JPGH

JPGH
JP Green House is an urban homestead in Boston.

Friday, August 29, 2014

Okay Doomers, Let's March

Dear Doomers,

I get to use that pejorative term in addressing you, because I'm one of you. The radical fringe of the climate movement, we're the ones uncomfortably pointing out in meetings, online, and in person that the science is telling us it's too late to have a movement. The physics and chemistry of the atmosphere got away from us; the tipping points have all been reached and breached; the window of opportunity has closed.

It's too late to stop, or even arrest climate change. Adaptation is a fool's errand. So, I'll see you at the People's Climate March, right?

I'll just summarize the evidence here, for anyone else who might be reading this, unconvinced. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now predicts 4--6C of warming within a century. But even this august body of scientists is leaving out huge and key pieces of evidence known as positive feedback loops (they were considered to unpredictable to factor into the original reports). The warming we cause sets in motion natural processes which cause more warming--melting glaciers and methane release are two of the most dangerous ones, each of which could bring about several more degrees of warming. It is likely that these feedback loops are already unstoppable at this point. The World Bank and the International Energy Agency, along with many individual scientists, have stated that it will likely be impossible for human civilization to survive warming of more than 4C.

So, Doomers, will I see you at the People's Climate March in NYC on September 21? The one that's going to be "the largest climate march in history". Indeed it will, given that human history is just about over, right?

I agree. It's too late to do anything that will work, and the only appropriate response is terror and despair. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise: Your terror and despair are justified, and you are not clinically depressed or delusional--you're sane, and most people are in denial.

But depending on your age, you still have some time to fill. Maybe a lifetime of time. What's the right thing to do with that time? I myself have tried a number of things, including spending a lot of time spreading the bad news, arguing with activists who say "we're a very resilient species" and "humans have faced adversity before." I have raged at the hopium that mimics the bipolar mind--grasping at little threads of hope, only to have them collapse.

Having done all that (I've been a climate activist for 8 years now), I find that I still enjoy life. The beauty of mountains and ocean is still present; the thrill of spotting wildlife is the same as ever; my garden amazes me every year with its willingness to return from the dead. Nature hasn't given up, so why have I given up?

Despair is a very inert place, very dull. I created an urban homestead, energy positive, with a huge garden, that functions as a demonstration home and a budget B&B. Should I give up on that? Is it meaningless to try create a better future now? If so, what should I do instead? And what do I tell my children? Life doesn't give up that easily.

No one should get out of bed for this. I think despair is a place you have to go and be familiar with, so that you can leave it willingly. But it might just be that the fight itself means something. That attending the People's Climate March, or working in any way against the inevitability of climate change, is a worthy fight that will energize you and fill you with love and pride so that you can enjoy the time that is left.

"Today is a good day to die, follow me," is an oft-cited phrase attributed to Low Dog, of the Lakota, as he addressed his men before a battle. I looked into it and it turns out that the actual phrase, "nake nula waun", is better translated to mean "I am ready for whatever comes." That level of presence, acceptance and willingness to engage would be a worthy way to live. I don't claim to have it, yet.

Here's another phrase I repeat to myself at times: "We don't know what we don't know." There may be options yet unseen that will make a future possible. I don't dwell on that, personally, because I don't want to spend a lot of time imagining scenarios. But I allow for it.

So, fellow climate realists--see you in New York?


Yours, 
Andrée




Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Ice Cold Truth


A lot of people are reacting to the news of the inevitable Antarctic glacier melt, and the inevitable sea-level rise (10 feet in this century) with calls for action, the creation of seawalls, a carbon tax, solar and wind power--the usual litany of fixes for climate change.
    But the word inevitable means "certain to happen, unavoidable". It means, "not preventable." While this may seem unreal or far off, the residents of island nations like the Maldives are already contemplating the certainty of the destruction of their homeland, the need to relocate their entire culture and people (where?). In our own privileged world, we face loss of many coastal cities, and major destruction to others; millions, perhaps billions, of refugees trying to relocate inland. This, on top of all the other horrors of climate change that are upon us. Inevitable.
    I am not proposing that we lie down and die. But I want to see some acknowledgment of the horror of this moment, when we should be realizing how thoroughly we've broken the planet. There should be grieving, wailing, and self-scrutiny. After that comes the resolution to continue, somehow--hopefully, very differently.
    I respect the reaction that demands action, rapid attention to the gravity of the problem. But another way is to see that we skip too quickly over our despair, our complicity and our guilt, to demanding fixes from science and technology. This is a terminal diagnosis for our civilization as it now exists. If it's not going to be a terminal diagnosis for our species (and most others), we do have to pause long enough to find our grown up selves and figure out how to change radically in order to survive this.



Please debate me if you find this analysis flawed, but I see in the climate movement, and even in the scientific community, a failure to use basic logic to connect the dots. I believe it’s based on a fear of looking at the totality of the horror we face. Yet anyone who follows climate science even the way I do--as an educated non-scientist--ought to be able to make these connections.
    Here’s an example: We now know that a temperature rise of 2C is inevitable, probably inside this century. And we were just informed that critical glaciers in Antarctica are doomed to melt away entirely. We also know the loss of the Albedo Effect, which is when white ice reflects heat back into space, causes significantly more warming (James Lovelock says it will be as great an effect as the sum total of human emissions). When you put these things together, you should be able to use simple logic to conclude that “runaway climate change”--i.e. unstoppable warming--is the result. 
    Add what is known about methane release from melting permafrost (methane is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2), and you can loop back and see that 2C is a very, very conservative estimate of how much warming we face. Add the warnings from the International Energy Association, the World Bank and the IPCC that 4C of warming represents a world to which humans may well be unable to adapt.
    If you dare to look at all these pieces (and there are a great deal more!), you find yourself on the edge of a cliff fighting vertigo. Human extinction is by no means an apocalyptic fantasy. The urge to throw yourself over is real and present. You realize you will have to watch, and then suffer, all that is now inevitable.
    If the climate movement were to tell us the truth about climate, there would be no climate movement. This paradox tortures me, and has stopped me in my tracks, as an activist.
But I am not a “defeatist”. This term is being thrown at people who are speaking plain about what climate science is showing us. Many of them are scientists (James Lovelock, James Hansen), some are science writers (Ross Gelbspan), and some are activists (Carolyn Baker, Paul Kingsnorth). Major teachers on a variety of spiritual paths are coming to the same realization (Thich Nhat Hanh and Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee). Unfamous existential thinkers everywhere are quietly reaching the same conclusion.

     A new kind of activism is quietly developing among these desperate souls. It’s the activism of those who have to work from a place of truth, and of those who recognize this very grave and primary truth: There are powers greater than us. 

Monday, February 17, 2014

Moderation Bedamned

I spent an evening recently in a room with a climate activist, saying "this is what the science demands..." debating a policymaker, saying "we're doing all we can do given the difficulties of getting stakeholder buy-in...". 

The forum was panel discussion between Massachusetts Energy Undersecretary Bobby Kates-Garnick and climate activist Craig Altemose of 350MA at the Brookline Public Library, part of Brookline Climate Week. Craig laid out the hard facts of what the science tells us we need to do. Bobby responded with a long list of things MA has already done, making it the most climate-progressive state in the nation, but with a lot of caveats about how hard it is to get communities to embrace wind (NIMBY-ism), the fact that the state has been repeatedly sued over the Cape Wind project, how communities face hardship when we shut down coal plants, etc. Like most of our politicians--even the good ones--she showed no true understanding of the level of urgency and the need to behave in unconventional ways in order to rise to the occasion. A liberal, in other words. They mean well...

She was right--on the terms of her own entrenched, short-sighted, incrementalist, liberal-government paradigm. But we know chemistry and physics will be uninterested in her arguments. I just wanted to walk away from the whole false dilemma and into some wholly other reality, someplace where we can speak the truth. Listening to her was like watching someone have a fatal stroke in slow motion. Horrifying, and also weirdly dull.

If you haven't yet read Wen Stephenson's classic essay on how climate change cannot be addressed with moderate thinking, here it is:

We're up against a very hard logic. Atmospheric physics and chemistry aren't persuaded to change course by the difficulties of making any headway in our political system. They aren't responsive to half-measures and good intentions. 

We've been taught to like the word "moderation". It represents a balanced, thoughtful view that every position is worth listening to, that the truth is not found in any single place. It's very nice. But niceness can be the enemy of real compassion. You can't be nice to psychopath, to a cancer, to a runaway train. Compassion--for the Earth, for our children, for the future--at this moment involves courage and a ruthless dedication to truth.