Comments due by April 5, 2015
“Will we go ahead?” asked Shell CEO, Ben van Beurden, rhetorically, about the oil company’s plans to drill in the Arctic. “Yes if we can. I’d be so disappointed if we wouldn’t.” Van Beurden had the grace to concede that his plans “divide society,” but he seemed unable to comprehend that they might condemn it.
From new research showing that recent sea level rise is “far worse than previously thought”, to updated confirmation of how far we are transgressing our planetary environmental boundaries, an almost daily accumulation of evidence seems unable still to connect van Beurden’s words to their full implication.
What if, instead, he had said to the press conference gathered to hear Shell’s quarterly financial results a few days ago: “We wish to inform you that our business plan is to destabilise permanently the climate on which you, your families and society depend.”
Harsh? Perhaps, but their strategy will end the party for the rest of us, so that their corporate party might continue. In fact, it seems that extreme weather in the form of drought is already breaking hearts in Brazil by forcing cities to cancel carnival, the greatest party of all.
It’s ironic. Those who argue it’s a good idea to respect nature’s various thresholds (like not making farming so toxic that you poison the bees who kindly pollinate our food crops) traditionally get labelled as fun-free spoilsports. But it seems it’s those who recognise no limits at all who represent the greatest threat to life’s party.
While the global industrial exploitation of nature drives a mass extinction event on land and sea, it becomes ever clearer that our own well-being is dependent on the general condition of the environment. Our health, both physiological and psychological, is deeply connected to and relies on the diversity of life.
Now, a new global calculator developed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, suggests a course of action to prevent irreversible warming that could be as good for the web of life as it is for our quality of life. Radical changes to farming, transport, food and fuel will be needed, but it envisages a world of spreading forest canopies, clean, quiet electric transport and healthy, increasingly vegetarian diets. With such a potential win-win, why would anyone choose bad times with business as usual? The status quo is tenacious.
If you look at the UK’s biggest lobbying groups at the centre of European power in Brussels, their scale seems to be in direct proportion to the damage they do and how likely they are to resist progressive change. Oil, finance and aviation are all in the top five. And, even as the economics of fracking and remote oil exploration, such as in the Arctic, have fallen apart, their lobbies remain persistent and audacious. How else could a Conservative party, which extols the notion of an English person’s home being their castle, be persuaded to promote changes in the trespass law to allow fracking firms to drill beneath homes without the owners’ permission?
Logic, consistency and science become inconvenient to indefensible positions. When the US Senate last month voted on whether climate change was real and caused by human activities it was creating future folklore. Accepting the first, but not the second proposition, the Senate put its debate on a par with the famous, and now seen as absurd, 1925 Scopes ‘Monkey’ case in theUS, which effectively put the theory of evolution on trial.
History is littered with the sorrow of foreknowledge of terrible things about to happen. “We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families,” a line written in a letter by Tutsi pastors in 1994 must be among the saddest words ever written, as they proved correct and became the title of a book on the Rwandan massacres. Like the Holocaust of half a century earlier, there were signposts pointing toward impending atrocity. Yet, a strange disbelief about the possibility of truly extreme action left even informed observers paralysed.
Don’t we now have enough foreknowledge on global warming to call a halt in the face of those who would not only burn all currently known fossil fuel reserves, but search for more?
Knowledge and learning from history are themes in The Edge of Extinction: Travels with Enduring People in Vanishing Lands, by the author Jules Pretty who draws a map of hope from the mountains of China to the Russian steppe and the snows of Canada. He describes an astonishing diversity of human experience in which our species has learned to live well with, rather than against, nature and often each other.
Done intelligently and not dogmatically, we might still make a pleasant and lasting home for everyone on our blue and green planet. But, to make the most of it and keep the party going, we’ll have to stop clinging to dead economic models which wreck our environmental foundations. Because, sadly, for those excited by the possibility of planetary relocation, the nearest known other Earth-like planet is around 13 light years away and would probably take a few hundred thousand years to get to. That’s a long time to wait to get another party started, when you can keep the one you’re already at going strong. (The Guardian)
16 comments:
The earth has been around for over 4.54 billion years, has endured multiple ice ages, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, and natural disasters. But never, in the history of this planet, has the earth been manipulated and exploited as much as it has since the Neolithic revolution. Ever since early people learned to domesticate animals and claim ownership of land, the people stopped belonging to the planet and the planet started belonging to them. This idea of ownership and domestication continued, without causing much harm. Until the Industrial Revolution, when people went out of their way to seek natural resources to produce in mass quantities, with absolutely no regard to the environment.
Today, we live in a world where stars are hidden by pollution, cars emit pounds of unnecessary toxic fumes, animals are driven extinct, and the youth can grow up without knowing nature. When we examine fossil fuel companies like Shell, who wish to drill in the arctic, BP, who is responsible for the gulf oil spill, and the money backed lobbyists who support these initiatives, one is led to wonder, what happened to the party? If we as the people wish to celebrate, then we must get rid of this party and go to the anti-party. An alternative party where politicians aren’t backed by corporations and energy comes from a clean source. To do this however, one must eliminate fossil fuels and find efficient and sustainable alternatives. This is a clear message in the environmental and political arena, and has been delivered time and time again.
I find a deep connection to the words written within this article, for I think it correctly exposes the plagues of the environmental crisis. First and foremost, the persistent and steadfast mission of oil companies to continue to drill for finite & depleting resources is leading the way for continuous environmental distress. Oil spills, greenhouse gas emissions, and an economic system supported by exponential growth is sending Earth's systems into a shifted, off balance conundrum. For those scientists, ecological economists, environmentalists, policy makers, and average citizens (etc) striving for a paradigm shift in the lens of energy, it is an incredibly frustrating time. Companies with massive emission percentages such as oil, aviation, and agriculture dominate the world market. This does not mean that the Earth is doomed for oblivion however, though at times that may be how it seems. Mass social movements have begun to captivate the world audience. Rooftop farms adorn city centers, Nicaragua & other low income nations have become completely renewable energy dependent, and the EU just planned to cut their emissions to drastic measures by 2020. There is a fever in the air for change, and one can only hope it continues to spread.
Sustainability is one of the most troubling questions plaguing society today. Times are changing and it is the duty of man to come up with a clear and efficient solution. Today, fossil fuel companies are some of the most powerful entities in the world. Take for example Exxon, which has a market capitalization of $356,500,000,000, making it one of the largest companies in the world. The company pools millions of dollars every year into lobbying groups in order to further their own development. With this money, companies such as Exxon are able to drive their own initiatives and begin new projects such as drilling in the Arctic. This further development is destroying our society today. As we all know, the negative effects of fossil fuels vastly outweigh the benefits. Impacts include increased carbon dioxide emissions, habitat fragmentation, and climate change. However, we still seek out answers to the worlds energy problems by further production of fossil fuels. As the article states, "Don't we now have enough foreknowledge on global warming to call a halt in the face of those who would not only burn all currently known fossil fuel reserves, but search for more?" Despite this knowledge, we continue down this path. The answer to the questions of sustainability lie not in fossil fuels but in clean alternative energy sources. Investing in wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, and bio can help to solve some issues. The Department of Energy and Climate change has already attempted to plan out a course of action to prevent irreversible warming through a global calculation. Additionally, many believe that "radical changes to farming, transport, food, and fuel will be needed" however, it is still possible to create a "world of spreading forest canopies, clean, quiet electric transport and healthy, increasingly vegetarian diets." In order to provide a clean and sustainable future, we must act now.
This article does a good job of outlining the great environmental paradox of our time: We need the environment to survive, but we can't seem to stop ourselves from destroying it. Unsurprisingly, human mental and physical health is strongly tied to the health and diversity of the natural world. Now that we are beginning to realize this, it is time to make changes to the biggest culprits of environmental degradation; namely agriculture, energy production, transportation, and manufacturing. This is obviously easier said than done. These components of civilization are deeply rooted in the government and economics of not only our nation, but the world. To tear them all up at once would be not only unrealistic, but devastating to the comforts of daily life we have grown accustomed to.
So what do we do then? Leaving things as they are may work for a little while longer. It may even work for another couple of centuries. But eventually, fossil fuels will run out, or the honey bees will become extinct, or the polar ice caps will be no more. So no, leaving things alone does not seem like the best idea in the long run. But if we cannot uproot the entire present system and we cannot do nothing, then what's left to do? This is the true problem we face today.
Its not surprising that CEOs dont care that they are screwing society. We are in this crisis because of these companies complete disregard for the environment, as the only thing they care about are the next quarterly numbers. Hopefully since people are beginning to realize this and articles like this one are being written things can change, soon. As chelsea pointed out the market is dominated by the worst offenders. what i want to know is if these offenders will ever be held accountable.
Nick Stanton
In my opinion, fossil fuels are the most dangerous threat to life on earth. Oil companies such as big Shell continue to drill for new oil deposits. Along with this, these companies do not invest in clean energy technology, which has become available in many forms. One large argument against wind farms along the coastal waters is that the wind turbines obstruct the view; oil rigs and ships do the same thing. Every day there is more evidence that the burning of fossil fuels are causing too much damage to the environment. According to the article: "From new research showing that recent sea level rise is “far worse than previously thought”, to updated confirmation of how far we are transgressing our planetary environmental boundaries, an almost daily accumulation of evidence seems unable still to connect van Beurden’s words to their full implication." The passage from the article articulates the fact that humans understand it is dangerous to burn fossil fuels, but we continue to do so thinking nothing will happen. Economically it might make sense to burn fossil fuels, but is it really worth risking our health to make a profit? We only have one earth, therefore we need to change our methods of electricity production and transportation.
-Frazer Winsted
“That’s a long time to wait to get another party started, when you can keep the one you’re already at going strong”
Why do we look to inhabit another planet when we can’t even take care of the one we live on now? The sentiments of the article are cliché and overstated, proof that we prefer to have a conversation rather than initiate any real world action. We enjoy talking about and bemoaning our crisis, rather taking individual responsibility and action over it. No matter how much scientific, technological and governmental research we have to argue the case for a climate in peril, we remain unconvinced and unmotivated, evidence of a clear planetary disconnect. How many of us are willing to stop driving cars? Stop eating animal products? Stop buying clothes and phones? Stop consuming energy? All in an effort to reverse the irreversible. Rolling back the clock on climate change would call for a complete deculturalization of our global economic culture. Our values and customs would, in essence, be “compromised”, forced to take a much needed back seat to environmental issues. We would have to stop prioritizing that which is not an innate responsibility, halting all frivolous consumption. Everything from eating a burger to traveling upwards of 1000 miles on a cross country road trip with friends, would have to cease. Doesn’t sound like a very attractive life at all?
This is no small task to ask of a culture firmly grounded in the free market, encouraging the accumulation and indulgence in consumption, and growth and expansion in the “free world”. And it says very little of our ethic that we only think of our own environmental crisis for a brief moment when we are petitioned for a donation by a non-for-profit to which money goes towards a paycheck, only perpetuating more consumption. In continuously placing the blame on big industry, we miss the mark in initiating change that begins “with we”, condemning those private interests that power our life, a testament to the hypocrisy and dissonance in contemporary environmentalism. In this way, we have been divided into groups of those who “love” the Earth and who don’t, those who condemn and those who are condemned.
Healing the climate calls for the complete reprioritization and re-evaluation of economic values and ethics. Though we may love the Earth and are sympathetic to environmental issues, we must acknowledge that we are stuck in a culture of economics that isn’t conducive to treating our planet well. In this way, we must serve as community advocates, pushing local and global leaders to restructure the values of our society, ensuring that stewardship not economics remains strongly connected to global culture.
This article provides an excellent summary of the root of the ecological crisis. The human species relies on the planet for its survival, but human activity continues to have detrimental effects on the earth. The disconnect between humans and the natural world is dramatically widening. The effects of human activity can be seen in every corner of the globe. The massive loss of biodiversity, rising sea levels, and increased levels of pollution are indicators that our lifestyle is unsustainable. It is unrealistic to believe that humans can continue ravaging the earth for natural resources without causing irreversible destruction. The only way to reverse any of this is to immediately begin using alternate forms of energy, better managing our waste, and changing our economic systems.
-Haylei P.
For decades, energy producers have continually identified new fossil fuel reserves and developed technologies that enable people to economically recover oil and gas from deposits previously deemed too difficult to access. That has enabled cumulative fuel production to greatly exceed previous estimates of reserves.
Oil companies, gas companies and the federal government collectively invest billions of dollars each year in research and development to create new fossil fuel technologies. The state of the art will continue to advance, enabling economical access to new reserves well into or beyond the 21st century. There is even the potential for a major breakthrough that enables access to new types of reserves.
If we all continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels for our energy supply, climate-change related damages would become very severe long before there is any real pressure on our fossil fuel supply. A transition to a clean energy economy cannot be motivated by a scarcity of fossil fuels it must be driven by a concerted effort to keep the climate livable and healthy.
The tyrants that control these companies are the ones that need to wake up and understand the extent of their everyday decisions. As a nation, we are dependent on fossil fuels at a time of growing demand and dwindling supply. Meanwhile, fossil fuel use continues to impose massive environmental and economic costs. Now our country must choose between paying to continue the status quo and investing in a new energy future.
"But, to make the most of it and keep the party going, we’ll have to stop clinging to dead economic models which wreck our environmental foundations."
This quote really stood out to me because the concept seems so simple, yet to make it a reality, at this point, seems perhaps impossible. With large influence from corporations and lobbyists, environmental degradation will continue to occur. Our current economic system tells us to favor the short term gain over the long term consequences. What is really needed is a total paradigm shift which would give us a new perspective that would hopefully allow us to work well with the environment instead of exploit it. Of course this is easier said than done, especially when the debate as to whether climate change is caused by human activities or not. After all the research and findings I would think that this debate would be settled and we should start taking responsibilities for our actions.
-Emma Weis
I thought the first third of the article raised a very good point. Why are those who care about preserving the environment and sustainability labeled as crazy? Maybe those who do care don’t have the best execution in spreading their message, but maybe the ones who have a vested interest in destroying the environment in the name of profit are just too influential. However, if we look at some of the recent reports about how climate is indeed changing, and that Antarctica is actually shrinking we see that environmentalists are not the crazy ones even though they are painted as such. Recently the South Pole reached a temperature of 62F. It’s happened once before, but that is still warmer than the northeastern region of the United States. Short-term incentives are key drivers in environmental destruction, and somehow we see it and do nothing about it. The article pointed to other historical examples where atrocities were foretold, but not enough people did anything about it to avoid such extreme events. The answer is simple: no one believes that an extreme event will happen, and hindsight only offers a false sense of rationality of it. Black swan events do happen, and even when presented with the evidence we still don’t want to believe it because it’s inconvenient.
Sustainability is almost looked at these days and all days as the complete opposite of economic growth. That is why we hear a lot of important people in industries such as oil gas and other fuels using strange words that may sound environmentally fitting, however they are just a distraction because they are really dividing society by the ones who want money and the ones who care about the earth. We can only use so much gas, take up so much oil, burn so much fuel without worrying if it will hurt others. Unfortunately, we are completely passed this point and with every single gallon of fuel burned we are hurting something, someone, somehow! These guys at the gas companies are sitting ontop of so much money that the only thing they have their eyes set on is making more and doing it any way possible. We need to d everything we can to battle back against these rich, "sophisticated" people. They should be acting like role models instead of world rulers because that is basically what they are. They are masters of the economy, kings of the oil and think that they can do anything they want as long as they have the most money. They can't be getting away with all of this and they need to be charged with all the damage that has been done due to carbon emissions and all the pollution. Even though it is really too late, I think if these guys started putting their money into the cleanup, restoration, and protection of the earth, they can basically insure their funds by fixing the environment.
--Michael Tierey
We live in a world that is dominated by human greed and our own obsessive mindset that money is the most important part of this planet. The words spoken in this article are true, we need to keep what we have, and we cannot rely on technology to fix it, or move to a different location. Those options are not on the table, nor should they be. The economic principles that exist today are only keeping people in a mindset that we need money to exist, when in fact, we do not. Money is manmade. Economy is a system that we've created for ourselves over the course of thousands of years. Yet, if we were all to perish, and economy did not exist anymore, would the world end? When cycles of money stop flowing over the Earth, will all of the plants and animals die do to lack of money? No. We are destroying the earth by placing all priority on economic prosperity, when in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Old economic principles are not what is going to keep us alive on this planet. This article is absolutely true.
Leanna Molnar
“While the world’s carbon budget goes down every year, as more and more CO2 is spewed into the atmosphere, the potential emissions [of the 200] are going up,” said Stuart Braman, founder and CEO of FFI, who spent 20 years in the financial services industry with Standard and Poor’s. Both MSCI and FTSE, major providers of financial indexes, have also produced fossil-free or low-carbon indexes in response to demand from investors. So that we must be more focus on our surrounding environment. For example, developing country such as Bangladesh can be improved that this problem if United Nation take some steps regarding this matter in the world.
Articles like this should be distributed more. This is the type of article that makes one think more deeply about the crisis that we are heading for. The non-stop drilling of oil, and the non stop consumption is one of the leading factors of this upcoming crisis. The downward spiral of the earth is also contributed by greenhouse gases, oil spills, and overconsumption. This coming collapse is not something that will happen millions of years from now. It is something that could happen in the very near future. No since this has been a hot topic issue, people should strike while the iron is hot and move towards change.
- John D'Onghia
In this article we realize fossil fuels coal, oil, and natural gas are America's primary source of energy, accounting for 85 percent of current US fuel use. Some of the costs of using these fuels are obvious, such as the cost of labor to mine for coal or drill for oil, of labor and materials to build energy-generating plants, and of transportation of coal and oil to the plants. These costs are included in our electricity bills or in the purchase price of gasoline for cars. This problem could start happing soon.
Derek Fields
Post a Comment