean: if the people of this world is truly ready to accept severe and potentially deadly climate change as one of those things, while waiting for peak coal to kick in some three-hundred years from now, there will not be much the politicians of our times can do to change that. If the people in general has come to accept that there will be hard times ahead, but that there is not much use trying to change that, then what? I’d rather not think about that.

So I can sit here like some moron and know, fully well, that the technological fixes are already in place (nuclear power, solar power, wind, wave, and tidal power, etc.) and all the while come to understand that humanity as a whole is fossil fuel fanatic. I can sit here and conclude, as much as I please, that the human species has, as a ruinous collective, gone fossil fuel insane. Some people are discussing the urgent need for reduction of fossil fuel use while at the same time fossil fuel use are projected to increase. Come what may, we are not going to allow for lifestyle changes that would involve a slow-down on fossil-fuels consumption. It’s insane, isn’t it? Or is it? I may be insane myself for thinking that a slow-down on consumption would be the only way forward, — if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore, that is. And if we want to do something about so many of the drivers of global warming, including factory production of consumer goods, and transportation of things, thangs, stuff, staff, and fuck all: it sure seems like we’re a species lost in traffic.

Or is it the fear factor? — I’m still thinking about the notion that global warming is such a dangerous subject that actually doing something useful in order to stop it (a cumbersome task to say the least) would be the same as admitting to the fact that global warming is a serious threat to life, and a threat that must be adressed. As it is: we all instinctively know that lowering emissions sufficiently for putting an end to global warming would take a lot of effort. Problem is: it might take a lot of courage, too.

I believe the only good way forward would be to stop talking about “the reduction of CO2 emissions,” but instead start talking about “the reduction of fossil fuels consumption.” It is a trick of the mind, this. As “reduction of CO2 emissions” is an undertaking which involves factories and power plants (for starters), while the “reduction of fossil fuels consumption” would be a thing that involves actual human beings of flesh and blood as well. We need to do something about the fossil fuels consumption. And we’re in need of a language that can make that happen.