European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Climate Catastrophe: Overrated

by Nomad
Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:42:39 AM EST

Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science's predictions?

Is this the next Exxon funded, White House cuddled climate contrarian?

Sorry, no.

Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change. But over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country - the phenomenon of "catastrophic" climate change.

It seems that mere "climate change" was not going to be bad enough, and so now it must be "catastrophic" to be worthy of attention. The increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers "chaotic", "irreversible", "rapid" - has altered the public discourse around climate change.

This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as "climate change is worse than we thought", that we are approaching "irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate", and that we are "at the point of no return".

I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel turns.

The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. It will not be visible in next year's global assessment from the world authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

To state that climate change will be "catastrophic" hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.

Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?

The language of fear and terror operates as an ever-weakening vehicle for effective communication or inducement for behavioural change.

This has been seen in other areas of public health risk. Empirical work in relation to climate change communication and public perception shows that it operates here too. Framing climate change as an issue which evokes fear and personal stress becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. By "sexing it up" we exacerbate, through psychological amplifiers, the very risks we are trying to ward off.

The careless (or conspiratorial?) translation of concern about Saddam Hussein's putative military threat into the case for WMD has had major geopolitical repercussions. We need to make sure the agents and agencies in our society which would seek to amplify climate change risks do not lead us down a similar counter-productive pathway.

The IPCC scenarios of future climate change - warming somewhere between 1.4 and 5.8 Celsius by 2100 - are significant enough without invoking catastrophe and chaos as unguided weapons with which forlornly to threaten society into behavioural change.

I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory.

All bold mine. I strongly recommend you to read the piece in its entirety, but I use the excerpts to hammer one more time at the points I've been going on about the past year: the incessant use of dramatising climate catastrophe is
1.) exagerrated by politicians, press and even scientists
2.) could very well turn counter-productive and at worst: lead to apathy for any change.

Changing Climate Change is doable, and the moment to act should not be squandered. But there is no need to get all panicky about it. (Not yet, anyway.)

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Climate Catastrophe: Overrated | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (4.00 / 2)

I think this hyping effect might be due to having to compete with other hyped "issues of the day" for coverage. If the danger was presented in "realistic" language, would anyone take notice?

I think what is problematic here is not the way the "global climate change due to atmospheric changes" is exaggerated, but the way that ALL issues that are deemed "important" are vastly inflated. Compare to terrorism.

I do believe there is a great danger from climate change, though the issue might be hyped. Maybe not from "first order" effects, i.e. the climate change itself to which we might well be able to adapt our life and technology. The question becomes, will we adapt, not could we. The secondary effects which comes about not just from climate change, but climate change under our present "free market over all and no regulations please", lacking a sense that the "common good" has to do with how people live rather than with how much profit is raked in, is in my opinion where the real danger is. The people with power, economic power which translates to political power, seem inclined to try to get as much for themselves as possible, never mind the suffering the might inflict on others. Will they advocate that society ought to be adapted for the benefits of the many, or will they yet again be quite please to screw others for their own gain?

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 09:19:02 AM EST

Provo...... (4.00 / 3)

From today's press release from the Nairobi United Nations Climate Change Conference:

Nairobi United Nations Climate Change Conference opens with warning that climate change may be most serious threat ever to face humankind.
(6 November 2006) - The United Nations Climate Change Conference - Nairobi 2006 got underway today with calls for action and a stark warning that climate change is fast proving to be one of the greatest challenges in the history of humankind.
"Climate change is rapidly emerging as one of the most serious threats that humanity may ever face," said the President of the conference, Kenyan Environment Minister Kivutha Kibwana.

Is this dramatising ? Statements to show how 'important ' all this gatherings are?

The Stern-report sounds like a US-TV show ?

This may be so....

Maybe we are just frogs in heating water....

The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)

by Elco B (elcob at scarlet dot be) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 10:04:20 AM EST

Love the pic! (none / 0)

Of course there is an element of over-dramatising in a struggle to get into a public limelight. But it has gotten to the point of parody. BTW, regarding the press release and the statements therein I find them overall extremely well balanced, in my opinion.

by Nomad on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 10:47:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (4.00 / 4)

Framing climate change as an issue which evokes fear and personal stress becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. By "sexing it up" we exacerbate, through psychological amplifiers, the very risks we are trying to ward off.

...reminded me of the "we must have nuclear" agument. Not enough time to change our way of life (plus no desire), need a quick fix. Tony Blair is explicitly pro-nuclear...

So fear and stress contribute to apathy...no personal change is possible?

As I have understood the science (not very well, no doubt), the problems are:

--poisoning of sealife
--rapid climate fluctuations affecting food production (and also poisoning of the soil)
--collapse of freshwater systems (glaciers) leading to widespread drought

I also have come to (been lead to?) believe that the effects of our destabilisation of the ecosystem are being felt right now in Africa, India, the developing world (lack of water, loss of crops, loss of land to the sea, etc.) I'd like to hear DeAnander's take on this, if she's around and reading.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 10:54:04 AM EST

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (4.00 / 5)

If sexing it up and getting panicky is what it takes to get people to be less gluttonous, wasteful and selfish, I'm for it. Because the alternative, people changing nothing because they don't think the issue is serious is worse. I guess here in the States I don't see a lot of hype, but I do see a lot of people who think global warming is a good thing. Europe has already implemented environmentally friendly policies. If it seems like we are shouting too loudly over here, it is because we are having an impossible time being heard.

The style of communication doesn't make anything any more or any less true.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 12:05:46 PM EST

All right (none / 1)

I have gotten sympathy for the louder tone on this topic within the States - mainly by the feedback I got here from you and other US based posters. Perhaps shouting and waving harder is the only feasible way to get people's attention as long as the issue doesn't directly jeopardise their safety of wallet.

But more importantly, and you also hinted at this in your post: the global warming debate within the United States is still in a different stadium than present within Europe - or so it seems to me, and please correct where I'd be mistaken. As has been lamented too often: the level of acceptance of the global warming theory, down to the fundamental physics, nor its possible consequences; they are simply not taken for granted as largely as in Europe. Yet this year even scientists working for the White House have (grudgingly?) agreed on a warming earth - Science article something something. Surprise, surprise: There is just no implementation by the administration on that. So now the meme is: global warming good? Interesting.

The trouble at this side of the ocean is that anything written in the States gets carried to Europe - vice versa, less so. And when the USA didn't ratify Kyoto and now the EU is failing its goals, it has gotten louder. And louder. And noise adds nonsense. So I disagree on your last sentence. Climate chaos myth making, misleading scenarios and big blow ups of "what if" scenarios without any hard evidence to go with them have been too frequently my concern. Worrisome, perhaps; reality based, not so.

by Nomad on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 06:25:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All right (4.00 / 5)

Europeans tend to be thriftier and more cooperative than Americans. We Americans tend to believe we can always light out for the wide-open spaces if we're bothered by too many restrictions or population density. This tendency is underscored (quite deliberately) by our go-it-alone President, who will not even cooperate with the Constitution.

We don't want to travel with others on trains--we want to drive great big cars on superhighways.

We've never had the deprivations that Europeans have suffered from frequent wars on their soil, so we waste food and energy without even noticing. This became clear to me when I lived in Europe for awhile. I soon learned to be as careful as my neighbors.

The only thing that gets Americans to have that feeling of "we're all in this together" is war.

Most of our ancestors left Europe because it was too constricting and they did not fit in, or they saw a way to make their fortune in the new world.

So to get a diverse bunch of people who have in their genes the tendency to be enterprising loners who prefer lounging in front of their plasma screen TVs to thinking about a common goal that does not involve warfare is quite a conundrum.

What could be the motivator? I think it has to be profit. Something that perks up Americans right away. Clean energy that is cheaper than dirty energy. Conservation that does not require a lot of work but reduces expenses.

And, above all, if it could be shown that reducing carbon emissions improves sexual prowess, then we would not have to resort to jeremiads about catastrophic global warming.

by Plan9 on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 10:22:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All right (4.00 / 3)

Maybe a catastrophic conflict on American soil without a Western Frontier to run away to might act as motivator? I can't think of anything else, sadly.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 10:28:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All right (4.00 / 2)

And, above all, if it could be shown that reducing carbon emissions improves sexual prowess, then we would not have to resort to jeremiads about catastrophic global warming

Arf!

You want some renewable deep wave energy, darlin'? Say hello to my love-turbine!

I'm not sure how "zero emissions" fits in here...

No! I didn't type that! It was afew! I don't know how he does it. He uses gnomisch powers and Shostakovich! Don't let his innocent expression fool you!

Hold on, that's not afew. That's me!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 11:23:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm--it's already working (none / 0)

You must live in one of those low-carbon-emissions per capita countries like France or Norway.

by Plan9 on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 11:37:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm--it's already working (none / 0)

The cars rushing along the road below me don't sound very low-emission.

Now I will cycle home, using my flowers as protection...CO2 my beauties! Food!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 12:08:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Libido (4.00 / 2)

"Impress your wife with your greenness?"

Two excellent insightful posts, also below. Really not much to add.

by Nomad on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 07:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Risk Perception (4.00 / 7)

Humans are not wired to react with alarm at slowly unfolding events, particularly if we do not feel the consequences personally. Surveys indicate that most people think of global warming as something happening elsewhere, to others far away.

I think the consensus of people in the planetary and bio sciences is that a lot of anomalous data is flowing in from different parts of the world and from different disciplines that adds up to a very disturbing picture. At least the scientists I know feel it's very disturbing.

Because there are so many uncertainties in how these events, features, and processes associated with the steadily increasing temperature and the steadily increasing output of anthropogenic greenhouse gases interact, scientists tend to preface predictions and estimates with caveats. And mathematical modeling gives various scenarios. But everyone is on the same page when it comes to the perception that something very big is occurring.

It's just hard to perceive it clearly--it's not a fire burning down my house. It's not a flood engulfing your house. Those fires and floods are mostly on TV. The thousands of deaths from the heat wave in Europe a few years ago --well, they happened behind closed doors, somewhere else, so why should I change my energy consumption habits?

Mother Jones has an excellent article this month on tipping points in the process of global warming:

IN 2004, JOHN SCHELLNHUBER, distinguished science adviser at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the United Kingdom, identified 12 global-warming tipping points, any one of which, if triggered, will likely initiate sudden, catastrophic changes across the planet. Odds are you've never heard of most of these tipping points, even though your entire genetic legacy--your children, your grandchildren, and beyond--may survive or not depending on their status.
Why is this? Is it likely that 12 asteroids on known collision courses with earth would garner such meager attention? Remarkably, we appear to be doing what even the simplest of corals does not: haphazardly tossing our metaphorical spawn into a ruthless current and hoping for a fertile future. We do this when we refuse to address global environmental issues with urgency; when we resist partnering for solutions; and when we continue with accelerating momentum, and with what amounts to malice aforethought, to behave in ways that threaten our future.
A 2005 study by Anthony Leiserowitz, published in Risk Analysis, found that while most Americans are moderately concerned about global warming, the majority--68 percent--believe the greatest threats are to people far away or to nonhuman nature. Only 13 percent perceive any real risk to themselves, their families, or their communities. As Leiserowitz points out, this perception is critical, since Americans constitute only 5 percent of the global population yet produce nearly 25 percent of the global carbon dioxide emissions. As long as this dangerous and delusional misconception prevails, the chances of preventing Schellnhuber's 12 points from tipping are virtually nil.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/11/13th_tipping_point.html

by Plan9 on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 12:37:02 PM EST

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (4.00 / 2)

Our dilemma is that if the climate change issue is communicated with hyperbole, exaggeration and "personal stress", it will become progressively less effective and less credible in the public mind. Yet as poemless rightly points out, without these rhetorical devices it won't be heard at all.

How are we going to create a sustainable global economy that meets the climate challenge when we're not even capable of sustainable communication?

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine - Patti Smith

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 12:44:49 PM EST

What can motivate cooperation? (4.00 / 2)

The Mother Jones article by Whitty talks about different strategies of eliciting cooperation (game theory).

In the US, the question is how to motivate our Congress to pass legislation restricting greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon. If at hearings some scientist says, "Well, really global warming is not a big deal, and besides, don't people like to vacation in warm places?" then that gives the politicians in the pay of the fossil fuel industry aid and comfort. And in fact this is exactly the sort of propaganda coming out of fossil-fuel funded think tanks.

Better to have testimony like this: "Hurricane Katrina may not be directly linked to global temperature rise. But because tropical waters are heating up more than they have in a very long time, we can expect more frequent and more violent storms on average. We can expect more coastal flooding due to the melting of the polar ice caps and the Greenland ice sheet as well as other glaciers and due to the expansion in volume that is occurring as the ocean warms. We are increasing our output of electricity anyway to meet growing demand. Why not regulate the emissions from that output more strictly? Particulate pollution in our country is much lower than it was 30 years ago because of regulation."

I agree that hysteria and exaggeration can ultimately be unproductive, especially in a society with such a tiny attention span. But we have to get the politicians on board, and that may require a more dramatic presentation of the risks in order to obtain legislation as well as more funding for energy research and development--it has plummeted to half what it was 20 decades ago in the US.

by Plan9 on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 01:58:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

correction: half what it was 20 YEARS ago. n/t (none / 1)

by Plan9 on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 01:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As rdf notes below (4.00 / 3)

there is a political unwillingness to act because direct measures will affect politicians immediately - oil and industry interests etc. I also fear there lies a big reason for (the American) political lack of action because measurements would make representatives impopular. Which would make any successful regulating a majority effort, preferably led by the executive branch.

The mood in Europe may be somewhat changing in this perspective: a poll in the Netherlands showed a majority of the Dutch want politicians choosing for the environment - even if overall wealth would stay the same or decrease!

Everyone exaggerates to get their point across, there is of course nothing new to that. The point is that those who should do the persuading, should be convincing. When bad, exaggerated arguments are presented and the next scientist is able to show how bad that probability is, the proponent for regulation gets floored.

The other way is to get people on board in politics who are already convinced, and don't feel they need to investigate the matter. Upgrading climate chaos to climate catastrophe sure may be the way to get there, but it's not a method I particularly fancy. I feel we're losing focus on the ball.

by Nomad on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 06:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Many enviro battles are lost ... (4.00 / 4)

...just because of a tendency to neglect the facts. Rigid ideologues who bring environmental lawsuits often undermine themselves by assuming that their righteous indignation can be substituted for actual science. And then the other side, with sound science, wins.

I could not agree more that the presentation about climate change has to be convincing. As for the use of the word "catastrophic"--to scientists studying corals, their die-off is catastrophic and has big implications for the food-chain, already being affected by ocean warming and likely to be affected by acidification. A billion people rely on the ocean for food.

And the the 150,000 deaths per year the UN is attributing to effects of climate change--wouldn't it be called catastrophic if a bomb killed that many people?

I think all your points are good ones. The Chicken Little approach will ultimately fail. But so will the "This too will pass" approach.

I could make an argument that one of the best ways to mitigate greenhouse gases is to improve the level of education in the US. That would help the generation that will be greatly affected --present newborns--use their brain power to address the problem. And it would help the public understand the problem and what means need to be applied.

An interesting article on the Stern report and priorities by Lomberg in the WSJ (available to nonsubscribers for the next few days):
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116243506287110986-lMyQjAxMDE2NjAyNjQwMzY1Wj.html

by Plan9 on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 10:02:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

About being too loud (4.00 / 3)

See the excellent diary by the always-excellent deviltower

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 02:53:34 PM EST

That's (4.00 / 5)

a brilliant post. Poor devilstower...

Man. Just watching the ads and snatches at the Daily Show already makes me weary just sitting here. Can we please not copy this trend into Europe?

Possibly the most revealing bit was that the United States so abjectly fail the Cater Centre standards for voting that they don't even bother monitoring the election... I think a "Good Grief" is in order.

by Nomad on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 07:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (4.00 / 6)

Notice that the focus of the Kenya conference is on mitigating the effects of climate change, not on reducing greenhouse gases.

This means that most of the world leaders expect the "catastrophic" effects to happen and need to start taking counter measures now. For places like Bangladesh there don't seem to be any reasonable ones if the oceans rise as expected.

For the US to cut emission back by half would mean going back to a lifestyle similar to that in the 1950's. At that point people had TV, automobiles, refrigerators and other household appliances. What has changed since then has been the number of autos per family, the absolute size of the population and the widespread use of air conditioning (especially in the south and southwest).

Transistorized electronics like computers and the like use less power than the old vacuum tube radios and TV's of the time, so blaming electricity use on new gadgets is only slightly true.

The simple truth is that the government of the US is controlled by oil interests. Many in government have a direct interest (such as the Bush family and Cheney) and many get funding from oil or oil-related firms for their campaigns. The oil thirst has led to a current war, refusal to improve auto efficiency, denial of global warming and tax policies which favor oil interests.

Notice that Exxon still denies a connection between greenhouse gases and global warming and is the largest firm in the world. It is also (unlike several other oil firms) based in the US.

It used to be that the US economy was controlled by the oil/road building/rubber/auto sector and this may still be a big component. It is odd that the auto sector hasn't yet realized that their interests don't coincide with maximizing oil consumption anymore.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 04:58:15 PM EST

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (4.00 / 3)

It is odd that the auto sector hasn't yet realized that their interests don't coincide with maximizing oil consumption anymore.

Their internal inertia seems too enormous to overcome. Reliance on corporate welfare and citizen dedication ("buy American," which oddly doesn't apply well to other sectors) do not help either.

I don't know of any large companies that have survived a sea change in their operating environment (there may be some examples, it isn't something I give much thought to). Old, large companies have a hard enough time handling the inevitable cancerous creep of bureaucracy - companies like IBM in the early 90's serving as a rare example of overcoming it, at least for a time.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 05:31:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (none / 0)

I don't suppose that Kerry or Gore or Clinton have any "direct personal interest" in the oil industry? Maybe all their wealth is invested in, say, cabbages?

by asdf on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Gore Fortune (4.00 / 4)

was partly based on tobacco growing. The family closed it down after a daughter (sister to Al) died of lung cancer.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 04:01:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (4.00 / 4)

It all depends on what you define as a "catastrophe." If evacuating the southern half of Florida or 20 million people in Bangladesh, or a lack of drinking water for much of South Asia, or the collapse of global coral reef systems, etc., are not considered catastrophes,then you're right.

What is the threshold?

by asdf on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:11:10 PM EST

The whole point is (none / 1)

that the discussion shouldn't depend on a definition of what's catastrophic and what isn't - the entire word should not come to the fore in the debate because it is a distracting and damaging denominator. So asking what the threshold is, is taking up a discussion that should be avoided in its entirety.

by Nomad on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The whole point is (4.00 / 4)

I strongly disagree with you on this point. The whole problem, it seems to me, is that it's too easy for the press to create a disaster out of a pedestrian news event simply because there is no agreement as to what should be properly called a catastrophe.

Why is it that airplane crashes in, say, Nigeria, get lots of press, while car crashes in London or New York are ignored? Simply because sensationalism sells newspapers. That's why 9/11 was a catastrophe, and that's why another objectively insignificant news event may be sensationalized to sell newspapers--with horrible long-term consequences.

Personally, I think that the flooding of many of the third world coastal cities is going to be a true catastrophe. Perhaps we should calculate the Misery Index for the various scenarios that may arise due to climate change...

by asdf on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 09:22:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Misery Index (4.00 / 2)

That I support - because it could be a metric which everyone can understand and can be defined to some degree. Also because it can be a tool for policy use.

The problem I address, however, is wider than focussing on the press tendency to enlarge topics. Sensationalism sells stories - which is why even I was wavering to support an Iraq invasion after Powell's UN speech. But an other point is that things within the press tagged as catastrophe have simply no secure scientific foundation and yet they get repeated over and over.

by Nomad on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 10:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

At further reflextion (none / 0)

I perhaps should have been more cautious in abjuring the word catastrophe in its entirety. So I cede that point. There have been plenty of examples within the comment thread already that scale in one way or another catastrophic. Yet the use of overrated stands: The problem remains that too often there is distortion of science painted into catastrophic scenes - while it is unfounded. I don't think the absence of a definition on catastrophe is the main cause in this.

by Nomad on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 06:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I presume you have (4.00 / 3)

this sort of thing in mind:

("Caution: World Ending!")

It was a good magazine, once upon a time...

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine - Patti Smith

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 01:38:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There you gooooo... (none / 0)

A shining example. Do you mind if I steal this one from you?

by Nomad on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 07:04:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Be my guest! (none / 0)

It doesn't belong to me anyway ;)

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine - Patti Smith

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed Nov 8th, 2006 at 04:31:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Freakonomics take on global warming (4.00 / 3)

The Freakonomics boys just put a piece in the New York Times that -- as is their fashion -- puts an interesting (if confused... confusing?) spin on the climate change rhetoric:

The expected rises in temperature and precipitation would actually increase annual agricultural production, and therefore agricultural profits, by about 4 percent, or $1.3 billion. This hardly fulfills the doomsday fears conjured by most conversations about global warming.
<...>
While arguing that global warming would produce a net agricultural gain in the United States, they specify which states would be the big winners and which ones would be the big losers. What's most intriguing is that winners' and losers' lists are a true blend of red states and blue states: New York, along with Georgia and South Dakota, are among the winners; Nebraska and North Carolina would lose out, but the biggest loser of all would be California. Which suggests that in this most toxic of election seasons, when there seems not a single issue that can unite blue and red staters (or at least the politicians thereof), global warming could turn out to be just the thing to bring us all together.

Rien ne réussit comme le succès.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Mon Nov 6th, 2006 at 08:31:36 PM EST

Overrated, come to see here. (4.00 / 6)

Australia is experiencing the worst drought in one THOUSAND years.
Saying that it is a catastrophe not only for the outback but for the main cities as well (that's new) that are forecasting a shortage in drinking water soon, is not overrating it. It is quite a pain to see trees growing in the middle of dusty huge dams that used to be full years ago.

Australia is quite unprepared and used to waste its natural resources, they are just understanding the challenge ahead and it will be costly.

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 03:13:34 AM EST

Sorry (4.00 / 3)

But all in all, and upon refelction on the posts.. I would have to agree (maybe) on the detailed point you make but I ahve to disagree strongly wiht all the narrative that it is behind your point.

To make it fast.. yes scientists shuld be very careful when they talk , explaining what they know, what are the prediction, guesses.. a lot of details. If they get worrisome data they should say so.. but not alarm with stupid not-cehecked scenario..

I agree with that.. the point is... they should do that ONLY WHEN TALKING TO OTHER SCIENTISTS USING THE SAME NARRATIVE.

As strange as it may seem saying the truth to someone in a completely different narrative (wavelength we used to say) is typically a lie. I know it might sound strange... an example?

take the case of spain and water. All the predictions show strong and virulent stroms (more than now) but stronger and deeper drought. The details are not clear and depends on a lot of details.. but the data so far is worrisome..and the prediction lead to basically the same conclusion (different strength). Climatologists in Spain know that it is very worrrisome, that the worst scenario could cause serious problems...actually huge problems, they can debate the probabilitites, their own opinion... but what they should say the average voter in Spain??

Ei.. do not worry it is not the end of the world you guys!!... well this would be a lie. In a society where no show business mean no business this is not the way to proceed (even more taking into account the blatant lies from the money interests of some industries).

So , the correct way (according to my point of view) is to put the correct information out there. Anyone in the same narrative wavelength will get the nuance.. but you would be actually lying if you would not describe the situation in dramatic terms...in TV stations

So bar end of the world scenarios or end of the present civilization as we know it... I will agree with quite any metaphor used on the field.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 02:07:37 PM EST

Narrative (4.00 / 3)

We've been here before, and DeAnander joined in as well. But I think the problem is not metaphores. It's about untruth.

Two things.
Firstly, I always return a question. It's fine with me to use two different frameworks, packaging, narrative as you say. Lies to children. I do the same when I was busy teaching. But does everyone other than scientists and capable to understand the distinction between the two narratives need to believe the lie to make it real? That's what bugs me, and I find it fundamentally wrong if so.

Al Gore's movie works to educate the larger public on global warming. It also contains nonsense. In fact, it has enough inconsistencies that some Dutch newspapers written for an audience that can handle science to a degree have criticised Gore's movie at those points. And that shows an exception to what I find to be sorely lacking in intellectual circles: those who can distinguish the lies for children, no longer are given the chance to do so. We all become children in the process. I ask you: Do we want that? Is it necessary?

Secondly, I will start with another example. For the past 24 hours the EU has began a new and severe set of guidelines to regulate liquid transportation at airplanes. A 100 ml max total, toothpaste, moisturiser, apples etc end up in sealed bags. Comments are beginning to trickle in and from the expert mood I receive the impression that this policy is fabricated in haste and with a severe lack of understanding in liquid explosives. In other words, the policy has increased tediousness, while it is stupid and worst of all: the security may get so focussed on watching for illegal liquids, it detracts attention from possible real threats. Today I read about ceramic knifes which will pass through the metallic detector without a beep - who will watch for that? The guard wrapping up Axe showergel?

As Plan9 eloquently wrote, playing Chicken Little. And this went straight to the highest political circles, out rolled a policy.... and it seems foolish! I sincerely believe myth making can potentially have adverse results or become counter-productive in the decision making, and I'm strongly getting signs the aviation liquid policy is just one more example.

Just to say: There are at least two sides of this coin. Perhaps more.

by Nomad on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 07:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (4.00 / 6)

Australia, and more on Australia... Africa and more on Africa...
world grain reserves and productivity impacts of warming...

the Freakonomics guys are imho well named.

Then there's the heat. The most visible cause of the fall in world grain production -- from 2.068 billion tonnes in 2004 to 2.038 billion tonnes last year and a predicted 1.98 billion tonnes this year -- is droughts, but there are strong suspicions that these droughts are related to climate change.
Moreover, beyond a certain point hotter temperatures directly reduce grain yields. Current estimates suggest that the yield of the main grain crops drops ten percent, on average, for every one degree Celsius that the mean temperature exceeds the optimum for that crop during the growing season. Which may be why the average corn yield in the US reached a record 8.4 tonnes per hectare in 1994, and has since fallen back significantly.

they ignore the botanically obvious: that with increasing heat and increasing CO2 concentration you get higher production of cellulose and faster weedy growth, but reduced nutritional content. just more Lomborgian fantasising, that pushing the temperate zones outside the narrow climate envelope that has enabled/sustained human civilisations will somehow be a Good Thing(TM).

the sad fact is that climate change is already catastrophic, if you live in Darfur or the Outback or much of coastal Asia (or NOLA). the rhetorical excesses of activists in the N Hemi affluent metropoles are intended, I think, to break through the smug "I'm all right Jack" consciousness of the people who are proximate causes, yet are so far apparently (not entirely, but impacts are deniable) immune to the consequences. can we honestly talk about Darfur -- essentially a resource war with religio-political packaging, like the US cabinet wars in SE Asia or the Israeli appropriation of Palestinian water and farmland -- without talking about climate change? if Darfur is not a catastrophe then once again we have to ask, what is? only events that kill white affluent people in the N Hemi?

and that is in fact pretty much the rule in the Western media.

a million Africans starve or die of AIDS and it's business as usual. carbon activists -- in desperation, I think -- have to come up with vivid scenarios of serious consequences accruing to residents of Festung Europa and Festung NordAmerika -- the daimyo's castles in their splendid isolation above the flooded or burning countryside where the peasants starve unheeded -- in order to convey any sense of urgency at all.

I sympathise with Nomad's impatience with "worst case" scenarios from the outer edges of the probability curve, and comic-book presentations like 'Day After Tomorrow.' I agree that KCurie's meme-warfare pragmatism sounds terrifyingly Straussian at times -- we've been around this mulberry bush before. and yet I live in the US, have for decades, surrounded by average Americans... and I know that sober, cautious scholarly presentations cannot compete for one second with the endless, glittering, soothing Pablum/Soma noise-storm, the 24x7x365 carny arcade of the corporate media.

the only way to get any meme inserted into the media DNA of the culture is to let the consumer media commodify it and cartoonify it. you want a humanitarian issue to get some spotlight, you'd better get Oprah to cover it. that's the depth to which the media and public discourse have sunk. I hate it. afaik everyone in the sciences hates it, except the tame researchers and flacks for the pharmacorps and other filth industries, who thrive and multiply in the postmodern, dereferenced soup of "pop science" reportage.

Gresham's law applied to media. Hornborg comments on the devaluation of semiotic markers as a parallel to the debasement of currency.

me, I feel more and more like Blum in 'The Producers': no way out, no way out, no way out...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Tue Nov 7th, 2006 at 08:49:30 PM EST

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (none / 0)

oops of course I meant SW Asia, above. different decade, different countries invaded...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Nov 8th, 2006 at 12:59:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (none / 0)

On Africa: I know that the fear of droughts is realistic, that water sources are drying, that Kilimanjaro is losing its ice. Yet I've also skimmed across reports that the African drought is not as bad as presented, that the change in land use for agricultural goals takes a large share of the pie, that not-withstanding the preceding the Sahel is greening by new irrigation techniques and that Kilimanjaro suffers more by changes in air humidity by the loss of jungle than by temperature increases. I've not had the spur to make a serious attempt to find out my own position on this, so I will refrain from those topics as long as I don't feel satisfied about knowing the available materials.

But when you observe the political inaction in regard of humanitarian disasters such as AIDS, such as Darfur, I share your concern that it bodes very little hope to see any action on our carbon addiction.

So. On driving up the urgency by memes, I think the only logical conclusion (for me) after this very good series of comments is: we're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't.

by Nomad on Wed Nov 8th, 2006 at 11:05:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (4.00 / 2)

Kilimanjaro suffers more by changes in air humidity by the loss of jungle than by temperature increases.

I think it is very hard to disentangle these two. the clearcut-n-plough model of agriculture does a lot of carbon releasing in its own right, alters climate (makes it hotter and/or drier) by reducing tree cover and rainfall; the petro-intensive technology required to support this style of ag on an industrial scale and the "global system" whose longhaul trade justifies the overcapitalisation needed to acquire and feed the petro-intensive technology, are also deeply complicit in the warming scenario.

large-scale loss of jungle in other words is intimately connected with cash cropping and long haul (fossil intensive) trade. the resulting agricultural pattern is liquidationist, relying on heavy irrigation and (very quickly as the biotic windfall of the newly-ploughed forest duff is soon liquidated) fossil-intensive "amendments". heavy irrigation makes further demands on the rivers and underground aquifers which are being starved of rainfall and snowmelt by the warming and drying. in other words the entire industrialised, global-system approach to agriculture looks like a positive feedback loop for accelerating climate change, and a desperate race into steeply diminishing returns.

so I don't think one can point to one piece of it and say, "well this anthropogenic climate shift isn't due to carbon release from cars or chimneys so it doesn't count" -- when it's part and parcel of one seamless, consistent and deeply misguided model of ag and commerce... (i.e. without the cars and chimneys, the clearcutting would not be happening in the first place.) ...a model in which "success" is measured by the ability of middlemen and usurers to accumulate cowrie shells, rather than by the ability of the land, water, and weather systems to sustain the human enterprise of culture and society.

I would be really delighted if I could persuade you (Nomad that is, but anyone else who is listening) to read Alf Hornborg's The Power of the Machine which has been engaging my brain intensely for the last few weeks. a whole different way of looking at core/periphery dynamics, energy flows, and paradigm change. could be interesting to discuss.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Nov 8th, 2006 at 03:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 0)

I hadn't got to to bring the suspected effects of land change and its role on increasing global temperatures in the ET floodlight. I was (am) somewhat twitchy how the response would be on that topic if I were to introduce yet another non-ghg factor to the climate debate - considering the amount of grumblings I've had previously in suggesting that GHG are not only to blame and that the multi-facetted picture is far from clearly understood.

But now I see you're way ahead of me. I'm completely with you that the carbon driven industry is undeniably the foundation for change in agriculture - also in Africa - and its inevitable repercussions on the climate. I've lamented also about the reducing role of the nomadic tribes and the governmental failure to integrate them within nature reserves - but governments get most of their revenue from agricultural founded trade, and so the circle continues. So it's not even "just" environmental - there is a big social imprint to it which is equally lamentable.

However. We're in agreement on the fundamental cause. But slicing up the problem in little boxes to better study direct and indirect causes and effects is part of my academic training, so I'll have to reiterate that I'd be interested to hear what the direct cause is of Kilimanjaro's receding glaciers. Because just pointing at carbon is a little too vague to get your articles published and quench my wriggling need to know brainlobe.

And I'll be on the lookout for Hornborg - will give a beep when I've got it. I just had my birthday, but Sinterklaas is coming into town soon.

by Nomad on Wed Nov 8th, 2006 at 05:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 1)

I promise Hornborg will make your head hurt -- but in a good way I suspect, not a desk-pounding way :-)

reductionism as an intellectual strategy helps us to break down the world into bits small enough for our methodologies to address and our brains to digest... but it also feeds the increasingly dangerous illusion that the world is in fact small enough for our present methodologies to address and our brains to digest. in other words, as always, the model gets mistaken for the reality (much as the graven idol is mistaken for the divinity?). there's a fetishistic aspect to reductionism... well anyway Hornborg will address this at length when you get around to him :-)

one of the many painful (and potentially lethal) ironies of "carbon consciousness" is that the push for "bio fuels" is driving even more of the net-negative, carbon-dumping game of factory ag. cf clearing of rainforest for sugar plantations in S Am and oil palm plantations in Pacific Asia...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Nov 8th, 2006 at 07:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Catastrophe: Overrated (none / 1)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 8th, 2006 at 03:37:30 PM EST

A graph says it all (none / 1)

That pretty much shows why the debate on global warming still needs different "narratives" in different countries. But I am not convinced that even the Catastrophe angle will work in the USA, and seeing this graph does not do much to boost my confidence. While India is somewhat of a surprise!

by Nomad on Wed Nov 8th, 2006 at 05:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A graph says it all (none / 1)

N India depends almost entirely on Himalayan snowpack for drinking and irrigation water. nuff said. they know it's time to be worried.

China's a joker in the pack. the agrarian countryside is in ongoing intermittent rebellion over corruption, industrial pollution and land abuse, diversion of water resources, etc. but the urban fringe seems to be drifting into the same la-la consumer fantasyland that much of the affluent industrialised polities now live in: the Jetsons script is playing well among the Chinese nouveaux riches as previous posts have noted, and the gummint seems deeply split between the Henry Fordists (damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, carburbs and luxury sedans lead to national pre-eminence) and the worried environmentally conscious planners.

I note that China is busily, hastily developing its own neocolonial periphery to loot, in Africa (see recent frontpage article on China/Africa issues) as the Anglo/Fordist industrial model requires. its own national resources other than coal are pretty much stripped, and neighbouring states are either armed or already annexed by other powers.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Nov 8th, 2006 at 07:38:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Climate Catastrophe: Overrated | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]