Um, probably said before but I will say it again. The Earth does not need saving. She will go around the Sun as she always has whether we are on it or not.
It is us who have to save us from ourselves.
1
"impoverished this planet" - perfectly said, though perhaps we are simply killing this planet - unlike parasites, humans know better and yet we are killing the host planet.
There is not enough planet to go around. Indeed, there's never enough planet just for the wealthy kleptocrats and their unsustainable obscene wealth grab.
Unsustainable capitalism is THE threat to our planet's survival - as is unchecked population growth encouraged by those at the top to make themselves wealthier. "It’s about winners and losers" No kidding. It's about maximizing the winnings for the fewest while maximizing losing for the most.
"human ingenuity can continue to overcome those limits" except for the fact that those controlling all the wealth will claim it is too expensive to overcome those limits. We have the Kochs using their wealth to veto science, ingenuity and a greener way. Yet we already know how to go green and make it profitable too. But we have the trumps and Pruitts of the world sabotaging all that with more drilling, more fracking and more coal. "No amount of scientific evidence" is of any value when it's censored or deleted by our own government.
Forget ingenuity, too many believe in unquestioned prayer lottery to get through any challenge or predicament.
"Us" and "sharing, fairly, the only planet we have" is often disparaged as socialism. But given that we ALL have only ONE Earth to live on, we all should be equally taken into account in deciding the fate of our only home.
3
The science is to convince people about the problem, so that they can take appropriate personal and political action.
6
Humans have kickstarted a natural process that is now irreversible, Gaia theorist James Lovelock warned in 2009...
CO2 will win - seven billion people breathing put as much CO2 into the air as all the airlines do, and pets and livestock make up 23 % of that.
the point tipped 20 years ago.
9
the solution is simple...4 billion people need to stop breathing.
CO2's victory is inevitable — seven billion people breathing put as much CO2 into the air as all the airlines do, and pets and livestock make up 23 % of that.
3
James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis has been a warning to us all for 50 years to no avail.
we are now halfway through Lovelock's last prognostication 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan' made on March 1, 2008.
2
We are past the point of no return and the social upheavals around the planet will lead to mass starvation, lack of potable water, and inevitably a series of wars that will unleash even more carbon into the environment. I realize my teenage nieces and nephews are likely doomed to a much shorter lifespan than my generation. The plague of Sapiens infected the planet. The planet will dispose of us like the small scale vermin we are. We will not be missed and God will not save us.
13
Air conditioning presently uses large amounts of power. Abrupt Global Warming indicates this will become a huge problem.
An incredibly efficient heat pump Air Conditioner has been invented that will use 1/3 the energy of existing units and needs no refrigerant. The science is proven.
A prototype needs to be built. It is expected to exceed the Carnot limit. See CHEAP GREEN A/C at aesopinstitute.org
Inherently inexpensive - such a breakthrough will be widely welcomed in a rapidly warming world - as it will dramatically reduce the power required for cooling: Avoiding power outages such as now threaten Los Angeles.
Vicious anonymous Troll attacks discourage urgently needed support with rants featuring lies and distortions.
A few brave individuals are needed to support this and other breakthrough technology. Assistance mow will make an enormous difference. Worldwide production under license may save lives.
3
You are right, the science is just the messenger. I think major changes to the economic and legal framework must first be proposed and approved. The European Community has a head start on this. One fundemental weakness of the economic framework is that the cost of our debt to the planet is invisible. True cost of externalities must be incorporated for in the pricing of goods and services. Because the planet degradation is a slow but persistent process, it seems as if it's life as usual and their is little motivation to pay our debt and to change this suicidal longterm consumerism way of life. This change must be bottom up and approved by a majority. Making society conscious of this is our present challenge.
4
Trump may fix global warming with a nuclear winter, no deep thinking involved. Think about it it’s a one shot cure, we like simple solutions.
3
Why doesn’t anyone mention how consumers can boycott buying products from countries that do not limit coal burning or decrease their emissions. We need to know who are the offenders. For those in the US if you want to help move to places with decent public transit and limit the miles driven. Get rid of your cars.
5
Technology evolves but not human character. Fair cost and other sharing and cooperative living have never happened across the planet in the past.
What would cause such a miracle now except possibly an acknowledgement of limits.
But far more likely is that pride, greed and selfishness will destroy the resources and health of the planet yet.
Of course the planet itself will last until the sun runs out of hydrogen, but our species will likely be gone much sooner.
Our eternal frailties will get us yet, especially if there continues to be no limit on greed and selfishness.
5
What is all the hysteria about? The Climate Apocalypse Prophecies? Settle down folk, those are false prophecies.
3
Limits? As a species, we passed all limits at least a decade ago. We are truly cooked, and the processes we have unleashed are going to be inexorable no matter what puny efforts we make to reverse them. Now we can only wait for the inevitable acceleration of die-offs, which will in turn accelerate more releases of greenhouse gases, and higher sea levels, which will increase the amount of solar energy the planet absorbs. As for humankind, we will see the rise in suicides and the decline of births as the reality of the costs of the Anthropocene become too terrible to ignore. Perhaps when make our exit the Earth can begin the slow process of healing from the results of our variety of intelligent life.
9
Throughout history, there were moments, perhaps engendered by threatening pressure, when great new legislated ideas were actually implemented.
One example among many (some millenaries and centuries ago) was the Sputnik threat, which contributed to electronic miniaturisation and sophisticated mathematical, engineering, medical advances etc.
Abundance of manufactured paper on a grand scale was another.
A needed idea is that EVERYBODY needs to CLEAN UP after themselves meaning individuals, factories, corporations, governments, etc. so that the Common Good Index this article is invoking remains at an acceptable (to be quantified) level. It is not at this moment.
We need "Cleanometers" to measure the "well-being" of this planet just like we need thermometers to monitor temperature of humans, animals, engines, buildings etc.
This can be done.
Here is an example: 100 years ago the upper atmosphere and beyond was pretty clean. Nowadays chemicals and satellite debris have created a mountain of garbage. This mess should be quantified and cleaned up (the debris, not the satellites).
Same for plastic and thousands of other debris types on the surface of the Earth.
4
The overall problem is there are too many humans on earth. Like all expanding animal populations, our population will eventually crash due to a combination of a lack of food, potable water, and disease. And if we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, we are risking a runaway greenhouse effect that may just cause our extinction.
12
The author's contention that only if the wealthy and vested interests (e.g., the petroleum companies) pay the price, the catastrophic effects of climate change on our species can be averted. This is never going to happen for two reasons: it is against their interests, and they control the political process.
In the real world, the rich are buying get-aways in New Zealand and the petroleum companies continue to underwrite the election of Republican climate change deniers and spread disinformation on a scale that would make the Russians envious.
The vortex we are rushing toward is nothing we humans haven’t experienced before. Great civilizations before us have failed whenever their wealth and power was consolidated by a tiny elite. Why should our fate be any different? Ask not for whom the bell tolls.
11
We have to address climate change in our daily lives by installing solar panels on our roofs and by buying electric cars. Finally, trees are the answer to climate change, fires, flood, inland heat, bad air, degraded soil, loss of pollinators, and depleted aquifers. My husband and I and have started an experimental garden in the median strip outside our home in Los Angeles. We are growing edible and native plants along with fruits trees and herbs. Even in the recent intense heat wave, the vegetation in the median garden has proven to be surprisingly resilient and productive. We make our own compost with our yard and kitchen waste, and the manure from our chickens, goats, rabbits, and fish. The soil in the meridian is now very rich and needs very little watering. We also keep bees for pollination and for the honey. We share the produce with all our neighbors and the sidewalk along the median is remarkably cool and humid and attracts countless butterflies, bees, birds and other local pollinators.
If all cities were to turn the medians/pavement strips into community gardens, it would help the environment. Green pavements planted with native fruit trees, vegetables, and herbs can sequester carbon, provide cool shade, sustain local pollinators, and increase the absorption and filtration of rain and storm-water runoff. Gowing food locally would also eliminate millions of trucks from our cities.
12
Thinking won't do anything, marching won't do anything, making carbon taxes won't work, cap and trade won't work. Only adapting will work somewhat. Nobody tries that, nor some cost effective things we could do, like converting animal waste into fuel with a digestor.
2
"Extremely costly, because rebuilding energy systems to make them carbon neutral, ensuring that land, water and other resources are used sustainably, adapting to climate change and cleaning up pollution don’t come cheap."
No, in total costs of the energy source life cycle, and total resource costs, it can be done cheaper than by waste.
There may be an upfront cost to change, but that cost will be paid anyway as systems wear out. None last forever, or even for 30 years.
Life cycle costs of large scale renewables can become cheaper than burning carbon.
Life cycle cost of recycling can be cheaper than new mining and refining of ore. Even today re-bar is frequently made from re-cycled steel because it is cheaper. That will be true across more types of steel and other metals as we get better at defining and refining the scrap.
It is a mistake to concede that the future will be more costly. Almost always, in all things, over time costs have come down. That has been true for centuries.
6
Increasing green energy and sustainable food production while eliminating global poverty are a single task essential for stopping global warming. Scientists and the wealthier nations have to work closely with farmers, fishermen, rural and urban people to utilize local solar, wind, and other sources of green power and replace industrial production of cash crops with food production. Neoliberal capitalism’s demand for short term profit above human needs and our future made Puerto Rico’s energy system oil-based rather than using the subtropical sun and wind. The U.S., while wealthier, makes similar bad decisions.
4
"We need to start talking about what kind of planet we want to live on." Regrettably "we" don't count for much anymore. It's more like the wealthy will decide for us what kind of planet THEY want to live on (money over votes).
6
“Start” talking?
Stop pretending it is not already to late, our extinction is well under way thanks to selective-ignorance.
7
1. There's a sustainable new "Al Gore-rhythm" and it goes like this:
Climate Change + Changing the Emotional Climate = an environMentally friendly atmosphere.
2. There's a visionary and SIMPOL new Global Governance platform to unshackle the straightjacket that's gripped Leaders of Nations in DGC (Destructive Global Competition) instead of CGC (Constructive ...) and it goes like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGqmlj1u2ZU&t=29s
www.simpol.org
3. There's a Party for Humanity where the guest list is Everybody celebrating Unity AND Individuality ... Community AND Diversity and it goes like this:
www.synchronistory.com
In order to heal #1 we need to seed #2 in order to enjoy #3. We're all in this mess of our humanness - like a dysfunctional global family of orphaned nations all vying for the "prize" with no healthy parent figure to genuinely and inherently appreciate us ... as we fight it out on a tiny spit of land hurtling through infinity.
Why should Planet Person care about the Earth if they don't care about their Self? And why doesn't Planet Person care about their Self in the first place?
Humans will continue to destroy the planet through their greed, ignorance, and indifference just like they do when there is a drought and no one wants to limit their use of water.
7
Patriarchy has pushed humanity to the brink; the only solution is to allow women worldwide to develop to their full potential so they can push back on the excesses of men. The equality of women sounds like a simple solution but it will solve every single problem we're faced with now.
3
First lesson of biology is the growth of a population will decline as the waste it produces increases. What we are trying to do is in fact not saving the Earth, but saving the biosphere suitable for human habitation. The Earth had existed before the dinosaurs. It has continued to revolve around the sun long after their extinction. The Earth will continue to bear the changes imposed on it long after the human cease to exist. What we need is to shift the conversation to save the human race or we would just be a frog sitting in a pot of cold water slowing brought to boil.
6
Finite natural resources cannot support infinite human population growth.
Until our species understands that we are simply trying to postpone an environmental apocalypse.
9
Dr. Reis seems strangely unaware of the broader scope of the scientific enterprise. It’s not an intense activity done in a lab coat or at a computer terminal to produce magic gizmos that solve all our problems. Science is a disciplined, systematic way of thinking that applies to all human activity. It’s also data and evidence driven – the complete antithesis of the “post-truth”movement currently infecting us. The science perspective can help encourage balanced, non-ideological thinking. There are however, some prejudices about the role of science. Phrases like “technocrats think they have all the answers and can tell us how to live our lives” have been heard since before the Depression. We must form a strong partnership between the analyst and the humanist where data provides support and ammunition not final answers. Clearer, science-like thinking will not only invigorate innovation but will also become a valuable component of national planning, providing a sharper, quantitative focus for many of the big debate questions and subject all positions to constant critical scrutiny. At our local (Albuquerque) version of the “March for Science” (about 4000 attended) recently, I gave a talk entitled “Science is for Everyone” and this theme of partnership between science and the general public seemed to generate considerable enthusiasm. Martha Pollack, the President of Cornell summarized it well: “the idea that diverse perspectives lead to better solutions is not just talk”.
2
Drive less. Teach your kids to drive less.
Better yet, don't teach your kids to drive.
Don't buy extra cars.
Buy fewer TV sets. Recycle furniture. Stop wasting food.
Please! And thank you!
7
As a decidedly non-expert, I agree! I’ve always felt that it wasn’t beyond the ken of ordinary people to know a lot about pollution (and I’m talking about pollution, in general, rather than only global warming). I don’t know why people don’t use their senses. Stand behind a bus or an idling car to smell that it is poisonous and hot. Drinking water that has been treated with chlorine or chloramine smells and tastes bad and when you shower with it, your skin itches, your scalp dries out, and goodness knows what it does to intestinal flora. How does that medicine make you feel? Perhaps we can find a better approach? We don’t seem to trust our own senses, which are meant to aid in our survival. Science is a wonderful practice and the revelations of this era are breathtaking, but it is also a human practice, depending on our questions and aims. If dollars are the primary goal (and dollars stop questions) I echo the author in thinking that we will miss our beautiful futures.
1
I have no idea what this article is about. Yes, we must live within the natural limits of what is naturally tenable. Everyone will be losers if not... I’m starting to believe that the incredibly wealthy one percent on this planet know what’s coming. That is the only reason I can come up with for the fact that they want it all. Their unquenchable greed is an attempt to own all the resources in a world where climate realities will allow relatively few to live in some semblance of comfort.
6
It’s far to late for science to save our species but as for the earth it will endure and be better off without us.
2
It is ironic that the country most irresponsible with regards its total carbon footprint, at least as judged by the outcome of the 2015 Paris agreement, is the one spending the most resources per capita on elections. Too many people care only about themselves and right now, and not even about their children, let alone grandchildren.
China may be the biggest overall producer of greenhouse gases today, but it aims to become the leader in renewable energy. Its authoritarian leaders think about their own future on a geological scale.
2
I've been fighting this battle, in my own modest way, on the personal and corporate fronts for 40 years. At times, this being the worst, this seems like a hopeless cause. When what was needed back then was a "mild correction" has become a necessitated drastic change in the entire system. Globally, corporations need to be regulated to ensure reduced carbon emissions. They are, in the end, the driving force behind our society. The era of Corporate Socially Responsibility has turned into a feel good movement with little impact on our larger issues.
3
We needed to have started talking about what kind of planet we want to live on—some time ago. We can and should have that conversation now, except that science has explained quite clearly that there are now limits to the kind of planet we can have.
We cannot have a planet that won’t be having stronger hurricanes, won’t be having more wildfires, and won’t be having more torrential downpours. Each day we drag our feet and fail to address Climate Change on a scale and time frame that will matter, our choices for the planet we want are fewer. And science suggests we don’t have all the time in the world to get ‘conversing’ about Climate Change.
Science may not be the final word on solutions (especially ones that involve human behavior), but science can help humanity understand the limits, the bottlenecks, when and where we must cut our losses. Time passes.
4
I'd suggest the professor incorporate a little more real ecology into his study of "the ecology of human landscapes." Statements like, "natural limits simply don't mean much" and "the greatest challenge of our time is not how to live within the limits of the natural world" reflect an ignorance of ecological reality that is particularly disquieting in a university professor who claims to expertise in this area. The notion that science somehow defines natural limits completely ignores the relationship between science and the real world. Science attempts to DESCRIBE natural limits, and that description is necessarily imperfect. But there is no doubt about the EXISTENCE of natural limits. There is also a steadily increasing certainty that we have exceeded those limits. The consequences of that excess aren't immediately or equally felt and are often delayed by years or even decades. That, of course, is the most difficult problem we face, since people are unlikely to react to a painful stimulus until it's felt. The two greatest problems of our time— overpopulation and its handmaiden, climate change— are problems with delayed consequences. They're testing our foresight and ability to implement rational solutions. So far, we're failing that test.
9
Renerwable energy is merely a little costly today. Not "Extremely costly". This applies in particular for the first, say, 80% of production to replace, with less need for extra storage.
It therefore would be meaningful to replace these 80% during the next 10 or 15 years, and decide for the remaining 20% later.
Most energy systems do not need "rebuilding to make them carbon neutral". For example, the distribution grid needs few modification. And many fossile or other thermal fuel power station in the US are already so old that it is time to replace them anyway.
4
"But there is one hard limit. No better future will be possible if those most able to bear the costs — those who’ve benefited the most, the wealthy and the vested interests of this world — don’t step up to pay for it."
Without an informed public, and real democracy, there is no hope of organizing the collective action required to transform energy systems, and economic systems.
Wealthy people can pay their fair share now, or pay FAR MORE by losing everything as the environment and economy collapse.
3
Yes, we are seeing here what has been obvious for decades. We who are living between 1950 and 2050 are likely the decision makers for what humanity will experience centuries into the future. Our most important issue is how the human population will level off and start decreasing. Will we wait for nature to get really ugly or will we take the initiative to reduce our numbers and our impact? It may still be within the realm of choice.
5
1. Don't buy SUV's. Buy Small fuel efficient cars-
2. Turn everything off when you aren't using them. Tv's, lights.
3. Don't use dryers when there is sunshine to dry clothes.
4. Don't buy huge tv's, buy a smaller one and sit closer.
5. Don't drape the house with Xmas lights.
6. Use Led lamps instead of inefficient ones.
7. Don't buy huge fridges.
6
@Bob
1. Drive less and take a bike where possible.
2. Reduce power consumption when you are using things. Smaller Tv's, suffient, efficient lights directed to where you need it.
3. Don't use dryers in bad waether, postpone washing until there is sunshine to dry clothes, which might be with yo roof's solar generator.
5. Decorate the house only with LED Xmas lights of reasonable brigtness.
7. Don't buy small fridges with low efficiency. Do not use a second (old) fridge.
8. Put solar on your roof
1
@Bob
Good list. One point:
You do not Need sunshine to air dry clothes. Fold up or retractable drying racks in laundry room, or bathtub, will dry regardless of weather. ( In South America, there are retractable lines that come down in kitchen, an enclosed porch or hall for just this purpose!)
All the lint in the dryer: It is little bits of fuzz being pulled off clothing in the dryer, and it shortens fiber life!
Air dried clothes smell better, too.
3
Oh, please, humans are too selfish
Way to give it your best, Greg
5
Everything hinges on population control. Everything.
3
Stop supporting animal ag... say no to meat.
6
Reduce, reuse, recycle!
2
"We need to start talking about what kind of planet we want to live on."
Actually, it may be more like: "We need to stop talking so much about ourselves and ask the planet what kind of humanity it is prepared to support."
Ellis is right in observing that the project lies beyond simply embracing a more sophisticated mechanics dictated by science and cleverly engineered into place. He might have also correctly observed that governments cannot regulate us into a survival strategy without creating a totalitarian state.
The path to planetary harmony with freedom mandates that we internalize the values that survival requires. The first step is to stop talking and start listening. The second step is for each of us to adopt an attitude of selflessly nurturing the life forms that surround us. Pay attention to what is right in front of you and take good care of that.
The primary obstacles to planetary health are an obsessive noisy egotism and a world view based on the shallow pleasures of (positive) an incessant craving for ego gratification and (negative) a morbid fear of physical loss.
7
Hard to believe new inventions can replace fossil fuels fast. They might save an average family of 4 $8,000 per year in fuel costs!
For example, water will easily and inexpensively substitute for gas, diesel or jet fuel. Demonstrable new technology has made it possible to convert combustion engines to run on water. Cars, trucks, ships, aircraft and power plants can substitute water for fossil fuels.
New technology can extract the water from the air, even in regions of low humidity ending the need to refuel. See MOVING BEYOND OIL at aesopinstitute.org to learn more.
Abrupt Global Warming needs breakthrough science to give humanity a fighting chance for survival.
Sadly, the handful of inventions that can help are dismissed as impossible.
Climate change has made that sad reality unacceptably dangerous.
Vicious anonymous Troll attacks discourage urgently needed support with rants featuring lies and distortions.
Capital can dramatically impact the climate problem worldwide - by investment in little known technical progress.
Surprising discoveries can change the world even faster than Apple did with hand-held devices.
Brave individuals are needed to support new approaches. The inventors and small firms doing this urgent work lack sorely needed support. Assistance will make an enormous difference and may save a great many lives.
And to the surprise of the author of this article - replacing fossil fuels with revolutionary technology will prove far less expensive.
The problem with most of the issues in this article, and especially climate change, is that most of the masses are too interested in themselves and what could affect their children/grandchildren.
The only way that people will wake up if if they are feeling a lot of pain or loss. It is only when a lot of the issues in this article, or climate change start to impact peoples daily lives will they arise as a mass and push for revolutionary change to protect our planet and ways of life.
We need to make it so untenable for politicians and bureaucrats that they are forced to act to protect what is dear to all of us. But before this can occur human nature and history indicates their has to be personal pain for sufficient people to push past the tipping point.
3
It‘s too late to save the planet. It‘s too late to do anything for the future generations. Face up to reality: Humankind (Mankind) is driven be greed, egotism and shareholder vaule. Those of us who are in their mid-fifties and older are lucky to have seen planet Earth still at its best. Anyone younger can only hope to enjoy it while it lasts!!
8
@Lizzy
Mars awaits!
Some readers think only giant steps warrant consideration. But smaller steps taken by millions can have effects, too.
What if most households in fire and earthquake damaged areas of the US replaced their gas ranges with induction and went to heat pumps for heating/a.c. With solar roof panels?
After all, gas equipment makes the house a bomb in the heat and flames! And a bomb in an earthquake! (And gas is only 38% as efficient as the sleek, cleaner, safer induction cooktops.)
What if insurance companies made it higher premiums, thus to have the gas systems in such regions ofnUS, which only intensify the blazes and the spread!
What if half of Americans switched to carrying their own cloth bags for groceries! What if Starbucks gave a 20cent per cup discount to every customer who came with their own reusable ceramic or metal coffee cup?
What if half of NYT readers decided to switch to only the electronic edition of the paper, and what if the same happened with Washington Post readers? ( The papers can give incentives, because they actually have higher profits when they don’t have newsprint costs. ).
What if a third of us cut our clothing purchases by 25%,but bought better quality, more durable and timeless fashions?
What if half of us started each month replacing more of our lighting with LED bulbs?
What if people in suburban homes stopped throwing away coffee grounds, and used them around evergreens and roses?
It would add it!! Small steps makes results!
8
Unless the people of the United States, the most wasteful country on the planet, decide to take this issue seriously, there isn't going to be much that will happen. Somehow, some way, Bubba and Bertha of "Smalltown, PA", who only care about whether Bubba can keep his coal mining job or not, need to be convinced that there is more at stake than that.
1
We will live on whatever planet giant corporations see fit to have us live on.
7
Unfortunately, capitalism as practised in the USA and most other first world nations stands firmly in the way of the solutions posed here, or indeed, any solutions. As long as the rich run the world for themselves and their cohorts we are all doomed.
12
The climate change crisis is in fact so severe and so dangerous, we need to start asking whether humans will be alive on this planet.
4
"No better future will be possible if those most able to bear the costs — those who’ve benefited the most, the wealthy and the vested interests of this world — don’t step up to pay for it."
The last time I checked, modern industrial countries pretty much have gotten their population bombs under control. In comparison, places like Nigeria and Syria have allowed their populations to explode since the end of WWII. Isn't multiplying your population ten-fold the ultimate act of self-indulgence (and arrogance) whose costs should be borne at home rather than passed on to those countries that have done a better job of not over-burdening the Earth?
5
..."No better future will be possible if those most able to bear the costs — those who’ve benefited the most, the wealthy and the vested interests of this world — don’t step up to pay for it."...
The article was so on track to show how individuals have the power to step up and make a difference and then it screeched to a halt by once again putting the responsibility on "them".
What if the population STOPPED buying products from the companies who are the worst offenders?
- the megastores who pave over acres to sell things that are single use or designed to have short lifespans;
- the electronics industry who wants you to buy the new phone or computer every year;
- the convenience foods in excessive packaging.
We buy too much stuff for no reason other than it's new and exciting and promises to make our lives better, help us loose weight and gain us the attention of our dream partner. These things use lots of energy to both produce and dispose of. We work ourselves to death to afford it.
The warnings have been numerous and we steer for the iceberg anyway because it asks nothing of us today. Let the people with the money pay to solve the problem...it's the government who is to blame...there ought to be a law.
Darwin was right - the dumb the sick and the slow don't make it.
3
One of the better articles in the New York Times. Thanks for your wise words, Mr. Ellis. Communication will be key. Not only about communication between and in ourselves, but communication with the rest of the (living) world. A whole new world to explore. We only just started the next phase where human communication is starting to create new forms of life.
2
It is becoming increasingly clear that our systems of government are not up to the problems faced by humankind, and that they are becoming increasingly dysfunctional. The core problem is continued population growth, and the ever increasing demand for resources associated with it. The issue is not the need for individual action or discussion, we need intensive coordinated action led by enlightened governments around the world. But, instead, we have government that is only getting less and less effective.
4
Say what you will about negotiations among the grand panoply of civilization, I know of no example in history where anything like that has ever happened. Human history is all about power struggle.
Nothing will change unless the world's investor class, meaning those that control the capital, resources, and policy of the global economy as currently constituted, comes to the realization that the demand for constant growth will ultimately end in disaster for most, if not all, mankind. The rest of us might as well be barking at the moon.
6
By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth’s population will be culled from today’s 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes – Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin.
These lucky few 7.5% will inherit the earth. A mostly white population comprising the new aristocracy. Poor people, and those living close to the equator (people of color) or at present day sea level will not survive.
No wonder Trump and his ilk are not concerned about climate change. To Trump and the ultra wealthy troglodytes who are causing the greatest disaster in human history, it is a win-win. The wealth and power they accumulate from fossil fuel holdings will permit them to survive in luxury while eliminating from the population the people of color they despise.
7
Save the Earth? Do you mean save the human species?
The planet is doing just fine. It has another 4.5 billion years of life until the Sun explodes and becomes a planetary nebula. The planet is warming, so living it it may become impossible for humans, but that's great for the planet. Animals and plants will thrive when we are gone, the continents will continue to move, new species will sprawl and evolve out of the current ones, and everything will be just great!
13
Thomas Berry’s "Bill of Rights for the Planet Earth" addresses the task laid out by this article. It is consistent with the scientific, humanitarian and spiritual world view that we need to survive.
Berry places human rights as an emergent property of the universe, not as an exclusive privilege of our species. As such, other species also have emergent rights, specifically the right to be, the right to habitat and the right to fulfil its role in the ever-renewing process of the Earth community. Berry’s insight is that these rights are species specific, so that for instance insects have insects rights, which would be of no use to a tree, fish or human and vice versa.
It has become apparent that our rights as individuals and groups need to be placed in the larger interdependent reality of our planet and as such our task is to not only preserve our rights as humans, but to also honor the relationship we have to the other inhabitants of our planet. What action honors each other but also honors the rights of other forms of life, i.e. “for the benefit of both?”
Our planet gains awareness not just through humanity’s awareness, so if the cost of progress is mass extinction of other species, the planet as a whole is diminished. Aldo Leopold tells us that “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” It is time that we go global with his insight.
3
The elephant in the room here is overpopulation. Garrett Hardin addressed this issue in his classic essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" back in 1968. His conclusion was that technical solutions will not suffice, but that we require a change in human values and a moral commitment to necessity--the necessity to keep from overpopulating the planet. "Freedom is the recognition of necessity" -- he claimed, and we must abandon the "freedom to breed."
19
@Sharon Carson In the countries where human population is bursting women lack education and marry young. Since overpopulation happens in patriarchal cultures advancing women's rights is the key to our survival!
2
Folks, just carbon neutral isn’t going to cut it. We need carbon negative solutions.
Carbon sinks occur on geologic time scales completely unsuited to the urgency of our problem. It took millions of years for coal beds and oil to be laid down in the strata and only about 100 years for modern industrial society to release it.
Since the federal government isn’t going to step up, a decent start to easing the burden on our climate systems is a local, community based one. A few ideas follow:
Local governments could provide leadership and incentives for urban food ways.
Green roofing commissions could focus on small amounts of carbon that can be sunk into seasonal native grasses and plants.
Local facilities can transform wood waste into bio char, a carbon sink and excellent soil additive.
All food waste could be composted to reduce greenhouse gas generation.
Energy production could localized and 100% renewable.
People voluntarily cut down their meat consumption.
Theoretically, this could be accomplished. It requires focused communities, rather than disparate populations of people who live in proximity to one another. It requires people stop being individualistic and greedy.
Therein lies the rub.
6
@(not That) Dolly
All good suggestions, that forward looking communities will enact. Also, some major hospitals, universities and corporations could make an impact by being good community leaders and following your suggestions.
U of Michigan has some LED buildings. What about growing half the campus non-fruit produce in green environments?
Toledo Museum of Art actually reverses it’s power consumption on the grid regularly, because the solar roof on main building and over parking runs backswards on grid. And they not only grow produce, but give space to a community garden for poor citizens.
5
Mass traveling stated in the middle of the 20th century. Since then, this hyper-mobility is probably the main cause of excessive use of fossil fuels, either in the billion cars or ten of thousands of airplanes taking off every single day.
I think the only way Earth will remain to be habitable to humans is if we begin to like to stay put, enjoy our communities, and care for our habitat rather than justify our dislocated lives by just taking off to visit yet another place and in the way destroying the planet and those places we spent so much time and (fossil) energy to go so we can say "I've been there."
Soon there will be not there there.
4
Professor Ellis seems to be saying that we don't have to be restricted by limits imposed by Nature. This is the height of hubris. We are on a path that will end very badly for Homo sapiens (and most of the megafauna and megaflora on the planet). It isn't clear that we have the will or the ability to get off this path. But trust me, if the planet's life support systems are being degraded by too much human activity, Nature will reduce that human activity. So in that sense, global warming is a self-correcting problem. On the bright side, if H. sapiens were to disappear, earth would become the garden of Eden - until the next Adam and Eve evolve.
4
The root of global warming and planetary degradation are people...too many people. Yet few discuss the overpopulation of the planet as a root cause and yet it is there for all to see if they would take off their blindfolds.
My question: Does a species---us---deserve to survive if the causes of its demise are in view and the species does nothing effective to save itself? We may be the first species blessed with this foresight and the first to go down despite the ability to save itself. We just may not be intelligent enough to survive. Outdone by cockroaches.
18
We have way too many people on the planet today, I can't imagine what it will be like in our grandchildren's lives.
Free and available birth control is prudent right about now.
16
@jl It's not that easy! Birth control is not free or available in the overpopulated places worldwide. Patriarchy which has dominated the planet for the past 10,000 years still actively prevents women from having fewer children.
1
On the contrary, Science is the only way out:
Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene - Collected/Edited by Michael Shellenberger
3
As Americans, we first need to remove from office, as quickly as possible, this venal Administration that is purposefully doing everything it can possibly do to kill our planet. VOTE this November, for sanity and a collective, international approach for dealing with our greatest existential challenge. Your children and grandchildren will love you for doing so.
10
“The Anthropocene is not the end of our world.” How can you say that so confidently?
2
First of all, turn off your air conditioner--if not life threatening. Turn it off. Feel the Earth. The problem with "40% sucking earth's resources " Americans is that they are too remote from climate. If you had to walk in 100% heat to work maybe, just maybe you'd realize this is dire. So cancel unnecessary travel and walk. Everyone must try..........
6
the notion that we have any chance of determining "...what kind of planet we want to live on..." is delusional.
the reality we are now facing was warned of 50 years ago and we did nothing except create a bogus 'awareness day' called earth day.
we made the choice then to do nothing and we must now accept our fate.
those who doubt this need only google Garrett Hardin or 'Tragedy of the Commons'.
James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan' — March 1, 2008.
8
The world's human population began to DOUBLE in the 1960s. That is when the discussion among everyone everywhere ought have shifted away from sloth, misogyny and ancient cult religions toward simple, basic birth control for females and males, especially the latter that's the source of most increases in the 2nd and 3rd world. Dial forward 50+ years and little has changed in that regard. As such, nearly all the 2 to 4 billion human additions to the existing 7.6 billion toxic bloat will come from Africa and SE Asia.
7
@Margot 10,000 years (or more) of patriarchy has proved very difficult to uproot. Having the upperhand, men have fought ferociously to keep women down in every sphere of life since the 60's.
2
“We are the bullies of the earth: strong, foul, coarse, greedy, careless, indifferent to others, laying waste as we proceed, leaving wounds, welts, lesions, suppurations on the earth body, increasingly engulfed by our own ordure and, finally, abysmally ignorant of the way the world works, crowing our superiority over all life.” — Ian McHarg
9
@Zareen The quote doesn't speak for women of the earth!
3
This is all very nice. Ha! I can see it now in the U.S. -- the rich, the middle-class, the workers -- all coming together to agree to give up their comfortable lifestyles for the good of the planet and those people who have less than we have. Even if every single fiscally hypocritical Republican denier and enabler is booted out of federal and state offices there are plenty of cowardly Democrats around to take their places. The forward thinking of some European policy makers will never be enough to counter the ignorance underlying our war with China over economic world dominance and comfortable living. Dr. Ellis is a cock-eyed optimist living life in a bowl of jello. We are doomed and I am terrified for the young people who are inheriting this mess from us.
5
Like kids n Maine running from one lobster crate to the next, humans have stayed just ahead of collapse due to outmoded energy systems...till now. E=mc2 indicates that the limitless energy we shall need to fight and overcome our destructive tendencies is just an engineering problem. Had the Manhattan Project been given steroids toward peaceful nuclear engineering we would likely have moved well past the Neanderthal “boiling water” with toxic leftovers we are stuck with. Sadly, we tripped on this last crate....
2
Interesting how people infer how environmentally conscious they are yet it only really goes so far as their self-interest. Feigning concern about what's happening to the planet but then have families of 3+ children, chewing up resources, and exploiting growth and eschewing a balance. But hey, its what "they want", so that's OK.
11
I don't. Sorry about yours.
Thoughtful and reasoned commentary. In my youth, consumerism was nowhere what it is today. Recently I remarked to one of our adult children that when I was brought up in the 1960s that almonds, peanuts and other such nots were sold in the shell in bins at stores for the most part. and fruits were limited to seasonal availability in this country.
Well beyond fruits and nuts, the demand for year-round access to all manner of foodstuffs and many other seasonal natural items mean that large ships are traversing the oceans and more goods flown in planes. When we extrapolate this to other areas from food packaging to tourism and air conditioning available around the world, we see obvious change. Never mind automobiles and their high production and environmental costs.
Now we realize both the cumulative effects of these along with the tremendous advances in agriculture and medicine that allows evermore people to populate the planet and use resources. Now we need to cut back on and be thoughtful about consumption which ultimately equals CO2 emissions.
The column basically reminds us that the time is now to change our behaviors. We have a choice about the future of the planet to make before it is forced upon us by scarcity.
5
The author is wrong and as a professor he should know better than to say the "Anthropocene is not the end of our world. It's just the beginning." The the Anthropocene is has brought us global warming, and there is no end of that in sight. It will destroy civilization as we know it.
2
Dr. Ellis. thank you for your piece on the Earth today and the prospects for saving it. Mankind has destroyed it, but good, and though the planet will continue spinning, man will go the way of the previous 5 extinctions on this blue marble. Past time now, when we are in the midst of crisis -- drought and massive fires in the West, floods in the Mid-West and Canada above, poisonous green algae in southern seas, lakes and canals, daily temps this summer in the 100s -- to save the planet from nature's wrath. With an ignorant American president who believes that climate-warming is a hoax, chances are slim to none that we can turn back the Doomsday Clock. It's now past midnight -- not two minutes to Twelve A.M. on the clock -- and the inconvenient truths about life on Earth are our daily bread. Mankind's (the Anthropocene's) brainless and reckless plundering of Earth is afoot. The climate-change chips will fall where they may. Make way for global catastrophe.
4
"What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another." -- Mahatma Gandhi
2
I think a great deal of the lack of work on this monster problem is simply that the average person can't get their heads around it, and judging from the nincompoopery currently masquerading as our government, I don't think most of them can, either. Think about how society would have to be restructured to avoid species wipeout, even if we had the time: entire industries would have to mostly disappear (plastics, for instance. So much useless plastic, over-packaged products, water bottles, etc.) Plane travel, (fuel) throwaway everything (built-in obsolescence on your phone, tv, "smart" appliances, etc. for more profit.) That's just off the top of my head and doesn't even touch issues like the planet's carrying capacity, inequality, consumption patterns, etc. I wish I was more optimistic. The people that actually run the World don't care, though I don't know where they'd expect to go hide. To a bunker, with their guns? Surely a life not worth living.
2
"In the end, it is people, and their institutions — not science — that will decide the future."
What a joke. Biological law will decide the future. Earth and life on Earth does not have to be saved - we need to be saved. Environmental disasters have destroyed human civilizations before, and it is about to happen again.
7
Most likely outcome:
Famine; Plague; War; Infrastructure collapse. Repeat cycle until population and available resources re-establish dynamic balance.
7
Hmm. What is politics?
An individual act of ecological unity is always at odds with the abstraction of capitalism and current quarterly returns: don't fly to that funeral, don't buy that new outfit, stop spending on entertainment, stop living in that huge house, stop consuming plastic, stop printing physical newspapers, stop watering ornamental lawns with ancient aquifers.
6
It is human nature to want comfort and convenience, to minimize the hard, dirty, boring and dangerous manual labor required to survive, and to obtain social status and power by acquiring more goods than the next person. We make choices in real time. What must I do today that will keep me and my children alive today? Beyond today, nothing is certain. We can't know the effects of the decisions we make and the actions we take. Somehow, we have to work with human nature and the reality of future uncertainty. We must develop some guiding principles for our daily lives, not for our future welfare or even our children's and grandchildren's. For Americans, it might be asking ourselves when we go to a store, "Do I really need this?" When we crank up the AC in the car or at home, "Can I endure a little discomfort?" And "Do I really need a bigger, more powerful car or a bigger home? Am I just trying to impress somebody?" The middle-class lifestyle s built on energy use and energy waste and there are millions in developing countries who want what we have. We don't have to give up everything to make a difference. One day at a time, we just have to make conscious decisions about our needs versus our wants. It could be liberating!
3
A new global consensus on the organizing moral principle of the global economy is necessary to provide for the well-being of ALL in a socially equitable and environmentally sustainable manner to transition the global economy from fossil fuels-based energy to renewable energy by 2050 as part of the Paris Climate Accord.
American democracy incorporates the idea of well-being of all in our Declaration of Independence with the words “all men are created equal” having "certain unalienable rights”; among them "are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” giving Americans a head start in seeking this new global consensus at the UN.
Americans are less than 5% population of the world but consume over 25% of the world resources, 20% of the world’s energy, and produce 40% of the world’s garbage. At the same time, Americans have contributed the most to industrial revolution while benefitting the most from it. Americans have access to resources, knowledge, and technologies to transform the present unsustainable global economy that benefits only few to a sustainable global economy to benefit ALL in the global civil society.
Americans are best positioned to redefine economic well-being of all humans to become consistent with ecological well-being of all ecosystems on which that economic well-being depends.
3
I'm sorry, but this article is full of anthropocentric hyperbole and nonsense, both of which are enemies of knowledge and understanding, and therefore at cross-purposes to the now-critical goal of better planetary stewardship. PLEASE, let's be smarter about this! Some examples:
"The planet" is NOT "in crisis." Defining Earth's "planetary boundaries" as the human-society comfort zone (first paragraph) is obfuscating. Planet Earth, and much of the life on it, flourishes under conditions inhospitable to humans. It has done so before and did not "collapse." We KNOW this.
But Human societies are now in crisis. Why? NOT because "[i]n ... the Anthropocene, there is no safety in natural limits." Climate change IS a natural limit: Humans cause it through their natural activities (yes, for humans, burning stuff is natural); humans are part of Earth's natural biosphere; and human activities are now likely to end in "limits" (famine, plague, wars, etc.) that probably will be corrective enough to obviate outright human extinction. Or, failing that, Earth will remain: The Garden of Eden was a garden *before* humans showed up.
As for "The greatest challenge of our time is NOT [emphasis added] how to live within the limits of the natural world..." the author couldn't be more WRONG. We're currently dying within those limits; we can't beat them but they can and will beat us if we don't THINK clearly and ACT.
4
"This planet is in crisis. The safe limits within which human societies can be sustained, the earth’s “planetary boundaries,” are being exceeded, a path leading inevitably toward collapse. "
Erle Ellis, meet Paul Ehrlic. We've been hearing the same hysteria for 50 years.
3
How's carving those big giant heads going?
2
One one hand science is trying to save the planet, on the other it’s trying to keep people alive forever. Excuse my confusion.
4
We need to start talking about what kind of planet we want to live on. The conundrum is solved. We already are deciding. We have decided against health and welfare in the US for the GOP and massive deregulation. Our national ignorance and greed have seized the upper hand. Too bad for future generations who have no say. ‘Whatever’ is the denial now pervasively seizing our Nation.
6
Just to give an idea of the magnitude of the shift in values that Prof. Erie is calling for, I came across this story on the Times home page, right alongside a blurb for another opinion story: "Don't Let TripAdvisor Kill Adventure: If the best travel experiences happen when things don't go according to plan, why do we plan so much?"
Sorry to ruin everybody's vacation, but there's no way that humanity can shift to anything remotely resembling a sustainable compact while we continue blithely gallivanting around the globe in a way that simply was not possible prior to the advent of fossil fuels. Um, can anyone say "unintended irony"?
7
The author seems to be doing little more than whistling past the graveyard. In CA, we're dealing with the consequences of the changed climate on the planet "we've made."
2
I read these columns and nod along thoughtfully. But to me most of these considerations seem moot when you consider that upwards of 90% of humanity don’t believe this is our last stop. A significant number in the states believe that hastening the “end times” will bring them to “paradise” sooner. Religiosity is at the root of anti-climate change rhetoric, flat-earth idiocy and much much more. How do you believe we can ever agree on practical solutions when the majority of people don’t even see the destruction of earth as a problem but more “God’s will”. Until the vast majority reject magical thinking we shall hurtle ever quicker to our destruction.
8
Go vegan. It's the only solution.
2
In all respect to Dr. Ellis, I can find no solace in his observations.
The premise offers no answers, that I can see, other than "talking about the future we want" and the hope we will take action re our discussion.
There is no precedent for good-faith global collaboration other than those focused on very immediate, clear, agreed-to problems like disease prevention—which are typically very defined, narrow problems with very targeted specific treatment(s) in comparison to what it will take to solve, mitigate, or live with the unfathomably complicated problem of anthropogenic global warming.
Every collaboration, even small ones, risk free-riding, self-interest, and asymmetric information among participants that can and often does lead to suboptimal outcomes.
To think humans on a global scale can get past their own individual self-interest to address a slow moving tragedy that affects different places and different societies at different rates and at different times is not realistic for our species.
Ecological limits will be the ultimate arbitrator for the outcome of anthropogenic global warming on humans, not human collaboration and discussing the future “we” want.
If “we” do not embrace limits to our human population at any one time (this does not mean for all time, by the way) and our material consumption, Nature will have its way with us. And Nature has all the time in the world, “we” don’t. This is the future we face, discussions or no discussions.
MB
4
Voters and politicians care about costs. About 560 billion tons of anthropogenic carbon have been emitted (or about 2 trillion tons of CO2). Full solution of the global warming problem requires removing this carbon from the biosphere. If carbon could be removed from the biosphere at $10/ton, the cost of full reversal of global warming would be 5.4 trillion dollars, a prodigious sum (equal to about 7% of world GDP for one year) but still a sum that could and would be paid for if the technical opportunity was plainly real. At this price, burning of new carbon could be taxed so that every ton of new carbon paid for the removal of three or four tons of old carbon, so burning of fossil fuels could proceed. At this low price, philosophical difficulties would be minimal. At $10/ton the cost of full reversal of global warming would be 7% of world GDP per year, spread over ten to fifteen years (.46-.7% of world GDP). If costs could be this low, the political will to pay for a full reversal of global warming could be mobilized by ordinary political means with ordinary political negotiations with motivations and priorities as they now are, and as they have been for decades.
At higher prices, things get harder, and at high enough prices, solution is politically impossible.
my own view is that finding and implementing this solution ought not to be beyond the wit of man.
3
I like it!
Now, all we need is a cheapish and efficient method to remove C02 from the atmosphere.
1
Our local version of the debate about the future of the planet in the San Francisco Bay Area is conflict over the purpose of urban parks. For 20 years, native plant advocates have demanded that parks be turned into native plant gardens with restrictions on recreational access to protect them.
Those who valued existing landscapes and think that recreation is the primary purpose of urban parks considered this a land use decision, to be decided democratically. Most of us were willing to compromise. As many native plant gardens as can be maintained by volunteers, seemed a suitable compromise.
But such a compromise was not acceptable to the nativists who claimed moral and scientific superiority for their agenda. The debate evolved into a “scientific” debate. Ellis and other academic scientists provided empirical evidence that “novel” ecosystems are useful to wildlife and co-exist with native plants.
Professor Ellis’s reminder today that the future of our planet is in our hands is timely. A jury awarded nearly $290 million to the plaintiff in a product liability lawsuit against Monsanto on Friday. The plaintiff is dying of cancer, which both he and the jury believe was caused by glyphosate, manufactured by Monsanto. Glyphosate is being sprayed on our public lands to eradicate plants that aren’t doing any harm to wildlife or to native plants. Hopefully this verdict will reopen the debate about the purpose of public parks in the Bay Area.
3
I find the bewildering logic of the author to be wishful thinking while arranging deck chairs for all on the Titanic. Human cultures relentlessly pour massive amounts of fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere, the harmful results of which will not kick in for another 50 years. The planet is certain to blow past 2 degrees Celsius by the middle of the next century, if not before. Until CO2 emissions are radically ended, humanity has no hope of surviving "hothouse earth" as scientists continue to warn. Scientists also tell us that melting polar ice caps are poised to release huge amounts of methane, making it more difficult to halt feedback loops that will warm the planet to levels unsustainable for human life. In the end, even the rich and privileged will not survive the global temperature rise that awaits us. Decisive action is need now by our governmental and business leaders to end fossil fuel CO2 emissions if we are to have any hope that humanity will not go extinct within three or four generations.
4
The author is correct. Might it be suggested that humans are not "saving the earth" at all. The earth doesn't need humans. Humans can attempt to preserve the earths habitability for humans. They are "saving" themselves.
4
Professor, you're right. The idea that regulators and industry use the idea of sustainability automatically explains that they have no idea about earth. Worse, 8 billion people that are essentially middle class that wants to consume like average Americans means that the earth might implode next week or soon thereafter.
I’m full of croakings of doom, when it comes to the environment. Basically, the world is advancing much too rapidly, just within the last few decades, and it’s at the expense of the environment. The changes that cause environmental damage are irreversible.
If you read the book Future Shock from 1970, you’ll see it’s all in there, and its predictions have come to pass.
The next future shock within the next 100 years is the planet will surely be in chaos from global warming, with many parts of the world uninhabitable.
People made fun of Al Gore a little over a decade ago with his predictions in An Inconvenient Truth. But who’s laughing now? The jokes on us and the next generation, but sadly it’s no laughing matter.
7
This is not something we can just accept. Reading the comments I see many praiseworthy attitudes--we can work together to reduce our unsustainable strain on the earth--and much useful advice--don't drive alone, cut down on (really don't eat) meat. Too many people embrace a strange fatalism as if it shows up the other guys when global warming destroys us all, like going to a doctor who doesn't believe you have a brain tumor hoping to prove him wrong. There are no other guys in this. A Chinese proverb says, "the best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is now." So we have to do all we can for as long as we can, and being as little judgmental as possible, help doubters and deniers to recognize this is a reality we need to embrace now, working through the government, through businesses, in our communities, and in our personal lives. Starting now.
11
Very good column. From my view we can all start with food and beverage choices. That is why over 10 years ago I started a coffee brand that only imports coffee from family farms in Central and South America that are certified USDA Organic, Fair-Trade and - critically - Smithsonian 'Bird Friendly(r), which means coffee grown in a forest. We pay farmers top price, about 50% more than the largest cafe chain, because we know that is how much farmers need to compensate for the lower yields on chemical free coffee grown in a natural environment. So keeps family farms alive, creates strong local rural economies, saves birds (habitat), promotes true bio-diversity, saves forest vs. mono-crop clear cut sun coffee so a micro-climate that is cooler and a sink for absorbing carbon thus protection the Earth we all share. Yes - the coffee costs more and our profit margins are much lower than those of 'big coffee' and our customers pay a bit more - ~35 cents a cup brewed at home. If North Americans become willing to pay more for food and beverage many large volume food categories would be fully sustainable. 'Organic' and sustainable food and drink are not a leftie 'tree-hugger' concepts, they are a recipe for life.
10
I wonder if we might be in a population bubble (something like a housing bubble) and after the bubble bursts and population plummets then those who survive start over again with what is left. Those survivors may be no smarter but starting with much smaller population buys a bit more time until the next bubble inflates and bursts.
4
I am of the opinion that very few people realize the immense and often painful changes that will have to be accepted by humanity across the world with relative speed if we are to save our environment as we have known it. For that reason, I am pessimistic about the future of modern high population, high electrical energy, human civilization.
11
@LESykora
Any concrete example of such "painful changes" ... ?
As an environmental geologist, I've seen the good that science can do but I've also seen the bad that science can do when combined with corporate greed. Good science informs us, and that's important. But we cannot rely on science to fix our numerous environmental problems. Rather, we need to re-think economics. I've been asking economists this question for years and never received an answer (even a partial answer). How do we switch over from an economy based on maximum consumption to an economy that promotes far less consumption and rewards simple living? Years ago, I realized that anything I buy I either need to eat or find a place for/clean. Drastically cutting down on my purchasing didn't just save a lot of money--it greatly decreased the amount of housework I need to do and helped keep me lean as I aged. Living simply is living well. Hanging clothes to dry is good exercise and makes for a quieter house. A reusable shopping bag makes the kitchen neater and is good for the planet. Our great grandparents did just fine consuming far less and re-using. Why can't we go back to an economy that is not based on hyper-charged consumerism? Can economists please start coming up with solutions that are good for our lives and for the environment? It would be a task worthy of a Nobel prize.
23
@Patricia Maurice
I would suggest that "economists" can't do it alone. They have to work in tandem with politicians and scientists to push change from the top. People will adapt. You give a lot of great examples. I think laws banning plastic bags are another great example. If every state in the union outlawed disposable bags, think what a change that would make. But individuals doing it on their own won't make much of a dent. Why are these bags allowed when we know the ocean is now a plastic garbage dump?
@Patricia Maurice
What a wonderful reader comment!
1
@Patricia Maurice, No, instead unfettered immigration 'grows' the economy. Always in need of more 'consumers' in the ever growing Capitalistic model.
2
"Space Force" Mission. The push of 6th Military Branch is about exploring options for habitation of the Wealthy. Military has been the puppet of the Wealthy --Day One. No one with wealth seems to care about saving the Planet--they have options.
4
Always knew that our presence on Earth was the cause of al our problems. At this rate, people are getting tired of hearing about saving the Earth. It's really far from saving because in the short amount of time, the damage has been done. More damage has been done in the last 100 years than in the last 5,000. It's really hard to be optimistic about the future especially when we have half the world staring at screens. What are they learning?
7
It will be a LONG time before the wealthy countries, who benefitted the most from producing most of the greenhouse gases, decide to think about building carbon-neutral energy systems - Trump or no Trump.
8
@Samir Hafza
In real life, the Paris Climate Agreement is doing exactly that.
And Trump is the only one who withdrew, remember?
And he can only do so by 2020, whereas there's a real chance that he'll be voted out of office and replaced with a Democrat, and then the US will join the rest of the world in designing stage 2 of the Paris Accord (= the follow-up plan, for the next 10 years).
Don't forget, cynicism never helped us move forward. And in Western countries, it's only in the US that conservatives became anti-science and were made to believe that climate change is a hoax, in all other Western (and non Western) countries, conservative parties propose fact-based policies. So no, there's no reason to despair, quite on the contrary. Now is the time to build on the momentum created by the Paris Accord, and to get to the next step!
6
@Ana Luisa Yes, I am aware of the Paris Climate Agreement, and Obama and Hillary are to be commended for their efforts in coaxing (even shaming) the Chinese to join in. I am also aware of the many, many hurdles in executing that agreement.
3
@Samir Hafza
We need high class TECHNICAL INVENTION and also SOCIAL INVENTION if fossil fuels are to be replaced, as they will have to be, by competitively inexpensive and convenient technology.
I like the article because it asks us to step away from the issue about as far as one can and still be in the conversation - beyond science, technology, politics, faith, and blame. The message is simple - we all need to be AWARE of the direction in which our global environment is headed and CONSIDER the implications. "Aware" and "consider" are the key words here. In this context, these terms include education, constructive dialogue and decision-making at every level. No matter where we are in global impact today, we can influence the outcome for tomorrow. Apathy, ignorance, procrastination and divisive debate are the enemies here.
4
The George W. Bush years brought us 8 years of scientific misinformation, strange doses of indoctrination, a lot of dogma--and along comes Donald J. Trump. where we're back to that same tradition. Both administrations with no concern for the consequences.
9
The best hope for humanity is abundant clean energy, on demand -- to power what we have, and to power efforts to de-acidify the oceans and to actively remove excess carbon from the atmosphere.
The only way to generate that much clean energy, in the brief time that we have to stave off a runaway greenhouse effect, is nuclear energy.
Fukushima? No one died from the meltdowns.
Three Mile Island? Same same.
Chernobyl? No one will ever build a reactor like that again. And the estimate of 4,000 eventual deaths is based on the long-discredited Linear No-Threshold "theory", or LNT.
And if you think we can do it with wind and solar, google roadmap to nowhere dot com.
Go nuclear or go extinct.
10
@skinnyDHave you solved the problems of nuclear waste storage/disposal both short- and long-term? If so, please give us the details as last I checked, the US still hadn't addressed this pressing problem.
7
@skinnyD
No, there is no alternative to renewable energy short of working nuclear fusion reactors being developed. I haven't read that report but I suspect it doesn't allow for the benefit of battery storage. also renewable energy is not just wind and solar. There's hydro, geothermal, tidal, wave, biomass - we just have to use what's economic and practical locally. Nuclear fission reactors produce waste that must be safely stored for thousands of years, are too costly to build and to decommission and the real killer is: uranium is a finite resource.
5
@Patricia Maurice. We haven't solved the emissions from: cars, power plants, fracking, regular oil drilling, plastic packaging or much of anything yet. I realize nuclear waste is not the same, but the concept is. We routinely produce stuff in this civilization that we haven't given the slightest thought to and we are paying the price. Perhaps it's time to rethink pretty much everything we're doing.
1
For decades, the subject of environmental degradation and its consequences was so terrifying that I couldn't even bring myself to read about it. Over the past year, I've made a point to change my orientation and am, if anything, even more alarmed. What I'd like to see is a list of things, large and small, we can do to reduce our individual contributions to the problem and a list of things we can do to improve conditions. No one will be able to put every item into practice, but having all of the practical information gathered together in one place, menu style, would be of immense help to me.
4
@H.L.Just google how to live simply and sustainably. Once you get started, it becomes so much easier over time.
1
@Patricia Maurice Thank you. I've been doing the obvious things (recycling, no plastic bags or bottles) for years and became familiar with most of the sites on sustainable living after going vegetarian in 1997. What I'm hoping is for a kind of clearinghouse/one-stop shop of do's and don'ts, organized by category and presented in a way that's not preachy. Too, I've noticed that many reputable sources offer contradictory advice--one of the most common being the conflicting info about whether it's better to hand wash dishes or use a modern dishwasher.
A wishy washy muddying of the waters. "Don't worry, think towards being happy".
We don't even have leadership that acknowledges climate change is a real thing and it is essential that we deal with it. How about starting there?
9
The author seems to want to negotiate with his cardiologist about his blood pressure. If you choose to gamble with your health or live a sicker and shorter life, that is a personal choice. It is not a personal choice to shorten the lives of future generations.
The planet is not ours to destroy. I doubt we understand the world in precise enough terms to negotiate a global allocation of pollution rights to achieve various fixed rates of planetary decay, let alone to enforce such limits. If 51% or 99% of the world disagrees, this does not magically change the situation.
Wealthy democracies need to lead and need to listen to science. We need to lead not just by passing laws and regulations, but by enforcing them and developing a culture of stewardship among their citizens. Once we "get over ourselves" and stop viewing ecological constraints as personal attacks, we will likely be stunned by how little we miss most of the habits we need to change. If the wealthiest nations do not act, very few others will, either.
Perpetrators of injustice are not magically stakeholders with a vote in some final outcome, even if they often delude themselves into thinking they are. WWII did not end with much of a negotiated settlement. If the nations of the world "negotiate" a level of collective pollution that could render the planet almost uninhabitable in a few centuries, will that be just because it was agreed to? I would not call that "just", and might even use a different four letter word.
3
"We need to start talking about what kind of planet we want to live on."
From what I can tell, too many rich people (in the United States, at least) want to live on a planet-sized version of Haiti, Pakistan, or the Philippines. In other words, a palace built upon a dung heap. Tiny islands of extravagance and luxury surrounded by endless miles of degradation, squalor, and filth.
Non-human wild animals, unfortunately, don't stand a chance in the age of the anthropocene. They are lower on the totem pole than the "surplus population" of billions of humans.
12
Regular people, no matter how informed or well-intentioned, can't change the infrastructure--encompassing transportation, food production, and consumption--within which we live. No matter how much I as individual reduce my own individual consumption and waste, my daily activities invariably add to environmental destruction because my activities take place within that non sustainable infrastructure.
We need a massive effort FROM THE TOP, from the top of the political and economic pyramid, to transform our infrastructure into a sustainable one. The people will adapt to anything (give us trains--we'll ride the trains! give us bike lanes--we'll ride bikes!), but again, individuals can't change the fact that the way things are built now, they need cars to survive, or that wasteful food is sold in supermarkets.
Obama and the Democratic majority missed a huge opportunity in 2008 in the wake of the financial collapse. In my opinion, the time was ripe then for a new version of a Civilian Conservation Corps and massive infrastructure investment to transform the US into a sustainable land. Why did the Democrats squander that opportunity? The people would have been on their side.
We need a president who is a true visionary, a sustainable designer/engineer. Not a big phony supposed expert of infrastructure like Trump who only knows how to slap his name on gaudy hotels for the 2%.
Enough already.
Signed,
Tired of both political parties and their failure to act.
17
The priority in 2009 was to stop the downward spiral: a -8.2% GDP that was quickly falling down, and already 700,000 jobs lost a month when Obama came in and the economy was shedding each month 100,000 jobs more than the previous month. At the same time, all the big banks were on the verge of failing.
What Obama has done was bringing together all of the most outstanding economics experts, designing a science-based solution to stop the downward spiral, turn it around, and then create stable economic growth for a decade - the one we're still seeing today.
Republicans, however, were already constantly spreading fake news, at the time, and instead of admitting that the Recovery Act was mainly tax cuts and tax credits for small businesses and the middle class, made their voters believe that it was "Big Government". And with the help of Fox News, they succeeded.
That meant that all "Blue Dog" Democratic Senators (representing red or swing states, and making up about a third of the Democrats in the Senate) could easily loose their seat to a Republican, and then Democrats wouldn't even be able to START writing their own agenda into law.
To prevent this from happening, the only solution was a compromise: a Recovery Act half as big as it ideally should have been, and the intention to pass a second one during Obama's second year. But then Scott Brown was elected and Dems lost control over the Senate ...
Apart from that, Obama did manage to achieve a lot, on climate change.
2
@ClariceUnfortunately, I think the crisis happened so fast that Obama didn't really have a chance to act slowly and deliberately. Then, all too soon, there was a Republican congress and action was impossible.
@Clarice, The Dems and GOP are one and the same two-headed snake. Greed rules.
4
I'm not sure there even is such a thing as "the human aspiration for a better future", at least not in any collective sense. To the extent we raise our sights above the immediate present, our aspirations are more often for "a better future for me" or at best "a better future for me and my tribe". The sort of collective action Professor Ellis dreams of will inevitably require a drastic voluntary redistribution of resources. With the instinct of "the survival of me and mine" hard-wired into our DNA, he is asking more than we are likely able to give.
3
I chose the article "Science alone won't save the earth. People have to do that" because this at one point was a very talked about subject that has died down but is still important. News focuses on the president and controversies surrounding him while subjects like this have still yet to be resolved. This article was interesting because most people who write these article stress how important it is to listen to the scientists when it comes to the environment, but this article was saying that rather than just listen to the scientists people should find their own ways to help, and if they don't someone else will. I personally believe that this kind of thinking is what led to the environment being in bad shape and the only way to fix it is to listen to the people who know how to improve on its health.
2
Science alone will save our planet if only people adopt science in their daily living and be guided by evidence based science. We all want to live on a planet with clean air, clean water and clean land but how many are ready to do our part it takes to keep our planet clean?
How many smokers are ready to give up smoking? How many who drive gas guzzlers, minivans and trucks are ready to drive smaller fuel efficient vehicles? How many are reducing waste and recycling it? How many just discard computers and lap tops after using for a few months? Easy to say that people have to save our earth when most only give a lip service to save earth.
5
@Girish Kotwal, Some larger vehicle owners buy them in order to increase their chances of survival in a car crash. This is why I bought a slightly bigger Subaru. My former smaller sedan vs. pick-ups and huge SUVs is not too promising. Love your comments, thanks.
2
@jl I understand your logic that some larger vehicle owners buy them on order to increase their chances of survival in a car crash. I know very well that I will be pulp if my Mitsu mirage is crashed into by an 18 wheeler truck but then imagine a motor biker who gets in an accident or a friend of mine in St. Louis who got crushed between 2 cars and died on the spot.
Defensive driving, keeping safe distances from all other vehicles, avoiding rush hour traffic, looking out for drivers who are texting and driving or have only one hand on the steering, never being afraid to honk to let the other driver know you are trying to share the road are some of the ways one can avoid accidents.
Small cars or Volvo can be surprisingly safe in a low impact crash. I was in my small Mitsu mirage stopped at the signal waiting for the signal to turn green. A lady in an SUV crashed into my car from behind. I got out of the car and looked at the back of my car. Did not find any damage and I looked at the back of her car and there were 2 kids and I asked what happened? She said her brakes failed. What could I do besides take her license plate number just in case I had any back pain that showed up a day or 2 later. Luckily it did not.
So the message is one cannot predict how an accident will turn out, the best thing is to remain focused on driving alert and safe at all times and hope for the best.
By the way with gas prices going up, the drivers of big trucks and cars notice my little car.
It has always puzzled me that the people who wield sufficient power to begin doing the right thing don't do anything. I realize they are interested in lining their own pockets, but they don't seem to care about the kind of world they are bequeathing their children and grandchildren. Don't they love them?
5
Of course, science by itself can change nothing. Acceptance of scientific results is a struggle between intelligence and superstition. But acceptance of scientific findings is made more difficult when leftist radicals, mostly Democrats, twist them to serve their political goals. Not to be excluded from this condemnation is the Trumpian right wing.
1
Huh? We've been talking about what kind of planet we'd like to live on. One that can support us. And yes, we've exceeded limits but this has occurred because human beings don't like to acknowledge that there are very real limits to how much degradation can be allowed to take place. We can limit population growth. We can safeguard what's left of our planet but only if every nation participates. We are not the only animals on the planet. We share Earth with bacteria, plants, fungi, whales, algae, corals and all these things are necessary for the planet to remain healthy.
We can overheat the planet and make it unlivable. Or we can rise to the occasion and attempt to devise new ways of living that don't damage the environment and the ecology that made us what we are. The alternative is extinction by our own hand and we seem to be making pretty good progress towards that goal.
However, people cannot save the planet if governments refuse to act and businesses decide that it's too costly for them to operate in environmentally friendly ways. And as long as businesses have more influence than people or common sense, we will continue to destroy the planet until it can no longer support our species. Then Earth might recover.
133
@hen3ry "And as long as businesses have more influence than people or common sense, we will continue to destroy the planet until it can no longer support our species." This sentence is all you needed to say. On point.
2
@hen3ry It looks like the oil and gas businesses see the writing on the wall, and that they are racing to convert as many assets into cash as fast as possible, including oil they have not found yet on new drill sites, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The US car companies are continuing to manufacture huge gas hogs and many Americans are continuing to drive them without a thought for the harm they are doing. Given how extreme the climate situation is now, it is really time for emergency action. The major oil companies all need to be seized, and forced to convert to renewable power sources. The oil they were planning to drill needs to stay in the ground. The USA (and every other country) needs to convert immediately to using renewable energy sources for our power plants, for our factories, for our vehicles. Countries that continue to burn fossil fuels, have to be embargoed and isolated, until they change, radically. Fracking has to be banned, nationally and internationally.
2
Many Americans don't do "limits" very well ("limits" appears at least 100 times in this article), perhaps something to do with being a country populated by waves of immigrants seeking to escape "limits" where they came from.
So in spite of an abundance of evidence of climate change all around us, many retreat into contorted arguments ranging from outright denial to blaming someone else, like China. Climate change won't go away but at least some bureaucrat in DC or Brussels won't be telling them what to do.
Look at the crazy reaction to the light bulb mandate, which required a light bulb with properties indiscernible from old bulbs but a large cost savings over the life of the bulb. Trump is proudly overturning that rule, even as most households are switching to far superior LEDs.
Somehow we have to "sell" changes to reduce carbon emissions based on abundance, opportunity and freedom instead of limits. Sounds hard, I know, but if Trump can get working class people to vote for him, I know anything is possible.
Electric cars with longer driving ranges and home recharging means freedom from gas stations. Or how about "free" or cheap recharging at solar or wind powered stations, with the cost subsidized by carbon taxes?
Food production that sinks carbon into topsoil instead of oxidizing it out, as industrial agriculture does today, is another opportunity.
We have to adopt the methods of retailers, who make us believe their products will make us happier.
105
Unfortunately, though our society understands advertising language better than any other and equates consumption with meaningful civic action, we can’t consume our way out of these problems we have created.
"
Look at the crazy reaction to the light bulb mandate, which required a light bulb with properties indiscernible from old bulbs but a large cost savings over the life of the bulb. "
And therein lies a fallacy. Thhe properties of those new light bulbs are no indiscernible from tungsten ones.
First and most important, they don't just emit light ... they emit radio waves than seriously disturb radio reception. Their spectrum is not continuous ... thus, photographs sometimes look strange.
Most have very low surface brightness compared to tungsten, except some special LED ones ... but those ones seem highly unreliable and also so heavy my spot lamp fell over.
And so it goes ... the do-gooders decide "what is important" and if that's not what you want, "no, we're not sorry ... YOU are wrong because you are not a good obedient socialist" is their motto. And its the motto of the New Youk Times.
2
@Look Ahead Every oil company needs to be seized and stopped from pumping and drilling more poison. Their assets need to be 100% turned to making renewable energy, and that means clean energy, not oil, coal, or nuclear power. Every fracking operation in the US and internationally, needs to be shut down. Fracking poisons water tables. You only have to experience one of the heat waves we are now going through, to realize that the earth is in a huge crisis that calls for emergency actions. People engaged in chopping down forests and bulldozing jungles, or mining in them, have to be stopped immediately. Jungles and forests are no longer a private resource, they are a vital international resource. They have to survive in order to absorb carbon. Coal and oil operations that threaten the Great Barrier Reef need to be shut down immediately. Reverse osmosis desalination plants powered by solar or powered by wind or hydro, have to be built around the USA and around the world. Offshore drill rigs have to be banned immediately. Their only future purpose is to be sunk and used for fish habitats.
A fantastic prosaic example of the Enlightenment humanity once aspired to, but which now recedes as we pass the "limits" of population growth where the one non-altruistic (and constant) element of human nature: self(ish) preservation cannot be denied.
Self preservation (mostly) trumps love in human society, whether on an individual or tribal level. We therefore require the imposition of "limits" and on a global scale, if there is to be any hope of avoiding collapse.
I so dearly wish I could believe in the picture of the human way forward Dr. Ellis is painting. Alas, I see the science and the imposition of and adhearance to forced limits that the science promulgates as humanities last hope of finally understanding and beginning to deal with the pickle in which the human race already finds itself.
As we say in Denmark (freely translated): "Motivation to act only occurs when the outhouse catches fire..." If science is the only way to demonstrate to humanity that our outhouse is burning, than that is, in my opinion, the only way forward.
147
@Kenneth
It's on fire now! If people don't understand that the West is on fire now, then it's hopeless.
The outhouse has been on fire for decades. And we have not fixed it. And now it is decades too late. Bizarre notions that humans will globally adopt limits and cooperate to somehow do the beyond-massive “job” of remediation is absurd. Everybody is still busy carving it up and wanting more and adding 10s of millions of additional humans to the camel’s back each year, even as the science is profoundly dire.
And, again, too late anyway. There are no understood, feasible, rapidly-implementable, global-scaled solutions that stand any chance at reversing the forces now in play. Or tell me what they are:
1
A relevant piece. A must read to NYT subscribers.Thank you.The Anthropocene Period will be doomed just like the Jurassic Period if we ignore and deny the science of Ecology, the science founded by Darwin. There is no amount of human ingenuity to overcome the forces Nature. Nature's wisdom will prevail. Respect of Nature/Ecology and our humility can save the Anthropocene Period as well as this planet. Not our ingenuity.
6
Two points:
First: We don't need to "save the Earth". It has undergone climatic changes far more extreme than we are currently causing (albeit at a much more gradual pace). What we need to do is to avoid causing changes that will make it miserable or even unlivable for our species.
Second: Prof. Ellis says, "No better future will be possible if those most able to bear the costs — those who’ve benefited the most, the wealthy and the vested interests of this world — don’t step up to pay for it."
It seems like a fair statement, but think about this from the perspective of corporations and the politicians who serve them. The prime directive of corporate "uber-people" is to maximize profits. Unlike real people, they don't require a livable environment, just an inflow of cheap resources and labor.
Get rid of Citizens United and elect representatives who will serve the needs of REAL people and we can make some progress.
285
@Tom Wanamaker---------I like your comment very much, except for this:" because basic human behavior operates on greed, fear and denial. " This is the God or Mammon problem, which we've understood for thousands of years, yet are too craven, shallow and stupid to change our behavior. Yes, we are intelligent enough to make nuclear weapons and, yes, yes, we are stupid enough to make them. Probably what we need is another version of the Black Plague. We need it for ourselves we need it and to protect the planet.
@Tom Wanamaker We are not going to pay for it, in fact those undeveloped countries need to stay undeveloped. Since they won't we must adapt and look out for the US.
1
I’ve become very pessimistic about the future of the planet, thinking that those who can actually make a substantial change in the direction of the world, the corporate leaders and politicians are the last people who will. I like this quote “ never in human history has a privileged class given up those privileges willingly.
14
I think this list is well worth reviewing, and we can all strive to change our behavior relative to the top useful strategies ...
https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
CFC disposal is #1 .. Freon ban in 2020 should help ..
Food waste and eating more vegetable products rather than meat ..
I did like that this article was a bit more upbeat and moderate ..
The worst excuse I have heard from mostly the right-wing is that it is too late to do anything. Sure, just go buy another gas-guzzling SUV ... and defund science and technology .. and why not just deny the whole thing ..
1.8 degrees vs. 2.0 would make a huge difference is how many people .. our grandchildren .. will be inconvenienced or maybe even die.
1
@Innovator
I think I will step up the process of switching home lighting to LED!
1
as long as 'value' is seen as interchangable with currency, and your 'truth' is whatever highly paid specialists have decided its going to be, things are pretty much done.
we have structured our entire society around gratuitous waste in order to maintain a fiction of progress. duped into selling our future for a few glass beads.
maybe when things go back to being live-or-die hard we can start acting like adults.
8
You lost me at one extinction is too many. Extinction is evolution, one human caused extinction is too many, there is a big difference between the two.
I side with EO Wilson; we should set aside half the planet for other species. We need to learn to live with others, not dominate them. Start with dismantling religion, which teaches all was put here for us to lord over.
13
@Garrett Clay, Good luck with that dismantling of religion part.
1
Even the title is wrong. Science is a human understanding. Science alone can never do anything, only humans can do something with that understanding. Are there some practical solutions offered, or is it just a nice righteous call issued in the air? Is there a limit on how many times it is possible to use a word "limit"?
3
"The Anthropocene is not the end of our world"; true, but the more-pertinent question is this one: has it initiated the eventual end of sufficient human habitat to support the current/future density of Homo sapiens on this lovely planet? Simply thinking about the diminishing sources of potable water is enough to make one wonder.
If the answer to that question happens to be "yes," then the follow-up question would be: how do we choose which members of the species become expendable detritus?
1
Save the earth? Planet is in crisis? Really? Ever met the tectonic plates, Mt. Etna, or "Snowball" earth?
Beyond arrogance, but want to really do something quickly--ground every airliner tomorrow morning and stop the carbon dumping at forty-thousand feet (the American bourgeois problem) and shutdown all animal waste--methane.
Problem--no real effect, given what's supposedly happened so far, for at least a generation perhaps longer, also depending on the behavior and mood of the sun during that time.
So what's the more pressing issue for man (earth could care), the economic catastrophe to his current "living" environment or "climate change" uber alles?
So what's next after we "save the earth", saving the sun from a supernova?
1
@Alice's Restaurant, contrails are actually hiding some of the warming effect of CO2, as evidenced by the temperature pop the day after 9/11 when the jets were grounded.
1
@Steve Bolger
They were only grounded in the US and those headed to the US. More important, one data point doesn't make a bridge.
Still airliners are dumping thousands of tons of carbon and it remains a serious bourgeois problem--all those vacations and tourist dollars lost overnight, right?
1
I dunno how to explain that the contrail bit is truly unlikely, but then I seriously dunno how to get a committed denier to take so much as a two-second look at the actual record of solar output.
The problem's really that some reason backwards: they just KNOW that leftists Hate Capitalism (even if they also dunno what that even is) and wanna force everybody into a hippy gulag where the only terlets is same-sex terlets, so their basic approach is to go find something, anything (sun spots, the supposed LIA, cosmic rays, the position of Mars, the imaginary flaws of the temp records) that "prove," what they started out devoutly believing. For that sort of alexjonesism, EVERYBODY in Dealey Plaza shot Kennedy and covered it up.
With that stuff, science can help--if people will look at facts, which they often won't. Makes it tough to make good choices.
1
The overpowering and all pervasive drive for wealth and power is at the root of all things that are destroying the planet. There is no cure for greed and the need for control. Therefore, the planet will be destroyed. I won't be around to see the end but you may be, so I suggest you start making plans to alleviate your unavoidable suffering to make it more bearable.
Need some prodding? Here's just a fraction of the planet destroying activities that are going on:
Trump's EPA just cancelled all the anti pollution controls that were on the oil and gas industries so they now can poison the air and water as much as they like on their way to making more money for themselves.
6
Missing in the debate is population control. We do not have to let the population get up to 11 billion people. If we had only 2 billion people, we would not have a climate change issue, or, if we did, it would be much more manageable. The hotter the planet gets, the fewer people it can sustain. If the planet rises to a temperature where it can sustain only 4 billion people, we would have to lose 7 billion people. We can avoid billions of horrific deaths by working on population reduction now.
26
@John, And the growing middle classes of China and India all desire things like cars and air conditioners. We're doomed.
3
@John. Please tell this very basic concept to both parties, the nyts, the open borders crowd, every national leader and the readers and believers of all the "holy" books. They just don't get it.
2
As much as I enjoy the optimism expressed in the article and comments, I have my doubts that either the inherent greed/shortsightedness/selfishness of human nature or the promises of religion and/or technology will save us from ourselves. Objectively, with very few exceptions, our political/cultural/religious/technological leaders actions more reflect the problems than the solutions. They live in conspicuous consumption, and the masses aspire to their lifestyles. Current solutions of elite (people, communities, or nations) involve building walls around their homes, communities, and nations to separate their lifestyle from the inevitable consequences of that lifestyle ... and the most elite of the elite (e.g. Branson, Bezos, Musk) actively explore the possibility of abandoning the depleted husk of the planet like Easter Island.
The entire idea that we have a choice between maintaining the environment that sustains us and maintaining a large population with ever increasing consumption is a false dichotomy - without a stable environment both our population and the living standards of that population are destined to fall. The exponential growth of the human population (and consumption) will end the exact same way that every other exponential curve every discovered has ended. IMHO, the only solution would require mass, simultaneous, collective action on current population, energy, agriculture, ocean, air, religion, and wealth distribution models.
6
I read an essay like this, and in the same online edition of the New York Times I can read articles about China encouraging people to have more children, or economists declaring that growth must be sustained at all costs, or conservative columnists bemoaning the fact that women's fertility rates are dropping, or scary campfire stories about the terrors of an aging society. About how the effects of rising temperatures can be ameliorated by providing more reliable electricity in the third world, and more air conditioning, thus further heating the air outside. "People" can only save the planet by committing to shrinking our population radically, making other species' survival paramount, and realizing that supporting growth and expansion - while economically profitable for some and materially pleasurable for many - will have terrible consequences quite soon. I did what I could (including limiting my fertility, and practicing every other lifestyle limit that might make a difference), but at this point all that is left is despair.
33
How naive to neglect to mention that every single scientific and technological advance since prehistory has been applied at once to warfare. As the 19th century inventor Erickson said a propos of our Civil War with its explosion of inventions devised to kill large numbers of people, that someday science would find the means to blow up the world. It's just a matter of time before large sections of our planet are rendered uninhabitable by the unthinkable, nuclear holocaust. That'll solve a lot of human overpopulation issues, to be sure.
7
This is the wrong country to publish this. The right place would be India, which is projected to be the most populous country in the world by 2024. India's population growth by approximately 18 million people per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
10
@DL
No the US is easily the largest emitter historically, largest emitter now, top or near top per capita, the world's largest economy and most powerful nation. There are significant cultural issues affecting it uniquely that have led to it not leading the world on this issue appropriately. These must be overcome.
1
Amen.
"We need to start talking about...." The rest of the world has already started talking about what kind of planet we want -- witness the Paris climate accord, Chinese efforts to clean up their industries, even India is beginning to worry about its reliance on coal. Our president talks a lot, but he's talking us backward with science denial, abolition of environmental protections and a return to coal-fired power plants. Instead of saving the planet our chief space cadet wants to waste billions on a Space Force and a stupid Wall.
16
Wherever the "civilized of the West" go, they trash the place, earth, air, rivers, lakes, oceans, space.
We are going in the way of the Rapa Nui.
4
@Dr. Ricardo Garres Valdez
Well, looking at everything through the prism of several hundred years is myopic. Most of Earth's toxicity is human - an excess 3 billion or so just in the last 50 years, all of it unnecessary where it not for religions and lazy, misogynist ancient cults of men who dream of endless female reproduction and gender slavery.
3
Missed Opportunity -- Of course NY Times readers know we must do something. What and How is what's needed. Today. Use your vast knowledge to enable it.
5
I am daily deeply saddened by the loss of biodiversity, I cling to my ecosystem garden, native plants, butterflies and birds. I do not know what will happen to humanity, but have resigned myself to the destruction of the wilderness. It is my belief, that we will not stop until everything is tamed, wilderness is gone and all that the eye can see will be people and concrete, the only animals left domestic or food supply. I am glad I will not see this souless futures. I hope I’m wrong.
15
IMO, one of the biggest obstacles to get over, that technology and just a little bit of legislative finagling could deal with is - waste. All the myriad forms of waste. be they plastics, or paper, or metal, or whatever else is out there.
Waste is nothing but stored raw materials and energy - but its something we're told is nothing but...well waste. And waste is something to be discarded and forgotten.
Oh yes, there are the re-purpose folks...and how cute they are. And there is what is likely the biggest municipal scam to date, recycling pickups. DO we really know where all those papers and plastics go? Are we sure they are all being recycled? Has anyone traced them? I dont see many products saying they are using mostly post-consumer recyclables.
So there has to be a techy means to reclaim all that energy and raw materials that actually works. Has to be. And if not, then there needs to be and it should be a priority of the local and state and federal govts to nurture such fixes.
Pave the roads with it, build buildings with it - but just make it happen!
6
@Boregard, The recycling myth actually makes people feel much better about their mass consumption and consumerism choices, like endless little plastic water bottles. It's ok to buy them because we 'recycle'.
3
@Boregard
Fixing the waste problem will encourage more production of waste. That production will further destroy the environment by fostering growth.
Humanity is wasting itself.
My prediction: It will not be possible to force humans to stop harming the planet. What will happen is that the majority of humans will continue to eke out a living in a degraded environment, unpleasant but not unlivable. Violence will be common. A small group of very wealthy individuals will live in guarded compounds with as much material wealth as they can sequester. My estimated time frame for this: 100 years from now.
10
>
>
We all knew what kind of planet we wanted to live on.
But none of us wanted to sacrifice what it was going to take to live on it.
I used the word "wanted", past tense, due to the well documented but privileged scientific knowledge that the world passed the tipping point about 15 - 20 years ago.
“You know, it's easier to imagine the death of the planet than it is to imagine the death of capitalism."
Henry Giroux
"Nations, like political creeds, can be upbeat or downbeat. Along with North Korea, the United States is one of the few countries on earth in which optimism is almost a state ideology. For large sectors of the nation, to be bullish is to be patriotic, while negativity is a species of thought crime. Pessimism is thought to be vaguely subversive. Even in the most despondent of times, a collective fantasy of omnipotence and infinity continues to haunt the national unconscious. It would be almost as impossible to elect a US president who advised the nation that its best days were behind it as it would be to elect a chimpanzee, though as far as that goes there have been one or two near misses......An American historian remarked recently that “presidential inaugural speeches are always optimistic whatever the times.” The comment was not intended as a criticism. There is a compulsive cheeriness about some aspects of American culture, an I-can-do-anything-I-want rhetoric which betrays a quasi-pathological fear of failure."
Terry Eagleton
8
@Prometheus, Great comment, thanks.
1
Please stop using phrases like “save the earth’. Earth is doing just fine as planets go. The fact fact that it may one day be unfit for human habitation means absolutely nothing to the overall well being of the planet. Indeed if earth could give a good shake and rid itself of the current human population like a retriever shedding fleas I am certain it would do so.
5
Individual must take this important matter into their own hands. Those claiming to embrace 'environmentalism' that are driving vehicles other than electric OR hybrid, and depending upon their geographic location not installing PV panels for electricity generation, are hypocrites of the 1st order.
Hybrid vehicles cost little more than dirty vehicles, and produce more than 40mpg in city and 45-52mpg on highways. PV panels, throughout the southern states result in a 12-18% retrun on investment based upon their reasonable after tax credit cost of $2.50/watt installed by local private company.
Waiting for federal and global politicians to address this problem is stupid. . .they have little incentive to do so. Unlike the global banning of chloroflourocarbons (Freons 10,11,12, 22) a small industry with not too much money at stake, fossil fuel industry is huge and as such money is the problem and this requires the consumer to 'vote with their pocketbook'.
3
It's already too late. Arrogance, Ignorance and Capitalism have sealed our fate. We are Doomed.
6
“Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.”
-The Reverend Doctor Thomas Malthus, 1779
4
We, as a species, need starting efforts to reduce homo sapiens population.
12
When Al Gore stops jetting around the world in his big private plane, and also scales down the electricity gobbling mega mansion that he lives in back home in Tennessee, then maybe those of us who doubt his climate change doomsday scenario will listen a little more attentively.
3
If what you say is true, and I think it is, perhaps you can explain why the supposedly enlightened, open to scientific facts nyts cannot bring itself to discuss on even the most superficial level, the issue of population? This would by necessity mean immigration and its effect on population growth in this country and 3rd world birth rates around the planet would need to be openly and frankly discussed, but that appears to be the third rail of left wing politics. If you can talk about saving the planet and not discuss population (and again, by extention, immigration, birth control and family size) you are using a set of numbers that do not make sense or have relavence to any scientist I know of.
10
@Al Using over population as the key issue is a great excuse for the rich part of the world (low fertility rate, but by far the biggest sources of additional CO2 that is now in the athmosphere ) to shift the problem to the poorer parts of the world.
No, population is clearly not the core problem of our planet ..just take a look at the original Club of Rome projections to see that population growth is much lower than expected. It is unlikely that the earth has a problem accomodating a peak of 10 to 12 billion people. The crucial problem is that we .. the rich world .. need to accept that we need to make a big effort to clean up the mess we have created ( which means reducing our living standards) and accept that the rest of the world has the right to catch up. There are historic responsibilities on our side.
And by the way, there is a well known relationship between population growth and wealth: Population growth falls with increasing wealth: Distribute the wealth more evenly across the world and the problem disappears. Tax the rich world to really help the rest would work wonders in saving our planet...
4
@Al While population growth outside the U.S. (ours is shrinking) is a real global problem immigration to our shores from those places is actually a benefit. Wealthier societies have lower population growth. Instead of trashing immigrants to this country you should embrace them. Immigration is helping the planet.
@Al,
I, for one, am quite willing to discuss population. The global population explosion that peaked in the 1960s has obvious consequences for the biosphere, but as the daughters of all those women born in the late 20th century had fewer children of their own, and their daughters fewer still, '3rd world birth rates' are not the ongoing threat you make them out to be.
Since 1960, the total fertility rate (TFR) has dropped from over 5 to below 2.5 (these numbers from the World Bank: data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN). In India, TFR went from 5.9 in 1960 to 2.3 in 2016: that's just a little above the internal replacement rate, below which the country's population will eventually decline unless there is immigration. Brazil's TFR fell from 6.6 to 1.7, well below replacement level. Based solely on current demographic trends global population should stabilize at around 10 billion early in the next century, and then begin to decline.
Our per-capita economic and technological ability to damage our shared environment continues to explode, however. The downward trend of TFR is often credited to increased education for girls and women in the same period. An even greater cultural shift will be required, if widespread environmental degradation is not to result in global tragedy by the end of this century. Without it, population projects are much more difficult.
1
With dwindling resources and habitable places, the opposite will continue to happen: our further fissuring into groups based on class and tribalist ideologies. At some point, a catastrophic decline or decimation. Capitalism, by its nature demanding growth, will not solve this. Democracy, by its nature of deliberation and slow cooperation, will not solve this. Environmental change will only come when a strong man/empire with power forces such decisions. There are too many humans to work collectively. Paris Accord was the start and we (U.S.) failed.
3
@Chris I hear you, but are you prepared to pay the horrific human cost that entrusting our future to a 'strong man' will generate?
2
An excellent essay. The author unflinchingly confronts the reality that "There is no way to avoid the environmental consequences of industrial societies operating at planetary scale." Some commenters have mentioned the size and/or growth rate of the global human population as important factors. It's certainly true that our aggregate environmental impact is partly a function of population size, and the consequences of its explosive growth in the last half-century are visible.
There is, therefore, at least one meliorative trend over the last half-century: the global total fertility rate (TFR), i.e. the number of children a women bears in her life, has declined from more than 5 in 1964 to about 2.5 today (World Bank data). The daughters of all those women born during the population explosion of the mid-twentieth century had fewer children of their own, and their daughters are having fewer still. Based on current demographic trends, many population experts now expect the total number of us to reach as high as 11 billion early in the next century, then stabilize or even begin to decline.
Yet while TFR declined, our per-capita economic and technological capacity to damage our shared environment multiplied, and shows no sign of slowing. The change in fertility is widely credited to better education for girls and young women. We can hope the growing numbers of educated women will, at least, meliorate the environmental consequences of a planetary society of 11 billion.
3
The first thing to do is to slow down, and then stop the increase in human population. Then, a gradual decrease in the human population should occur.
Overpopulation is the fundamental problem facing the planet.
14
@the shadow
Right, good old State sponsored procreation!
And who does the choosing?
Claims of dominion over nature did not come from Science.
12
I'm sure that conversation will happen eventually.
Right after everyone can eat.
Here's a dirty little secret: The wealthier members of our societies will be able to avoid the worst effects of climate change-and they know it. Eventually, it will catch up to them too. But not in their lifetimes-and they know it.
11
Those 'wealthy' people who need to step up, won't. They own our
governments who have become little more than a thinly disguised
police state. Revolution isn't possible. We must turn our backs on the likes of Monsanto and the rest of the planet killers.
4
Ellis misses his own point. We are not capable of doing what he recommends in the last paragraph. There is no us. The Republicans are living proof of that.
10
Today’s Americans choose not to be part of any solution. Rather they choose to maximize their pleasure today and ignore any impact on the future. Look at sprawling houses, roads packed with SUV’s and trucks, energy wasteful office buildings, and energy wasting power grids. Even those who claim to care largely wish only for someone else to sacrifice to make things better
We are long passed any possible solution for the problem. There is no world organization which can lead us from disaster. The conflicts over failing resources will be resolved as they have been through history—on the battlefield. The US’ remoteness from the major population centers will be our only defense. We will have few allies
12
@John Morton
In many cases why have office buildings at all? With the ability to work remotely why do we continue to waste fuel driving to a building that wastes electricity only to warehouse people?
The F150 is the best-selling vehicle every year. We do not have that many ranchers or construction workers. On the rare occasion when a homeowner actually needs a gigantic truck---rent one.
Cutting back on meat-eating, even something as simple as Meatless Mondays, is one of the biggest things a person could do that would have a huge impact.
Alas, you are 100% correct. We all want someone else to make the small sacrifices that would make a big difference.
9
@John Morton, Because if you live in a tiny apartment, use public transportation and don't own much, you are considered poor. And we in America hate poor people.
2
As I read this article, I couldn't help thinking back to my father, "If you don't stop drinking, it will surely kill you!" the Doctor said. We did nothing. He did nothing. He surely died.
3
Population growth swamps all options to avert climate cataclysm. On population momentum alone, the Earth is toast.
18
First and most urgent: Reduce population growth (i.e. free birth control, readily available abortion and sex education worldwide). Then we can talk about survival.
Religions will not agree to this, so Mother Nature will have to force it. It will not be pretty.
13
The world is interconnected. This leads the author to make the following assertion:
“The harshest reality of the Anthropocene is that every human action or nonaction generates a labyrinth of consequences, both social and environmental, local and global, some surprising, some predictable, that affect different people very differently.”
Stated differently Ellis is telling us: “You can never do just one thing.” This is an impossibility statement and therefore a statement of limits. That is, the author’s whole argument against limits is based on the recognition of a limit of what it is possible to do. We have many possible options to choose from, but all of them must fall within the limits set by this impossibility statement.
Other terms the author uses such as “sustainability” or “optimal” imply limits. The author is arguing for a certain kind of limit—the limit of scientific and technological knowledge. It’s pretty hard (impossible?) to say much that is coherent without the idea of a limit.
3
I am glad to see this article, which asks what is to me exactly the right questions: what sort of planet do we want to live on? How do we learn to outline our problems intelligently, and work on them together?
Just to offend everybody, first off, the Left needs to figure out that no, folks, countries like India are not innocent. That's a patronizing fantasy that's been around as long as colonialism. And no, revolutionary chest-thumpers, assaulting the gates of the wealthy won't make the planet happyhappy bunnyland. The history, and a lot of current behavior, argues pretty forcefully the revolutionary chest-thumpers intend to be safely at the back of the mob, so they're around to skim the cream later. Not to mention that nobody sane wants to be around for such conflagrations.
And as for the Trumpists, who do pretty mich the same chest-thumping. The worst thing about Trump is that he teaches dimwit, short-sighted greed backed up by total cynicism.
I don't necessarily know exactly what I'd like this planet to be in a century, but I am darn sure it's NOT half giant shopping mall stuffed with an endless supply of toys and worthless junk, and the other half a polluted factory floor.
5
We are past the era of thinking a single simple solution exists.
Past claims that population control, for example, were sufficient are clearly false.
For example: The USA has 1,764.5 births per 1,000 women — a 3 percent drop from 2016. ( The replacement rate is 2,100 births per 1,000 women.) And yet the USA has one of the worst carbon footprints on the globe.
Yes, access to birth control would benefit much of the Third World. (US foreign aid for such purposes was slashed, alas.)
But fuel needs for food are one of the biggest issues. Solar ovens that use only the sun to roast food and bake bread should be subsidized to much of the Third World.
Solar ovens can cook or pasteurise food and beverages. Many in use are inexpensive, low-tech devices. Some nonprofit organizations are promoting their use worldwide in order to help reduce fuel costs, air pollution, and to slow down the deforestation and desertification caused by gathering firewood for cooking.
I would love to see NYT run stories about such programs.
Also, I would love to see the food section run stories and recipes about home model solar cookers that can replace gas grills and require no fuels. “If you can see a shadow”, there is enough solar energy available for roasting and baking with such devices.
10
@Jean
The U.S. and world populations have DOUBLED just since the 1960s - a rate never seen before in history. Plainly put, men need to keep it in their pants or use birth control.
2
@Jean, As sad as the US is not fulfilling the needs of providing birth control, why can't other countries get on this? Including the ones with burgeoning overpopulation.
We're not the only nation on earth. Others too can become more involved until we elect leaders who will go back to providing those resources. Ultimately it is up to the governments of places like India and in Africa to curtail their unfettered human growth.
@Jean
Is it the United States responsibility to slow population growth in poor 3rd world countries?
I guess we are to blame for everything.
1
Fewer people would solve most if not all environmental problems...
13
In the past, the Chinese had the right idea -- a mandatory, enforced limit of one child per couple.
10
@Noodles, Too bad they recently eliminated this.
2
This essay is virtually pointless. Except for a vague wish that the rich would step up and pay for solutions the author proposes talking rather than doing when there is so much to do. If readers want guides to action rather than empty talk read Naomi Klein.
See "No is not Enough,"
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jun/22/no-is-not-enough-naomi-kle...
and "This Changes Everything."
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/books/review/naomi-klein-this-changes...
7
Thank you! Exactly my thought..
4
This piece deals with primal issues. Many of which I've tried to communicate to my two sons, 11 and 14. Personally, before my boys came into this world, I was among a small group who looked at the science and human nature and concluded that there was no way to stop or reverse the truth. Humanity as we know it, was toast.
But what about my kids? What do I tell them when they ask about Earth's warming? What are my shared truths compared to Google and You-Tube? I will not lie to my boys. I warn them that the President and his Cabinet, those who dictate policy, do not think earth's warming is something that requires their attention.
Human nature is many things; survival, propagation, control, humanity, advancement, greed and power, but it now seems this arc rests on the tomb of Stupid.
I am not smart enough to know if science can save us, my gut says no. But maybe we can save ourselves if we choose what's necessary. I am 74, moved to NYC in 1967, and was blessed to experience life there. So I know what we collectively can do when we acknowledge a humanitarian crisis, Vietnam atrocity.
1) Stop Trump's insanity and ignorance by returning the house to the democrats in November. That won't change things, democrats in general are no different than Republicans, but it will help stop the climate bleeding.
2) Boycott companies that do not support policies, products and/or acknowledgement of climate crisis.
3) Reduce your families carbon footprint.
4) Educate others.
97
@LaBuffune Buy your boys a piece of land in Nevada. It might very well be a beach property one day that they can pass on to their children or grandchildren.
@LaBuffune
The world was a chaotic mess long before Trump and was arguably made worse by many well-meaning but hair brained liberals who've done nothing to stem the tsunami of human births for the last half century, despite the knowledge that this was the #1 need everywhere. Adopt and do not breed.
3
@LaBuffune, you believe humanity is toast, but had two children, fairly recently ?
Either you believe the 'toast' part is still very far away, or your prescience was only a source of pride, having no impact on your life most important life decisions.
2
I hear the professor saying we need the political will to do the right thing. We need to share the planet, making a better place for all life on earth. I certainly agree whole heartedly with those sentiments. What I don't hear is how we accomplish this necessary vision.
We are the richest country in our world. We have done more than any other nation to drive our planet toward a non desirable future. This, in a nutshell, is who we are.
If political will is what is needed more than anything else, and I grasp the professors point, than I am even more concerned than when I awoke this morning. We know who we elected president.
Being the only nation to abandon the Paris climate accords does not bode well for "sharing, fairly" the resources of our planet with "one another and the rest of life on earth".
So, professor, count me as a skeptic. As a nation, we are having a difficult time acting collectively. We are going it alone. Down a dark path leading nowhere, I am afraid.
For myself, I will continue supporting financially efforts to preserve the disappearing species on our planet until such time that the necessary collective political will to do the right thing materializes. If ever.
5
Ever since humans as a species adapted to function sufficiently in their environments to form societies, they responded to environmental disruptions by moving somewhere else. Sometimes these moves brought different societies together, sometimes they did not. When different societies met, the outcome was either violent subjugation or more peaceful assimilation.
As societies grew into civilizations and became more dependent on their surrounding environment to sustain them, the response to environmental disruptions became either adapt, move or collapse. Adapting involved changing the way in which the civilization interacted/used its environment. If the civilization could not adapt, it had to either move or collapse. If there was nothing better to move to, it would collapse. Moving into a different civilization meant either conquering or assimilating.
These move/conquer/adapt options were possible only if there was usable geographic space that could support a civilization, otherwise it would collapse. Humans now find themselves in a situation in which there is no geographic space to move into, so the remaining options to avoid collapse are conquer or adapt. Conquering is out of the question. So we have to adapt. But adapting is going to require humans to change how they interact with each other and their environment. It is, as Dr. Ellis points out, people and their institutions who will decide the future.
Given how humans are acting now, the future looks bleak.
5
Well... before we spend a lot of time and energy "talking about what kind of planet we want to live on." ... I think we need to talk about - how any decisions there get "made" - and how they will be enforced.
Because, at the moment; there is no government on the planet able to make such decisions, nor can any entity enforce them.
I think that's the larger problem. We already know what is needed. We just can't/won't do it.
7
Thirty years ago we decided to have one child. Today, I'm not certain we would have any. Living in California with flames engulfing the state, and ocean temperatures at nearly 80 degrees does not encourage reproduction. Argue if you will about the one child-ZPG metric: even with one child, what kind of hellish future are we offering?
15
@Bill Prange: The one-child policy was instrumental to China's transition to a modern economy. It remains the only example of state-mandated population stabilization in the modern world.
4
The degree of hubris in this article is astonishing. The planet is not in any danger of anything. The planet was here before life and will be here after. Any conversation starting with that insipid phrase - "The planet is in crisis" - undercuts any credibility that might come with a reasoned discussion of the problems of air and water pollution. And while the author is really discussing those problems and how to go about addressing them, the gloom and doom forecasting is laughable. Haven't scientists shown us how life adapts to pressures? Here's my prediction: In 500 years, there will be plenty of life on earth. Probably human life included. Maybe different from what we see today. So what.
2
@C. Cole: As Einstein noted, the next war after the next world war will probably be fought with sticks and clubs.
4
How naive to suggest that those who have benefited the most step up to solve this problem or any other problem. When has that ever happened? No, the solution to climate change will be the dictum that nature is red in tooth and claw. There are two choices now that global warming has become irreversible: die-off or kill-off, the latter always being the preference of those "who have benefited the most". Sorry, you're welcome.
4
This essay jumps the gun. Human strategies need to address the worst of our problems. Science and the media have let us down by defining the wrong problems. Carbon emissions and climate change kill tens of thousands each year. Water, air soil, radioactive and toxic pollution from diverse emissions kill millions each year. It's not like oil refineries are only dangerous because of carbon. It's not like countless industries which have nothing to do with fossil fuels aren't poisoning us in numerous and different ways (see Erin Brokavich). To turn from science to the politics of pollution without an understanding of what is killing us is the height of absurdity.
1
This is a pretty simple problem with a pretty simple solution.
The problem is that people are not paying for what they get.
The solution is for people to pay for what they get.
If you get something for nothing, you will be wasteful. A carbon tax--preferably one assessed at the point of fuel extraction, and with revenues returned as a yearly income tax rebate--forces people to pay for what they get.
It's insane that this has gone on this long, and frankly, I blame the liberals/environmentalists who cannot for the life of them keep it simple:
PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET.
1
So, as a conservative it appears you support increasing taxes.
1
"On a planet of nearly eight billion people with billions more on the way, "
Those billions more on the way are a consequence of our belief in reproductive rights. True, reproductive rights typically imply stopping these billions at the border. Separating the child from the parent, with consequence demise for the child. But complaints about China's one side policy show that the other side of reproductive rights is also prominent in liberal minds.
We need a more modest version of reproductive rights, one that takes into account, not merely the wishes of those who want to enjoy cost-free sex, but the consequences for others of that cost-free sex.
2
Very rational,and therefore welcome. Or we could just throw a snowball on the Senate floor and claim that the problem doesn't exist.
5
Well intentioned but trite and ineffective. The solution: make the rich pay for it. No, the solution is break the system of production based on private accumulation. its complete domination of everything and return to the norm of production to satisfy the wants and needs (such as these ecological goods) of society.
Is it really that hard to see this? Let the rich keep what they have and unleash the productive forces of humanity!
1
Another reason to rid our government of all those who refuse sign on for the survival of all living things, including US humans.
4
Viruses and bacteria evolve quickly, they will finish off humans long before we finish off this planet. It's not an if question, but a when question.
5
@Dog: More likely people will apply CRISPR to create genomically-selective weapons.
My position is to support everyone, no matter how vague his proposals, who recognizes that change is necessary. But how can we reverse the process of destruction when almost every token of success in our world is equivalent to being able to use more resources? What sort of horrible shock will it take to change? I dare not imagine.
3
Yes collectivism is the answer. Capitalism is the problem.
2
@tbs Patriarchy is the problem - women's rights worldwide is the solution!
The sheer number of humans on the planet is the proximate cause of the environmental breakdown we are witnessing. It is also the proximate cause of most of the human conflicts we see around the world and will be even more so in the future. Climate change, deforestation, fisheries collapse, aquifer depletion, you name it, it all comes back to this one factor. It is a worthy effort to try and address each of these problems individually using cultural and technological fixes, but it will be all be for naught if we do not work to minimize population growth and ultimately reduce the number of people putting demands on the resources of the planet. This does not have to be draconian. Many societies and populations are already heading for minimal growth and doing so by their own choices (look at Italy). We have to address the cultural, political, and religious forces that are still at work where population is growing at unsustainable rates. Ii is sheer idiocy to restrict family planning resources to countries with populations growing beyond their resources, and then be up in arms when those same peoples show up at our borders looking for a better life. Population size is the real malady; climate change, pollution, massive fires, habitat loss, these are just symptoms. Just like in medicine, we sometimes have to just treat the symptoms, but it is much better to address the actual diagnosis.
6
Do any of the readers of this article know what their personal carbon footprint is? That is, do you reader, know yours? I am going to guess not. This is the start of the problem. Americans produce more emissions per capta than anyone - over 20 tons each year. The average in the world? 2 tons. I've devised a simple questionaire with 3 questions to find out an estimate of personal emissions. Most often, when I ask or show people my "carbon footprint estimator" people don't want to know... or they are afraid to find out! I am talking about people who "care" about the environment and climate change! THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW! They don't want to cancel that flight for the weekend wedding. They don't want to adjust their diet and for Pete's sake they most definitely don't want to give up driving ALONE in their precious car. Even so-called Millenials, who have the most to lose, don't want to know. Because if they knew, they would have to admit flying, eating animal products an driving alone are the 3 most damaging activities to the atmosphere and very few people want to reduce these activites - even for a short time (like a decade, lets say). We've made our choice, and one of the most sad part of it is the ubiquitous sentiment that we gotta take an Alaskan cruise to see the ice "before it melts". Utter resignation.
133
@ReReDuce
Thank you.. you are correct. The last controversy here in Oregon was plastic straws. Let's see, it took 15 years to talk about plastic grocery bags and three years on straws. Maybe next year we'll move on to plastic forks and as the earth fills with poison air and garbage in twenty years we'll be at styrofoam packing peanuts. Nobody wants to know because they would have to personally change their behavior and that's too much to ask.
5
@ReReDuce
I'd bet that many of the people reading this type of article are indeed eating less meat, vacationing nearer home, etc. The problem is how to convince everyone else. Maybe some of the larger environmental organizations could start advertising campaigns (both on TV and online) telling people which are the most important actions and reminding them of the harm they are causing. Also, we could push back against groups that encourage unhelpful behavior, such as college alumni groups that constantly tempt people to vacation all over the world. I've sent letters of protest though I have yet to get an answer.
@ReReDuce, This is one of the reasons we must limit immigration to our country. Every one in the US uses too much of everything.
1
I suggest seeing the movie Soylent Green for what is almost surely a glimpse of our not that distant overcrowded, repressive future, a world with little freedom, depleted resources, with little wildlife, with little natural beauty left.
Its not just the fossil fuel barons and their right-wing lackeys who delight in gas guzzlers, even those who profess to be environmentalists mostly want to drive and fly everywhere, eat meat, and refuse to discuss any real effort to stop human population growth even as species as diverse as crickets, fireflies, frogs, butterflies as well as orcas, rhinos, elephants, giraffes, great apes are disappearing as humans spread everywhere. There is no stopping this.
Neither capitalism nor communism has proven capable of dealing with this any better. Its worth trying to slow the decline, but we can be confident that with human adaptability, future generations not knowing any better will accept that world to come.
54
@Barry Schiller
Unfortunately, the world to come may not for humans be inhabitable.
@Barry Schiller I saw that when I was 20, I surely won't see that in my lifetime, and I bet you won't either.
1
What do you mean by "Save the Earth"? The planet will go on revolving around the sun just like it has for billions of years with no help or hinderance from humans.
I think what you really mean is - Science alone will not save the human population on Earth from extinction. Fat chance of that happening. Humans are by nature self centered and selfish as part of the survival of the fittest and procreation and the more "civilized" we have become the more we have abused the Earth for our own selfish reasons, some far more than others.
Good old Mother Nature does not care any more about Homo Sapiens than she does about any other of the millions of species that have come and gone over the millennia. We, as a specie, have carelessly over populated the planet, fowling our own nest, largely for our own comfort and survival. I guess that makes us our own worst enemy. It's unfortunate that Mother Nature did not somehow have a built in population limit at something like one billion.
85
Very smart. A lot of good thinking here I want to point out that what's at stake is not just humanity, but rather all life on earth. Or maybe the survivors of our behavior will be some microbes living in obscure underwater caves. But it certainly follows that as humans continue to work toward making earth uninhabitable for humans, the non-humans,for the most part, also won't be able to survive. We are late getting going on this so we'll need to stand up now and do the extensive and complex things that need to be done in order to reverse humanity's behavior to date.
1
Single use products have got to go. I've been carrying a stainless steel water bottle, reusable shopping bag, and handkerchief with me for 18 years ever since I heard Julia Butterfly Hill speak in 2000 about her efforts to save a giant redwood tree by living in it for two years during brutal winters and relentless death and rape threats from loggers surrounding the tree. She asked us all to please carry a water bottle and not drink out of plastic. Inspired by her remarkable sacrifice and courage, I never drank out of plastic again. It's a sign of our priorities and Hollywood's bias against telling the stories of remarkable women that no one has ever green lighted the funding to made a movie about her accomplishment.
82
@Amy Luna
I disagree. Single use products can easily be recycled. All that needs to be done is ensure they are disposed of in the proper fashion.
2
@Amy Luna. You are on the right track personally. The goal should be not just to recycle but to make products that don't need to be recycled because they can be reused and are durable. Unfortunately our entire economy is built on a throw away, more is always better concept that is by definition unsustainable.
2
@Dave. The fact that recycling is collapsing in this country because the Chinese won't take our trash anymore basically means there is no "proper disposal method".
1
A nice introduction to humanity's worth, if willing to join forces for the better. It seems, to me at least, that we have lost perspective about one fact, that we are an integral part of Nature, and that we are (or should) be together in making things work. It requires shedding our arrogance and adopting a modicum of humility. We stopped reasoning, and threw common sense out the window, as the technological revolution (and Social Media) gave us unlimited information that, instead of imparting knowledge and understanding (hence, some wisdom), made us less educated, still seeking the thrill of conspiratory theories, anything to entertain us...so to escape our current unrelieved chronic stress, anxieties and depression and loneliness (while surrounded by uncounted people like ourselves). You can argue against this somewhat pessimistic view, but just look at how drug-addicted we have become (to escape reality), and still supporting a despicable bully (a coward in disguise) in the Oval Office with expertise in lying and confusing facts with fiction in a most malevolent way. Yes, we need to change, and educating ourselves in the truth, guided by empiric evidence, may be a start. For that to occur, we must start to think for ourselves...and avoid being led to the slaughterhouse by our noses, by demagogues and charlatans in our midst (and currently holding government hostage).
38
I see this piece as a nice counterpoint to Ross Douthat's thoughts from a few days ago on the continuing importance of humanism in our technological era. But what we need now goes beyond Douthat's classical (and religious) view of humanism. We must learn as a species what humans need to live, and how to use our technology to shape livable environments that it are resilient (including survival of Nature that sustains us) under increasingly adversarial conditions. That requires a deeper understanding of the psychological and social processes that underlie collective action, response to adversity, and a sense of comfort. What we need is not naturalism or techno-centrism vs. humanism (as Douthat apparently conceives it), but a new Human Naturalism that blends an understanding of human nature and the human need for nature. We are left here on our own in the anthropocene; God may have granted us an Eden but God will not save us from ourselves.
4
Prof. Ellis suggests that we talk about the "better future we want."
A recent news item pointed out how firefighters fed the fish in an aquarium in a home in an evacuated area, leaving a note saying they hoped that was ok. Then police added to the note the subsequent date and time that they also fed the fish.
Balance that against the fleets of lawyers and executives working to delay recognition of the damage caused by the corporations which issue their paychecks (tobacco, glyphosate, coal, etc...).
I ask myself what is different between those two sets of behaviors. Both are produced by humans. I'd guess that both sets of humans are pretty similar, and I suspect that evolutionary psychologists could explain both behaviors.
The difference in the behaviors seems to be due to the system in which the different behaviors are embedded, or the role within the system that the persons have found themselves in.
The big question, then, is what would modify humanity's systems to produce the firefighters' behavior rather than that of the lawyers. I suspect the answer lies in making accumulation of wealth toxic to the accumulator, rather than to the society as a whole.
As a start, individuals can stop deferring to those who have accumulated great wealth by damaging the planet. You cannot eat numbers or dollar bills, so the usefulness of wealth depends on the cooperation of others.
5
We need both. We need people to be imbued with enough basic science to make intelligent decisions about the world and its climate. Everyone should have high school chemistry and physics. Decision-makers must have college-level coursework in such sciences. Sadly, some universities (eg New England College) don't offer any science courses! Are political science majors and lawyers competent to make these decisions?
2
@Robert Hargraves
We certainly need more science education, and there could be introductions starting in grade school.
Unfortunately, many students will lack the academic skills for high school, college prep level chemistry and physics. So simpler, basic principles much sooner would help. Environmental science issues should be taught, too by middle school.
Surprising, hard to believe, new inventions can replace fossil fuels fast with a huge savings in cost.
Water, fresh or salt, will easily and inexpensively substitute for gas, diesel or jet fuel. Demonstrable new technology has made it possible to convert any combustion engine to run on water. Cars, trucks, boats, ships, aircraft and power plants can rapid substitute water for fossil fuels.
Other new technology can extract the water from the air, even in regions of low humidity. This can end the need to refuel. See MOVING BEYOND OIL at aesopinstitute.org to learn more.
Abrupt Global Warming requires breakthrough science to give humanity a fighting chance for survival. However, the handful of bold new inventions that can truly help are dismissed as impossible. Climate change has made that sad reality unacceptably dangerous.
Vicious anonymous Troll attacks discourage urgently needed support with rants featuring lies and distortions.
Capital in the wings can dramatically impact the climate problem worldwide - by investment in little known technical progress. Astonishing discoveries can change the world even faster than Apple did with hand-held devices.
Bold individuals are needed to support new approaches to seemingly intractable problems. At present, the inventors and small firms doing this urgent work lack sorely needed support. Assistance will make an enormous difference and may save a great many lives.
And might save a family of 4 $8,000 per year in fuel costs!
2
@Mark Goldes ...good luck with that, breaking the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The minds behind these discoveries famous forever, or not...
1
@PSP This is indeed remarkable new science. It does not so much break, as open a door to redefining, the laws of thermodynamics. See SECOND LAW SURPRISES at aesopinstitute.org
@P A recent invention is an incredibly efficient heat pump Air Conditioner that will use 1/3 the energy of existing units and needs no refrigerant. The science is proven. A prototype needs to be built. It is expected to exceed the Carnot limit.
Inherently inexpensive - such a breakthrough will have wide acceptance in a rapidly warming world. As it will dramatically reduce the power required for cooling.
The real problem is where 4% of the population uses about 25% of the energy/oil Yes, you know who I'm talking about. There is nothing fair about that. If just China developed to use as much as we do on an annual basis, TWO of the 200 countries on Earth would be using ALL the energy. The bottom line is that the "developed" world is over developed. Obviously, the most basic math tells us that either we will need to gradually use less as the third world develops, or the future will be about resource wars. As so many presidents have actually stated, "we must protect our way of life", but leave off the, "as unfair as that is to the rest of the world" part.
4
I often believe we see reflexive climate skeptics who hold tightly to unscientific conclusions, reject evidence, & demean your sources.
Then they give you the typical lines about seasons changing: "in winter it snows, & droughts/floods/brutal heat and forest fires have no causes, other than they just happen & so what. As long as they don't live there."
But something caused these long & extreme cycles.
Clearly oceans excel at at storing energy /heat. In the scientific world of thermodynamics, that's dO = dU - dW.
There's actually science!!!
3
The kitchen is one of several places where we can adjust our behavior to benefit the planet, as well as our budget.
Induction cooktops are superior to both gas and electric, with great control over both low and high heat cooking.
Induction delivers roughly 80 to 90 percent of its electromagnetic energy to the food in the pan. In contrast: gas, converts a mere 38 percent of its energy, and electric converts less than 70 percent.
Induction cooktops heat up much faster, but also control temperature more precisely. Induction cooktops take far less time to boil than their electric or gas counterparts.
Additionally, the cooktop surface itself stays cool. You don't have to worry about burning your hand on a burner, and it's even possible to put a paper towel between a hot frying pan and an induction burner to keep oil from spattering on a cooktop.
In Japan, induction cooktops already are the preferred appliance due to their exceptional energy efficiency.
5
Jean, thanks for this small, practical solution. We switched to induction and it is the best. We are trying to convince others. Baby steps.
2
Reminds me of the guy in the Redford/Newman movie about Butch and Sundance who interrupts the posse recruitment to sell bicycles.
2
bicycles survived and thrived. Butch and Sundance didn't.
1
The question is not what kind of planet do WE want. The question is what kind of a planet do THE KOCH BROTHERS, EXXON MOBILE e.c.t. want. Let’s start with THE KOCH BROTHERS. They have taken out adds denouncing renewable energy. They helped defeat a light rail transit system in Atlanta GA. that would have taken thousands of cars off the road. They and other energy oligarchs have supported the dismantling of the EPA. Why do they do this? One word: POWER, and not energy power but social power. From their point of view renewable energy threatens to make obsolete the millions of gallons of oil that is the source of their influence. In the wonderful song, IF I WERE A RICH MAN, Tevye nails it when he says,” when you’re rich they think you really know”. No, they don’t know any more than anyone else, but with their oil wealth they get to amplify their voices/beliefs in a way not open to ordinary people. Have you noticed the word environment? That is the last thing being thought about. This is war and I like the way things are. Why would I ever give that up they say? So yes, in a perfect world of course WE want a sustainable planet, but how do WE the people who bear the brunt of decisions made by the few get the energy oligarchs to join in to save the planet which, by the way, they also happen to live on? THAT is the real question.
9
The Earth will continue to orbit the sun regardless of the outcome of the Anthropocene. The question is whether or not we humans are willing to join together and do what needs to be done to ensure that we are still along for the ride. I don't fear for the Earth, never have, I fear for humanity.
5
All big issues are essentially political. But we have less time for this one. So we have to politic faster.
4
Yes, like decades-ago “less” time.
"We’ve covered and transformed the planet with the agriculture, settlements and infrastructure that sustain us." Really? Sustain whom? The largest parts of humanity are unsustained. Don't place the burden created by corporate and political greed on the rest of humanity. No, we've allowed the planet to be exploited by a system that is designed to sustain (read: empower and enrich) only the privileged few. At the same time, we've knowingly and willfully suppressed any and all other options that would be better for the planet (and for humanity). Then we pretend that the problem is essentially unsolvable: too many people (or course, always too many of the "un-privileged" sorts of people) or too much wastefulness--again, supposedly caused by the masses (of un-privileged people) often in faraway lands rather than the true corporate polluters that wreak the real havoc.
12
Why do we have such a phenomenally successful science about physical space? Because, since Newton showed the way of Basic Science, led us to our current refined physical science. But the actual space we inhabit is Social Space -- for which we have virtually no Basic Science. It is around our life in Social Space that the survival of our human species depends. In our social existence -- killing over 100 million of our fellow human beings during the last century -- we have glaring lack of control, because we lack a viable science about the Social Space we inhabit. My latest book is "We live in Social Space" -- it tries to make a dent in our ignorance.
The root cause of all global environmental problems is overpopulation, but so far there is no leadership to address it. No technological advances are needed to rein in unrestricted reproduction, and as this article suggests technology alone won't save us. Future generations suffering the consequences of overpopulation will judge their ancestors very harshly.
11
First, the greatest challenge of our time is overpopulation. Climate change is an effect of that problem, but if we solve that problem, others will follow.
The greatest challenge for civilization is leadership. The wrong people are in charge, and we can't get rid of them. As long as our leaders lead for themselves and their class, we will not solve any of the big problems. We need to civilize our leaders. The ancient Greeks and Romans struggled with that problem, lost, and collapsed.
With responsible leadership, we could design a world where 10 billion people can live in relative comfort with minimal impact, but that won't happen if the housing, infrastructure, food production and delivery, and transportation, are designed to produce profit without regard for external effects. And we won't solve the population increase as long as one group of people who don't control their numbers is allowed to overwhelm another group who do.
Before you scoff at the phrase "designing a world" consider the possibility that the world we have has already been designed, either by happenstance, or by leaders who care most about consolidating their positions and increasing their wealth and their ability to extract wealth from everyone else.
The answers to our eco-problems exist, but they won't get implemented without a new political paradigm that aligns the interests of the leaders more closely with the interests of the rest of us.
11
To have the public dialogue about how to have the world we want, we need political leaders to tell the truth. Nathaniel Rich’s article (Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change, NYT Magazine, 1 August 18), tells us how - a generation ago - we lost a precious opportunity to have that public dialogue. Rich and the NYT are telling us to figure out how this happened. Rich identifies the individuals -- John Sununu and George H.W. Bush -- who were culpable agents of the corporate/political power opposed to right action. Our job now is to identify the current opponents of right action. The culpable political leaders are new: foremost are McConnell, Ryan and Trump. We are dealing with the same culpable corporations behind the politicians.
We have current political leaders -- among them the Clintons, Obama, Gore, Schumer, Pelosi, Brown, Bloomberg and Sanders -- who could denounce the adversaries. None of them has been able to bell-the-culpable-cats.
Ellis is right: public dialogue is the way to motivate us. Only the people are an adequate force to demand and to support an offensive to achieve the world we want. Unfortunately, we are all so distressed, fearful, on the verge of despair that - like the mice terrified by the cat - we are bickering among ourselves. And we must have good leaders to mount an effective strategic offense. Otherwise, there will be little to stop people who are fleeing from catastrophe.
11
If we had enlightened global governance, then Big Oil would be resisted, carbon would be taxed, the rich would pay their share and that wealth would be channeled into replacing filthy energy with clean energy.
Instead we have billions of people whose aspirations lie in what’s immediately in front of them — e.g., more babies and the mod cons and status symbols advertised on television. And so their politicians or authoritarian regimes cater to those short term, material desires — and to the industrial and financial interests that fund their reelections and line their pockets. The US may even be the ultimate expression of this system, and it pulled out of the Paris accord. Just keep the gas cheap and the population happy.
Of course we should push for enduring solutions at the international level, but in the meantime we should move ahead on achievable measures like solar radiation management and carbon sinking via iron fertilization — before California is a desert and Manhattan is underwater.
3
Perhaps it cannot be science alone but it cannot be people without many different types of minds that can help make the best of what we have left. It is clear that a non scientific, non inquisitive, angry leadership environment will net us less as a species than a technology/science based decision making process. And, yes, lots of money from those that use the most and have the most.
1
To blame global warming on the rich, who have made their fortunes off methods and products that pollute the earth, and consumers who use them, is a good start.
The idea that lifestyle changes for the sake of halting global warming would differently affect social groups and cultures certainly sounds true.
Think of everyone on the planet going green. The huge infrastructure investments. The rocking of the world's economic boat.
It would mean any use of fossil fuels must be banned. Anything now packaged in plastic would have to be packaged in glass or cardboard. Only electric vehicles would be permitted.
International shipping could prove problematic -- ships could go electric, even using sea water to churn turbines (screened to not kill sea life) for power.
But jet travel? How to surmount the force of gravity without fossil fuel?
In agriculture, there are natural ways to stop predators without using pesticides, e. g., using other insects to eat the crop killers.
But the real problem, which few want to deal with, is to stop having babies. There is so much in religion and culture that supports having babies -- the very beings whose little carbon footprints could lead to earth's, and our, demise.
And people seem to find that carrying their DNA forward is far more important than preserving the earth and it's species,
including humans.
It's a point of view blind to long-term reality -- dandle the baby in front of you and forget the consequences.
5
Sigh. Worldwide, population growth is way down, due to a lot of hard work by the UN and other groups. And as little as I love the wealthy, it's a fantasy to sluff all the responsibility off on them.
@Robert--too many people are, for me, the principal problem. It is true that birthrates are lower, but even at that, the population still grows.
I also believe, as does the U.N., that environmental improvement goes hand-in-hand with economic improvement. Large, poor populations need infrastructure for sewage treatment and clean water. They need clean fuel supplies and food, all of which cost money.
So people in these groups need to be trained in green technology, plumbing, water treatment. They need a source of income to prevent sales of their rainforests (to McDonald's, for example). Green technology, building infrastructure, different farming techniques can provide some jobs.
Giving dense, poor populations a vision of a bright future, and how to obtain it, through education, is critical. Even in the U.S., there are families with decades of generational poverty and limited education. These groups need to be reached out to and given vision.
People everywhere must be inculcated with the idea that they can have a brighter future than their predecessors, with education and clean technology.
Otherwise, wealthy multinationals will continue to take advantage, with fast fashion, fossil fuel consumption, pirating of precious gems and minerals, low wages, lack of respect for human rights or the environment, and a worship of the bottom line.
1
No! Really? Well, dog my cats.
One of the things folks need to get over is their smug certainty that they, and only they, know The Truth. And that they must teach the Downtrodden what's what.
Turns out the downtrodden do jist fine, when they get half a chance to. And pften they don't, because you, and me, profit off their misery in ways that are difficult to distinguish from the profits of the wealthiest, from their point of view.
Anybody middle class or above in the first world IS rich, with respect to most of the world's population. Maybe pour a tad bit of Peter Singer on that?
As an experimental physicist, I can assure you there are indeed limits, ones that represent thresholds. And they exist in just about everything. Understanding this and being motivated by this understanding is precisely how strategies are developed. You do not need to put a number down and call it a 'limit' in order to utilize an awareness that there is always a straw which the camel best avoid.
There is an approach to social environmentalism that is very simple and foolproof: it is called sustainability. To preserve the Earth as we know it, we should avoid -- the best we can -- doing anything which cannot be understood to be basically sustainable.
This sort of 'rule' shuold be the first line in any Constitution. The first line. It is infinitely more important than any nationalistic hocus.
18
@Feldman: every exponential growth process breaks down at some limitation of a critical resource.
"Sustainability," doesn't mean much unless it's defined, which is precisely the sort of issue that this rather good article discusses. No, not everybody agrees what the word means.
That would require several billion of us to not be present fairly quickly.
Except for Africa, populations are generally declining. Africa does produce a lot of pollution, but they are not big energy consumers due to poverty and a warm climate.
As for everyone else, they like living the way they do and are not going to change. Without nuclear, it is unlikely CO2 emissions can be reduced very rapidly. The best approach would probably be to find a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
4
@Jonathan: Chemical separation is an energy-consuming process too.
I don't understand this piece at all, and I've read it back to
front as well as forward. It does trash the Enlightenment, though,
e.g. "no amount of scientific evidence, enlightened rational
thought..." Usually a piece like this will then offer religion
as an alternative, but that's not the case here. Not explicitly,
at least. He doubts "unlimited human ingenuity." Sorry, but I think
the human mind is the only known source of values as well as
technical solutions.
2
Actually, people who study the human thought process say that emotions and feelings precede intellectual inference, and many decisions are made and attitudes formed before rational analysis begins to take charge. And a big problem with the narrow focus of left-brain rational analysis is its inability to turn to the right-brain and see the big picture.
People struggling with change and insecurity are unlikely to engage in the detached thinking of the Enlightenment, as we discover when we ponder the true believers who follow Trump. As Plato noticed, Democracy cannot solve such problems, because people will not vote for self-sacrifice. When the inevitable crisis comes, the American Experiment will not be up to the challenge.
3
The point's very simple: we have to make decisions, and then stick by them. A secondary point is that the technology and the science will never tell us what to do, or somehow magically bail us out, or even (as in so many fantasies) innovate us out.
Example: the scientific fact of global warming and climate change is pretty much as clear as science gets. And we're coming up with a zillion excuses, alibis, and lies to ignore it.
2
@Charles Packer Let explain it to you then:
The author is explaining that like virtually all other human endeavor, in adapting to climate change, there will be winners and losers, because regardless of your political point of view, scientific rationale, or institutional quality, people will pursue their own self interest.
He is appealing to everyone to see beyond narrow self interest, and find ways to shoulder the cost burden of adaption for the sake of the species.
In short, he makes the case for enlightened self interest on behalf of the wealthy, and constant advocacy for the sake of the rest, because what is really killing us is inequality.
1
Good article. Banning drinking straws is mostly a meaningless hollow gesture showing no real sacrifice. It is in fact the very least we can do to save our planet.
Environmental activism dressed up in consumerism is not going to be nearly enough, fast enough. Drastic measures are needed and needed now.
Put down your soda and straw and put away that pint of ice cream. Neither will save the oceans or the rain forests. Pick up a pitchfork and a torch and march, by the millions, to the corporate headquarters and private mansions of the oligarchs and corporate executives who have the power to stop this madness before it’s too late.
And it may already be too late.
8
When I was a graduate student in in the sciences in 1962 at Princeton, a colleague remarked that there is no problem that science and technology cannot solve.
Here we are, with Ellis article lamenting our exclusive reliance on what science alone can do.
Science has become our' new god' and scientists are his 'high priests'. We forget that:
1-Science continually raises philosophical questions that go beyond the competence or purview of science.
2-Evidence of random chemical processes is not necessarily evidence for philosophical 'accidentalism'.
3-In science, an unanswered question is far more important than an unquestioned answer.
Unless we realize that man is not merely a 'little above chimps' but is created in Imago Dei, to tend and to care for this fragile planet, there will be is no hope for mankind.
3
@Kenell Touryan: Princeton has been the leading center of nuclear fusion research in the US from the outset. In 1950, this technology was expected to become practical in the 1970s. It was a pipe dream.
Unfortunately, about half the religious folks think that Jahweh or whoever wants us to eat the planet like an apple.
And I'd suggest that if you're going to go off about science, it's high time you learned that all the disciplines raise philosophical questions, that evolution is not at all "random," in the tornado-through-a-junkyard-and-out-pops-a-747 way you're claiming, and that inherent in the definition of scientific fact and theory is an openness to better fact and theory.
I recommend Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World." An oldie, but a goodie.
Yep. And that whole, "science can know and do ANTHING!" guy fantasy has pretty much left the building. Bit of a pity, really, but at least we understand the world and ourselves better without those particular rose-colored glasses.
I recommend a hefty dose of Thomas Kuhn.
1
I basically disagree with this approach. Unless there is an evolutionary mutation that transforms humans from selfish beings to selfless souls the solution will have to be imposed upon humanity. Yes, political policies yielding a sustainable human existence have to be forged, but without scientific solution, each nation, and within that nation, each interest group, will act in what they perceive to be their own self interest. That mindset is destructive, and the poorer most vulnerable countries will suffer, but that is human nature. Survival of the fittest will be the governing rule, unless science finds remedies that meet with consensus approval. Human nature sows the seeds of it’s own destruction.
11
@Asher Fried
As you seem to be interested in Darwinian concepts, you really should read Darwin, you'll be very surprised ... ;-)
As he clearly explained in his books, his "survival of the fittest" theory was a theory about selection between different SPECIES inhabiting a same niche and where all of a sudden that habitat changes. In that case, it's the species with the most individuals who happened to have physical traits that make them adapted to the new niche already, that will survive, whereas the other will tend to disappear.
When it comes to survival as a group of individuals INSIDE a specific species of mammals, though, Darwin has shown that its the capacity to collaborate with other individuals that determines the destiny of the group, NOT the capacity to be aggressive towards individuals of the same group.
And the idea that aggression towards other individuals or egoism would be innate and altruism an effect of "culture" has now also been completely refuted by the latest neuroscientific studies.
Altruism IS wired into our genes and brains. Put a mouse in a large cage, for instance, and another one in a tiny, closed cage inside that bigger one, and only feed the mouse in the large cage, and it will ... deliberately start sharing its meal with the one in the small cage, AS Darwin described already too.
So collaboration IS in our own interest, as mammals.
That's why the Paris Accord INCLUDES the poorer countries and helps them, remember?
2
@Asher Fried: We don't know how to prevent the bad from driving out the good. It is very difficult for gentle people to enforce minimum standards of conduct on bullies.
Yep. As de Waal and others have shown, cooperation, sympathy, altruism are every bit as coded into us as aggressivity. They're evolutionary advantages.
That old, "Me Grog, me take woman by hair drag to cave, then slay mighty mammoth fir big feast," jazz has been dead for decades, and good riddance.
The assumption that we regain contol, a control we never had in the first place--- or even assimilate to our drastically changing biosphere with a little social tweeking here and there is fairly naive. I'm NOT downplaying the premise here; I compost, plant /keep a diverse yard, and eventually will have solar panels and a hybrid car, all of which are heavily promoted through organization at the community level where I live.
While that serves as a feel-good solution locally, my larger sense is we're spitting in the wind.
That won't dissuade me from doing I'm doing, as at the very least, we're putting the right energy into this and helping to set trends. But I also recognize that humanity warned itself decades, if not a century ago, that what we are now facing was not only possible, but probable.
It's way too late for grass-roots solutions to be even remotely viable without looking at this from the opposite direction. The question is whether the species has the will to COMPLETELY overhaul its mindset as well as ALL its institutions including economic/political systems, ethics standards, even religion. The cruelest irony of the "saving grace" of ancient religion is, we won't survive its literal interpretation. We'd also had better figure out in a hurry how to tranform, NOW, growth-based economies world-wide into sustainability-based ones.
Oh, and let's PLEASE stop talking about "saving the planet." You can bet the planet will save herself....by being rid of us....
24
@kstew, Saving technological civilization is the real issue. Enrico gave it a life expectancy of 200 years after development of nuclear weapons.
2
@Steve Bolger: Enrico Fermi, who supervised the construction of the world's first nuclear reactor.
...and then worked hard to wake governments up about what they meant.
Dr Ellis, you have avoided addressing the only path that can save us from this:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/08/07/1810141115
We must confront, and defeat, the forces that are still actively working toward planetary catastrophe. We won't do it via fuzzy intellectual fantasies about negotiations and coming together. Koch, Exxon, Monsanto, Peabody, and the rest of them must be defeated by boycotting their products, prosecuting the perpetrators, and seizing the assets of the most malevolent polluting corporations.
This program must include boycotting all advertisers of media enablers such as Fox, Sinclair, and the rest of them. In today's media climate, people like Koch have even penetrated PBS.
We are up against the dark side. Hyper intellectual blathering won't defeat them. Actions will. Otherwise, there is a good chance that humans will be extinct within a century.
12
@Mike Roddy - How exactly will this impact coal turbines in India and China?
1
@Jonathan, funny you should mention that. I published an article called What About China and India in Climate Progress eight years ago (scroll down):
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/06/mike-roddy-on-climat...
It's a silly, chest-thumping statement, sure, but turbines do not run on coal. Basically, you use coal to heat water, and run steam through a turbine to spin it, in order to spin a generator.
A little more precision, about tech and about politics, goes a long way.
As a scientists myself, I suggest a somewhat different perspective.
The earth is not in crisis. The planet, and some variation of its natural environment, will survive quite nicely, thank you, until the sun supernovas and wipes out all species and the entire atmosphere with it. The sun will suffer no guilt complex in executing this wholesale massacre, nor should it.
That being said, the author rightly posits: what kind of earth do we humans choose and/or plan to live on?
For some strange reason (theocracies flourishing around the world?) population regulation has largely been taken off the table. This is too bad. We now have too many people consuming too many land, water, air resources to sustain an environmentally healthy way of life. Very sad, but very true. Meanwhile, we have religious groups fanning out across the globe trying to 'save' unborn 'babies' in are where there are far too many born babies already. This problem is not going away, and despite conservative nonsense to the contrary, needs to be honestly addressed.
As I tell any and all self-proclaimed 'environmentalists', if you're only worried about carbon emissions, mines, pesticides, etc. (repeat trite litany), you will NEVER solve the underlying causation. Too many people.
70
So true! Climate change will test the limits of human nature and to what degree we can repress our own egos for a greater good and survival. There is no 'app' for that. In observing human nature and behavior to this point, the outlook does not look promising. Survival of the fittest; nature has a way of bringing balance eventually to any overly successful species.
1
@dmckj
As this op-ed correctly remembers, ALL scientific studies about population show that we an easily add a couple more billion people without necessarily damaging the current climate even more.
So no, it's not theocracy (there are only a handful of states that are theocracies, and even they, without any exception, signed and are now implementing the Paris Climate Agreement, whereas the only one to withdraw was Donald Trump, not immediately the most religious person out there, to say the least ...) that prevents us from starting to see population reduction as the main solution here, it's science.
If you start verifying your hypothesis, you'll see.
And if for one or the other reason you don't, here's a first fact.
The US has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world. Because of that, with only 6% of the world's population, it's responsible for a whopping 25% of the world's carbon emissions.
"Oh but then cut the US population in half!", you could reply. We'll suppose for a moment that you'll have enough altruism in you to commit suicide rather than killing your neighbor, and look at the consequences.
150 million Americans instead of 300M means that instead of stabilizing the atmospheric CO2 level (as the Paris accord is designed to do) the increase that we'd reach in one year, will now take 2 years, and that's it.
So it's no solution, you see?
At the same time, countries with the highest birthrate are also poorest, so their CO2 footprint is very low...
1
@dmckj: In the simplest economic terms, population growth produces diminishing marginal returns that eventually go negative. We are well past the point where adding to population reduces the value of everyone, because value is set at the margin.
Okay, I’ll start the negotiation across diverse societies. We rich countries will spend more to reduce (limit) our carbon footprint if you poor countries will do more to slow (limit) your population growth.
10
@Marianne I lived for years in the midst of very poor people. A large family is a kind of social security policy. Parents instinctively have many children because someone needs to take care of them in their old age. When their standard of living improves and hopes for a better future appear, they instinctively stop having so many children. In other words, if the rich countries want the poor countries to cut down on population, they should help the poor countries find prosperity.
But then comes the irony. Population growth under control, consumption will rise, with its inevitable waste and environmental destruction.
@Marianne
That's based on a false premisse: that the problem would be the number of people on earth. It isn't, as study after study shows (and if we want to fight climate change because science shows it's dangerous, why wouldn't we also take scientific studies into account when it comes to trying to find solutions ... ?).
Poor countries are "subsistence economy" countries. People live from the crops they grow in their own garden, and can't make any profits or buy stuff, because they need what their garden produces in order to eat and survive.
And HOW to obtain enough food to survive? By having about 10 children, knowing that half of them will die in childhood, and that you need the other half to work on the fields first to feed your family, and the to feed you when you're too old to still be able to work on the fields.
Asking those people to make less children means asking them to collectively commit suicide, you see?
Now here's another fact you have to take into account to obtain the full picture. The US has the largest carbon footprint in the world, whereas the poorest countries have a carbon footprint that is 15 to 150 times lower. With only 6% of the world's population, the US is responsible for 25% of global CO2 emissions. And most climate change damage is inflicted in the regions on earth where poor people happen to live.
So WE destroyed their instead of our habitat in the first place, you see? That's why the LEAST we can do now is to stop emitting so much CO2.
1
One of the aspirations the species has to envisage is a smaller "humanity". The earth can only sustain a reasonable lifestyle for so many humans and persons; around 1.5 to 2 billion less than we have.
The main impediment to this aspiration is religion, followed by greed (excess people are consumers and workers).
The earth's resources are finite and we either live within that or we leave the planet. Which is currently, technologically impossible.
Dr Ellis talks of modified social interactions but this is an empty platitude in the face of a "shrinking" resource base. A desperate person's social interactions will focus on survival at any cost, particularly violence. Anything else is in conflict with millions of years of evolution.
22
@Philip Brown: One cannot reiterate it too much: the scale-independent root cause of genocidal war between humans is population growth of tribes competing for resources coming up against their real or perceived limits.
1
What the author is proposing is a sociological change. The so-called "hard" sciences cannot provide the answers we need because they are based on human needs that are diverse. If you live on the coast, you will be far more aware of and effected by rising water. If you live in the over-heated west, then you pray for rain. How do we resolving these competing interest? First, we need a rational, uniting, integrated strategy that doesn't pit one group (coal miners) against another (people clambering for renewable sources of energy). Gee, we are miles from there. The hill we need to climb as a nation and as a human society just keeps getting steeper. Get with the work that must be done or drown in our own waste. Those really ARE the choices.
5
Well ... isn't that exactly what the Paris Climate Agreement is a perfect example of ... ?
What this op-ed defends seem to exist already, and even on a planetary scale (largely thanks to Obama, by the way).
The problem today is that in order to CONTINUE this approach, the entire world needs to have a serious conversation with America's conservatives, because:
1. the US has the biggest carbon footprint per capita in the entire world, so on average, an American citizen contributes much more to harmful climate change than any other citizen in the world
2. America's conservatives, contrary to all other conservatives on this planet, for more than a decade now have decided that they prefer to limit their scope to the short-term interests of their wealthy donors and their own political careers alone, and that to do so they need to spread the myth that when it comes to climate change there is no scientific consensus, and that paying other countries to help them mitigate the effects of the US (and China) - caused climate change would somehow be "unfair".
THAT is, concretely, the next urgent step, as with only 6% of the world's population, the US is responsible for 25% of the current CO2 emissions (and for an even higher percentage of the current atmospheric CO2 level, knowing that CO2 remains 100 years in the atmosphere before being absorbed by plants, oceans, etc.).
It means INFORMING GOP voters of why GOP conspiracy theories are fake news, if not, things will only get worse.
15
Ana is right -- but she doesn't go far enough. It's not just the GOP -- it's virtually the entire US political class. If we were truly serious about doing something that would have a true impact, we would look at where we put our money. The real US defense budget is a trillion dollars per year. The US political class now wants to build a "Space Force" and is planning to spend trillions on "upgrading" our nuclear weapons -- a plan hatched, it is crucial to note, under Obama. Imagine what could be done if this money were redirected toward measures to mitigate climate change and especially to help people across the world who are already suffering because of our decades of profligacy -- instead of bombing, killing, and maintaining a "soft" empire. But I am afraid I am a pessimist -- too many extremely powerful interests are too invested in the system that exists for even the most pro-environmentalist politicians to challenge the fundamental institutional structures that must be dismantled if there is to be hope from the US.
1
@Gary
Obama doubled investments in clean energy, phased out coal, and most of all, was the driving force behind the historic Paris Climate Agreement, that all countries except for Nicaragua signed. It lays the groundwork for all the necessary, urgent international agreements to come.
Trump and the GOP are doing the exact opposite.
You cannot possibly call two movements going into the exact opposite direction "the same", just because both sides are only taking their first steps right now. It still remains the exact opposite direction, and that is exactly what we need.
Apart from that, as Saul Alinsky has already shown, all real, radical, lasting democratic change is step by step change.
So we should never allow cynicism to take over, but instead keep focusing on our end goals all while putting all our energy into figuring out what the next step can and should be and how to achieve something like that.
And the next step is starting to reduce the power of Fox News to spread fake news by actively and respectfully providing facts and arguments to GOP voters - and to make part of the progressives in this country understand that there's way too much work to continue to stand at the sidelines yelling "not enough!" to those struggling in the mud and waiting for the perfect candidate/Savior who will accomplish all our ideals overnight, without needing our own, lifelong engagement ...
Earth has, over 5 billion years,had many different atmospheres. An oxygen level at 21% is a “recent” change that allows human survival. The mechanisms that control that level, neither rising or falling, are what we are sabotaging. The planet doesn’t depend on us. We depend on the mantle of just the right concentration of gases overhead.
We are a reactive species and will scramble only when floods, fires, droughts and monster storms become normal. We had our chance.
14
Against the odds, maybe, I continue to be optimistic, but the solution has to be political. To that end, the United States has to retake its position of positive and enlightened leadership in the world. The voting public has to be alerted and enervated to the crisis to the point that they awaken to vote in responsible and capable leadership. Then, acting in concert with the other nations of the world (who are currently way ahead of us in this effort), we put in place measures necessary to slow down and eventually reverse the releasing of green house gases.
That is the way humans solved problems in the past although the current global environmental crisis is more serious and potential deadly than anything previous.
1
The estimate of 2.4 Billion people has been noted as, ""were they to disappear, there would be no economic impact on a planetary scale". This notion doesn't sit well with religious and political zealotry of all persuasions. The Earth's biosphere at ~ 8 Billion human users and growing is already unsustainable.
Anthropocene is a charming attention-getter and book-selling neologism but there are many who believe that it started only six thousand years ago in Eden. There are ~ 7.95 Billion people who have never heard the term, nor, would understand or care about the concept or peril within the context of their world view.
Far too little and far too late to do anything about far too many.
28
@ladps89
Fortunately, science shows you wrong. And why wouldn't we based our political opinions and actions on science ... ?
As this op-ed correctly remembers, the earth can easily sustain $11 billion people. That has been proven scientifically over and over again.
What is NOT possible is to avoid an increasing of the Sixth Extinction (= rapid disappearing of the diversity of species) IF:
1. more and more people would adopt an American lifestyle (the US has the biggest carbon footprint per capita in the world, and is responsible for 25% of global CO2 emissions, even though it only contains 6% of the world's population
2. Americans don't start reading science and change the way they produce things and live.
All over the world, scientists AND conservative political parties of all types of religion - including Christian and Muslim - work hard to obtain local and global change and slow down global warming.
So let's not become cynical and start imagining that we're doomed just because a handful of American Evangelicals are afraid to adopt an interpretation of Scripture that would take science into account, and go having real, respectful debates with those (in general perfectly decent and well-intentioned) people, so that Fox News and the Koch brothers loose their power to spread propaganda and as such betray GOP voters on a daily basis.
Yes we can ... ! ;-)
(By the way, ALL countries except the US signed the Paris Accord, remember? That's 7.6 billion people ... ;-))
1
If every human lived in the greenest way possible, sure that would help a lot. Airplanes cause the greatest damage to the environment-but what is the substitute for jet fuel, and are rich people going to stop flying? Even if we could all live in a Eco-friendly way, the real problem, the one people don't want to face, is overpopulation. We, as a planet, should be severely restricting births the way China did but that idea is too radical for most. The fact that China is now reversing the restriction on births might be good for China in the short term but it is not good for the Earth, long term. At the rate humans are reproducing there will be 12 billion people on Earth by 2050-50% more than now! Where will 50% more land, water, food and jobs come from? Maybe we won't have to worry about it; maybe famine, drought and plague will kill off billions of us first.
39
Population, of course it’s population! But today we live in a world where our economy is based solely on growth - and that growth is based nearly entirely on population expansion. We are committing ourselves to a course where we trash the planet like a frat house on homecoming weekend.
Are “we” willing to undergo the incredible social pain of reducing the world population to somewhere in the 3 billion range? I’m not a scientist, but it seems that unless we do, we’re destined in the best case scenario to live in a world resembling an overcrowded aquarium with ever more elaborate filtering systems.
17
@CJ
The 'solution' to too many people and too few resources will be what it has always been: war, famine, and disease.
Some things never change.
There are 7.6 billion humans right now; there will be almost 10 billion by 2050. Most of this increase of roughly one third will be in the world's most backward countries amongst the world's poorest and worst educated.
A third more mouths to be fed. A third more persons burning carbon fuels, producing CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases. A third more humans competing for access to ever-dwindling scant resources: cultivable land; fresh water; medical care; schools; affordable housing; congested roads; low-skill jobs at a time that robots will replacing those jobs.
How does this benefit humanity as a whole, other species, or the planet?
23
@Colenso. Why do you and any thinking human see the obvious, but the nyts and the left continue for what can only be PC reasons, continue to hide their heads in the sand when it comes to population. By not addressing the number one problem facing humanity we doom ourselves and the planet as a whole.
2
Colenso,
Funny isn't it...
We, the smartest, most educated and wealthy, the world has ever known, are also the biggest polluters and defilers on the planet. And we have been for quite some time.
Yet we dare to call others backwards, poor and uneducated.
Funny isn't it...?!
2
This editorial is both informative and appalling; Dr. Ellis may have a viable thesis in there, but it's mixed in with some really bad thinking.
He's correct in that science alone isn't enough - the world is made by the people who show up for the job. We need to get people to show up - and that's always been the challenge.
Kevin Drum did a far better job laying out the problem. How do you get people to care about the future and a sustained effort to get to a good one? Climate Change is the BIG challenge on that.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/how-to-fight-climate-change/
But - saying we should stop talking about limits or technological solutions because it turns into a argument over which experts we should trust is to conflate the problem of knowing what we can/should do with acting on it.
Try a sports metaphor - football. Science is like the rules of the game: so many yards to work in, so much time to act, and only certain actions are allowed by the rules. In a way, scientists are like referees. You may not agree with their calls, but you couldn't have a game without them.
Ingenuity, technology - think of that like plays to move the ball down the field. They depend on both cleverness and execution to succeed - within the rules. The plays won't work without players who can pull them off.
What Ellis wants is to get the crowd out of the stands and into the game so everyone shares in a win, and agrees what is a win. He's not clear on how to do that.
17
Good article, poorly entitled. Btw, good politicians, diplomats and lawyers are the technicians who can make these changes happen. Though often scorned they ought to have the skills to compromise and work the rules to achieve these kinds of goals. The goals themselves should be made by electorates, educated by teachers and scientists. Intemperance and rigidity by any of these six groups spells trouble. We are in that kind of trouble now from trump and the Roberts court, largely for reasons not directly connected to climate. But the climate suffers anyway. As do most of the rest of us.
1
@Rhporter
"...good politicians"...??!!
In this day and age of the career politicians pandering to the electorate to get reelected, this expression has become almost as egregious an oxymoron as " military intelligence".
This is an incredibly important concept - though not new - that came close to being clear. The penultimate paragraph is a good illustration of how the arrow missed the mark. "The greatest challenge of our time is not....". Yeah, we got that, but what is it? Denying natural limits and boundaries is not rational, but it is true that exceeding them will hurt many and help some. How do we change - especially the American - culture so that we view the earth as a "lifeboat" that we are all in together? Unfortunately, no ideas come from this article...
13
@Reader: nature has a scale independence that puts the whole Earth on the same footing as Easter Island. When the resources tribes compete for by growth of population run out, genocidal warfare ensues.
Three decades ago, the entire civilized world came together to reduce the use o f fluorocarbon aerosols. As a result, a great size of the planet's ozone layer was preserved.
Carbon dioxide is a different and more pernicious threat, and science will come up with some kind of recycling resolution. It is completely possible!
@rick: There are rocks that absorb and sequester CO2, but the sheer quantity of rock required and the energy consumption of mining it or injecting CO2 into it are daunting. One thing that hasn't been suggested is harvesting the vast seaweed blooms fertilized by rivers, such as the present Caribbean sargasso bloom fertilized by the Amazon River.
@rick
Maybe. It's as "possible" as the idea that "science will come up with some kind of solution" against brain cancer.
In the meanwhile, people are dying, species are becoming extinct, tens of millions of people are already displaced only because of the current 250 million year record atmospheric CO2 level increases.
So we don't have the time to sit and wait and congratulate ourselves for how wonderful we are to have invented an activity called "science". ALL the most important solutions to stop this process are ALREADY known, so now is the time to act ... just like in the 1970s people didn't continue to put more ozon-destroying gasses in the atmosphere, vaguely thinking that one day science will discover massive recycling solution, but instead legally banned those gases, forcing chemical companies to use existing alternatives.
We already have all the science we need to act. Now, we must have the courage to confront reality as it is, and take political action. No more excuses.
Concretely, that means urgently becoming one-issue voters and massively vote the GOP out, until they become a decent, serious political party again, just like all other conservative political parties out there.
Is abortion holding you back? No problem. Studies have shown that Democrats' combined policies of legalizing and preventing reduce the number of abortions a year MORE than GOP policies. So even here, the GOP is "all talk no action".
@Ana Luisa, People are even cheating on the prohibition of chloro-carbon refrigerants.
The sun is now rising on the west coast; it will tomorrow as well, day after too. whether there are any humans around to greet it is not so assured. Our loss, natures gain.
5
@James Griffin: the application of human intelligence to nature suggests that nature works best without thinking.
1
Essentially, if we don't think of planetary goals, we make an even bigger mess.
Currently our goals are pretty self-contained - from survival to survival in luxury.
But our goals are not to assure that we have enough free oxygen, enough productive land, enough potable water, enough forest and open land, enough energy to sustain a planets worth of people. We haven't even come close to higher level luxuries like medical care and a safe roof, or the real luxuries, like education, transportation and work for a whole planet.
And that is where the idea of limits came from. How many human animals can the planet feed, how many can it shelter, if we continue to consume what we consume, without an idea of how to change? How to reverse carbon in the atmosphere, make land arable and have sufficient water to grow things. How to have energy to reduce the misery in regions that are less habitable. How to reduce the waste stream to reuse things we cannot reuse, like the carbon trapped in plastic?
Limits may not be the answer, but they do a fine job of posing the bigger questions.
4
I don't mean to be dense, but I need examples. In our small city, some of us debate the relative values of systemic change versus individual action. I lean toward systemic change while others (and I don't disagree) feel that individual actions create a sense of being stakeholders in the fate of the planet. Erle Ellis says there's a third way, or rather, a way forward that integrates both values but goes beyond them. What kind of discussions are needed and what actions do we take?
In my city, we have our own version of the haves and have nots-- those who live as far as possible from from the core and use the most resources, and those who live near industry and heavily trafficked roads and are resource-poor. I and my colleagues (mostly community organizers, not scientists), not having the opportunity to be policymakers on a global scale, focus instead on what we can do with what is right before us. What else do we need to do? How can we do more?
10
Yes, population numbers, millennia of accumulated practice in animal husbandry, and a century and a half of the industrial revolution now pose a major threat to a world alternately flooded or burning. "In the end, it is people, and their institutions — not science — that will decide the future." When did the people ever "decide" anything? I imagine an olive oil producer in Ancient Greece, and wonder what he knew of the dimensions and angles of the Parthenon: did he lose sleep contemplating Doric versus Ionic columns? In Ancient Rome, bread and circuses were on the list of crowd control measures, as were the galley and crucifixion. But the “people” had no say in government other than the ability to gum up the works by withdrawing their consent to be governed. We celebrate the notion of Magna Carta of Runnymede, 1215, but forget that the winners were the barons and not the people. Even the Glorious Revolution of 1688 favored the merchant and political classes, which at that time definitely did not include “the people.” And these days, we celebrate one hundred years of a woman’s right to vote. As E.O. Wilson put it, we have god-like technology, medieval institutions, and Paleolithic emotions. Change has always been imposed on the people or sold to them by smooth talkers, some of whom were and are no better than carnival barkers.
22
@Des Johnson, the "Glorious Revolution" was motivated by guilds seeking to self-regulate to prevent the bad from driving out the good.
Kudos - finally a pragmatist viewpoint. It is time again to think anew in this country and lead the world into a brighter future than the course the world in currently on. The common good need to be re-emphasized and taught as a value along with practical, politically viable, and socially acceptable solutions. Notice I do not mention science though I have spent my life in it.
3
“The human age will be no Eden or dystopia, but an everlasting struggle among different people seeking different futures.”
Indeed. There is no greater delusion than that of parents of young children today who somehow think their kids will grow up to live and work to be passive consumers in a stable society on a stable planet. In coming decades, the fantasy of endless growth and a technological, capitalist solution for every human problem will end. Fortunately, this beautiful planet—a true paradise we have taken for granted—will go on, though without us.
21
"In wildness is the preservation of the world." Henry David Thoreau
Man was destined by his "advanced" technological culture to never explore in any depth the true meaning of these words and to discover how, if lived, they could fundamentally transform his trajectory toward an ecological civilization. And how we would now be eco logically embracing E. O. Wilson's concept of 50% wild, instead of never giving this seed of wisdom a chance to escape the industrial hive mindset of it being a nutty idea.
Now, deep in our reckoning with not sustaining the dominance of the wild and tipping the balance heavily but briefly to the side of industrial man, we are still not inclined to rethink "the meek shall inherit the earth" and render the shall -- the shallow -- into must.
And so looms the hard rock of ages with no salvation from the rock of ages.
3
For the last ten years I have refused plastic bags when I only have one or two items. rarely drink anything from a plastic bottle, and ask that drinks and food I order not have a plastic cover.
I am always a bit surprised by the reaction I get which is almost always are you sure.
It is stunning to me how food service establishments force the creation of waste by putting everything in covered food and drink containers even when you're eating in. I have been told I have to take a bag or have covers put on even when I say "I'm trying to save the planet"
22
It seems we are on the same mission, people are stunned that my idea of a few left bags of straws will make a difference but it will if we all do it and I guess that’s the point of the article there must be a “we” in this somewhere & that even small steps in getting people fully on board with this thinking will make a difference versus not at all
I have read reports by scientists that the Siberian permafrost contains the potential to release, quite suddenly, enough methane to destroy civilization in five years . Methane within the Arctic circle is already boiling to the surface from current global heating in northern Canada and Alaska and in Siberia and there is no way to determine when the massive final destructive release will occur. It is very likely too late already to stop.
No doubt nature always provides obstacles to each species to test as to whether it can survive. It seems humans have failed that test. Horseshoe crabs have done far better than humans up to this point bu they too must pass this test.
30
@Jan Sand, yes it is very likely too late already to stop. We had the possibility some time ago. Read the article of Nathaniel Rich: Losing Earth: "The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change".
You'll find it in the Magazine.
We need more than science, because so many people do not understand science, even among a good number of STEM graduates. There's more than enough anti-science to go around, especially related to evolution and climate change. Yet, most of us are addicted to the products of science. We can't give up our warmed and heated houses, cars, heavily plastic-packaged goods transported across oceans. We also have great difficulty with probability. So many authors write as though they know, but we don't know the future. Taleb's Black Swan may be just around the corner. We are on a bleak trajectory that we can't seem to stop. We have been very poor about housekeeping (too much like women's work), cleaning up after ourselves in our use of resources, especially air and water--or cherishing resources because we only have one planet.
15
@snowy owl
If it happens it must come from individual initiative. The politicians at the state and federal level are bought and paid for. I'm starting an initiative to stop the use of Roundup in my neighborhood which will cause a 90% reduction in it's use. If enough of us ban together we can cause local elected officials to ban it's use(like we've done with plastic bags). I am hopeful we can stop it's sale in Home Depot etc. Next up: no bale requirement for non violent crimes!
2
@snowy owl: I think most fusion physicists believe that a practical reactor would only delay the crushing of the planet by an even larger number of people.
2
@CW. Individual action is important but inspired and inspiring leadership must be part of the solution. the population of the u.s. has doubled in my lifetime basically negating any effect of personal choices or lifestyle. Until we acknowledge the role of the number of humans as well as how they live, we're wasting our time. No one on either side will talk about it so we drift further from real solutions every day.
1
What collective body is up to this task? Who will envision a better vision? Who will listen and who will act? I fear we do not have the social and political structures in place that will lead us forward in the most necessary and creative ways.
9
@Sue
It's up to you as an individual to bypass government and seize the the iniative with your neighbors. Plastic bags are going the way of smoking due to local pressure on local governments.
@Sue
We do have the social and political structures to attack global warming. Every country in the world has signed the accord including the U.S., trump and his followers are a crazed aberration the we the people will need to dispose of very soon.
@Sue
James Conant (near the top of the Manhattan Project, President of Harvard, and maybe the most institututionally influential guy in the Truman and Eisenhower administration) titled his autobiography
"Memoirs of a social inventor."
We need some SOCIAL INVENTION - and a way to get it perfected and legitimated, to solve some basic problems. My sense is that the UN will need to be involved when the challenges are global.
Dr. Ellis is of course right that resource utilization is a human problem and requires a human solution. However, science and technology still have a major role to play. First of all, a major energy utilization problem is how we can efficiently move energy from locations of generation and locations of consumption. Solving this issue can go a long way towards alleviating the immediate problem. Second, we have not reach the potential of renewable energy relative to fossil fuel. I do not think that experts twenty years ago expect the broad adoption of renewable today. Third, we have tried for a half century to create clean nuclear energy based on fusion process. While we are still not there, it is not hopeless. Fourth, our environmental problem is our human population problem. Assuming we don't kill off ourselves and the planet in the near term, the long term trend in advanced societies is a reduction in population. Finally, can science and technology provide human an escape valve? Would colonizing other planets reduce environmental pressure and save human race?
While human race is extremely destructive, I also would not bet against the "better angels of our nature" will save us and the planet.
2
@Peter: Nothing is more energy consuming per unit of mass than launching objects into space.
2
Dr. Ellis is right in many ways, but his outline of what we need to do to "save the planet" is about as useful as comments below that say we must end all fossil fuel use today. Which is to say, not useful. He states we need to "focus on opportunities for collective betterment", "focus on strategies for working more effectively together", etc. - well, what are those strategies? Resource shortages are driving social conflict around the world, even in the U.S. where the have-nots are increasingly looking for an autocratic "dear leader" to make their lives "great". It is the case across all cultures and time that if one is worried about eating today, one has little to no regard for 50 years down the road. It is absolutely true that we won't solve the problems until humans change their view of the world that we live in, to include different values (community, compassion, respect for others including other living beings) than the ones we hold dear today ("success", power, competition and individual triumph). The only way to get there is to realize that we DO live in a world with limits, and that limiting oneself is an act of compassion for the world - human and natural. Good luck with that getting the wealthy to pay up part of the plan.
34
Mr. Ellis is right of course, but the chances of this conversation happening with any concrete results are nil. The only chance we have is technology. Where is the Manhattan project to come up with cheap and efficient carbon sequestration?
8
We have a $700 billion dollar annual military budget. Our citizens and policymakers alike would rather keep our war machine employed in distant wars than even commit to universal health care. Even if we could get public support for a large-scale federal technological project to address climate effects, it would likely be too late for much of the world.
4
@Oh please: even the magnitudes of fertilizer needed for biological sequestration of CO2 are daunting.
People tend ultimately to use the weapons we build at such massive expense.
Talking will not help. We need to end using fossil fuels immediately, globally. This will break our industrial, service and mass-consumer societies. Using "green" energy to drive a system designed for using fossil fuels is not feasible (at least not with current technology). All we can do is try to find the least painful ways to transition back to largely agricultural societies. Everything else is not sustainable.
18
@Dietmar Logoz I agree, but I read that's it's the beef industry who is the biggest polluter... so this can be on the agenda too.
This is very easy to say, but very difficult to achieve in the real world. The author is making an excellent point about the need for global, social processes to negotiate the multinational economic and political landscapes to achieve meaningful progress.
I would suggest that science and technology are the whole reason we are in the situation we in today. One of the first uses of the new technology of fire back when we were hunter-gatherers was to burn forests to make hunting easier. We as humans are simply incapable of managing the output of our creative intellects in a way that is not only not self destructive, but is not impactful to the rest of the life on this planet. I cannot see that changing; all of humanity is addicted to fossil fuels in a serious way, we have enjoyed the economic and technological bounty it has brought us over the last 200 years and nobody really wants to give that up. We are like the alcoholic who says I can always quit tomorrow so I will have just one more drink today.
69
Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion over just the next 25 years will exceed 1 trillion metric tons. It is already baked in. Additional contributions from massive forest fires and methane outgassing from melting permafrost are unknown.
17
@Scott Werden. The most important thing is that we never, under any circumstances, discuss the near 8 billion people here now and the billions more to come. There are no solutions, real, imagined, pie in the sky or any other kind that will save us or the other inhabitants of the planet if we don't acknowledge and address the issue of human numbers and how we have to reduce them as well as address the way we live. The nyts and the left will talk all day about technology and its role but never discuss the other half of the problem, the number of humans.
9
@Scott Werden Shorter version: people are stupid - we're doomed.
Jared Diamond's book "Collapse - How societies choose to fail or succeed" lays out historical examples of how societies have come up against existential threats before, and the outcome.
http://www.jareddiamond.org/Jared_Diamond/Collapse.html
The problem now is that we've gotten to the point where a collapse could be global. The solutions have to be as well.
Perhaps humans as a species have reached a new and different type of limit than the author contemplates; our capacity to collectively understand this evolving ecological mess and the capacity to take action to correct it. These things may not be within our mental collective genes. The consequence of this may be that we slide into an unpredictable dystopian future, a 'hothouse' planet, unable to revisit or even recall the technological achievements we once made. That is a real risk. Perhaps when the rising waters start lapping at the door and the methane starts to soar, we will somehow take action, or perhaps we will metaphorically cut down the last tree on Easter Island and throw it on the fire.
26
As a scientist who believes that the empirical evidence shows that climate change is real and will get worse without significant major changes in the way we live, I still find that that knowledge may not lead to solutions in a somewhat unstable world. The sentence, "To engage productively with the world we are creating, we must focus on strategies for working more effectively together across all of our diverse and unequal social worlds" really speaks to the driving force to find solutions. As the Defense Department has noted in its reviews of the world over the past decade, the affects associated with the changing climate are a national security issue. Many of the problems in the world right now, whether wars, or immigrants are due to droughts, floods, famines that pit one group against another for resources are a result of climate change intensifying these natural phenomena . So far, we in the US, have not seen this directly, but only second hand, but we have seen other impacts, such as fire, hurricanes, tornadoes etc. Finding solutions to those problems will require the wealthy countries to both pay for solutions, and find solutions that are not carbon intensive, but provide people in less fortunate countries with a better life than they have now. It can be done, if we have the will to do it.
42
@Steve
Unfortunately we americans do not have the will to do it.
The evangelicals believe god will do what needs to be done and our current government, run by zealously religious people, only mimics the same belief.
Also, how will we convince the 1% to contribute more to sustainability programs when they're too busy counting their tax breaks.
18
@Steve
The fires in California create climate refugees. The hurricanes in Texas and Puerto Rico last year created climate refugees.
All well and fine in a useless academic way. All species eventually go extinct, that is the record of the environment. Humans are going to have the distinction of being the first self extinguishing species. Humans will knowingly continue to destroy the environment of the Earth, because basic human behavior operates on greed, fear and denial. The more wealth humans acquire the more these characteristics are expressed. Look at the political landscape of the World today, there is no serious effort being made-just endless International meetings of no consequence.
The reactionary wealthy down deep think that they are going to fly off in their Gulfstream 50's to their private shagri-la's when the environment really begins to degrade and that their wealth and connections will protect them. They will make sure that they make no sacrifices. One cannot breath or drink wealth.
I have lived along life and can see the increasing degradation of the environment, I pity the children being born today and their grandchildren because the earth they will inherit will be a visibly dying and they will be unable to stop it,
73
@Plimsol----------------------" basic human behavior operates on greed, fear and denial. " Perfectly put. Thank you. Perhaps it could be put up on ahuge bill-boards, straddling all our major highways. It might sink in after a while.
1
What will happen will be some combination of adaptation, mitigation and conflict at multiple scales, with the rich and powerful benefitting the most and the poor and weak suffering the most, which is exactly what we have now, and which is what we have always had.
21
One depressing scientific fact to ponder: the laws of thermodynamics, especially the law of conservation of mass/ energy. This sets a hard limits to growth. There’s only so much carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc on this planet. Some of it needs to be in the fertilizer that feeds the plants that we eat in turn.
We’re passing sustainable limits of population. We’re running out of fresh water to drink, arable land to grow crops, and other minimal needs. Many of our current systems run on fossil fuels to run tractors to grow crops, ships, trains, and trucks to bring them to our tables. What happens when these are exhausted?
It’s going to be “interesting times” soon, and they’ll get more and more interesting as exploitable resources get more scarce. If we don’t reach a sustainable level of resource useage soon, things will be very grim.
22
Those who deny the science and defend the status quo for economic reasons are leaving some big numbers out of the equation. For every dollar that we've saved on cheap energy or exploitation of resources, we're now spending two dollars on mitigation or recovery. We're seeing warmer temperatures, more vigorous storms, and intense human suffering.
The big bills are coming in and we're still living paycheck-to-paycheck on a global scale.
44
Science cannot predict exactly what the results of human activities will have but we can predict the possible results and they are daunting.
The elimination of wild environments would not just end the beauty of diversity we have known in could eliminate the sources of genetic resources to counter the diminishment of genetic vitality of plants people depend upon. It may be that mankind will have to keep human activity out of half of the planet just to keep or planet able to support people into the future.
Climate change driven by carbon gases could be minor, meaning what we are experiencing, now, or catastrophic. The process of warming the air and sea, rising sea levels, melting of permafrost, massive dying off of vegetation from changing climates causing droughts and spreading of pests to which plants are unable to adapt could produce a cascading effect where one change initiated many more. The worst outcomes cold result like great rises of sea level and much higher average temperatures, increasing drought conditions diminishing agricultural production. Great human migrations and Wars over arable land and control of water.
7
Science does what, exactly? Thoughtful consideration of real world activity results in an accurate description and a plausible explanation about it. Then real world factual information is used to confirm them. All attempts to confirm what was offered must produce similar results to actually prove the proposition. This is an inductive kind of reasoning process for which empirical proof is needed to result in a sound conclusion. We trust science because of the method not because of any inherent authority is involved. The conclusions from science are never absolutely true, any subsequent work that contradicts can disprove.
Science produces results in the ways it is used. If science is used to solve climate change or to use more fossil fuels that exacerbates climate changes it’s science either way.
6
“Collectively, we have the potential to create a much better planet than the one we are creating now”
While the article had many creative ideas to posit, some or much seemed a bit conceptually pollyanna.
Wait too long and the basic systems will exceed their limits. Too little forest cover limits carbon sequestration and shading/ weather tempering.
Limits are as natural as quantum physics.
15
I have a terrible feeling that "the wealthy and the vested interests of this world" really don't mind the idea of billions of people dying off. Their wealth will protect them.
155
@DB Let's not fall back into the 1% bogey man script. Hundreds of millions of much poorer people, concentrated mostly in Asia and South Asia, will continue the slide into climate change whether or not the wealthy are insulated from the affects.
3
@DB "Their wealth will protect them."
The wealthy, with some exceptions, live solely for the pleasure of being privileged and pampered. In view of the absolute 'truths' of the effect of over consuming, married with Veblen's 'conspicuous consumption', we all, including the middle class, drive ourselves to extinction. How then can wealth protect anyone? If billions die, who will make their yachts?
@DB. The left seems to think that bringing them all here is a viable solution. In reality, it is the worst thing we can do. Better to help them solve their problems (yes including birth control ) at home while we work on the same problems here. Making all the unhappy people on earth westerners may make the guilt ridden left feel better but in the end it just accelerates the planets collapse for all of us.
With Trump, climate change denier
Literally setting Earth on fire
A Congress inutile
Whose efforts are futile
On speaking out we must not tire.
Asbestos he is bringing back
Of lead in paint we will not lack
Air-water pollution
Is the Don's solution
We really must give him the sack!
44
You may be able to solve your own problems, but when it comes to the wellbeing of the world you are living in, one person will not suffice. Although science has helped the development of the environmental challenges that we have faced and are encountering, it cannot be done without someone to ignite its flame and the possibilities that will arise.
Now I may not be an environmental expert or know the science behind climate change, however, I understand the environmental matters we are facing. The effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions is destructive and pollutant. I believe it is imperative that we continue our efforts to gradually aid the consequences that will occur if we allow climate change to progress.
There were numerous statements throughout this article that I found remarkable and could not have agreed more with, such as “To engage productively with the world we are creating, we must focus on strategies for working more effectively together across all of our diverse and unequal social worlds.”
Since the human race is the one main cause of global warming, WE must be the ones to act upon the situation at greater lengths in order to prevent worse effects of the ongoing crises. It is time we face the reality we are living in and the reality that may be upon us, to work as one human race by doing all we can to protect ourselves, and the environment.
Because if we don't work together, God help us.
5
"...focus on strategies for working more effectively together across all of our diverse and unequal social worlds..."
Professor Ellis makes an excellent point, we need the wealthy nations to look beyond their borders and assist those nations that do not have the means.
But first, if we can't convince those in power that global warming is our greatest threat to survival, part A so to speak, we'll never get to part B, working as one nation to fix it.
Our current President and his Administration have done more damage to progress by not recognizing climate change, and that it is caused by humans when he exited the Paris Climate Agreement. He set us back decades with that horrific decision.
It's so sad to watch us slowly destroy our planet, very sad indeed.
12
With such a significant plurality of our electorate getting their “understanding” of science and environment issues from such disreputable sources as Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, Breitbart, et. al. - it gives our political leaders cover to bow to the short term interests of their corporate campaign donors. With Brett Kavanaugh on the high court, this regressive environmental course our country is on, will be amplified and continue unabated for generations.
It seems unfathomable that anyone with children or grandchildren, that they really truly care about, wouldn’t GET OUT AND VOTE this November.
30
Ah, if only it would be true that we can collectively work together to address climate change and our planetary crisis. The author is correct, we can solve this crisis if we work together. The problem is, we don't. Look at how increasingly entrenched and tribal people are . . . not only in the US but around the world. The author has pointed out how doomed his wishful thinking is: "No better future will be possible if those most able to bear the costs — those who’ve benefited the most, the wealthy and the vested interests of this world — don’t step up to pay for it." We in the US opted out of the Paris Accord, are moving backwards in terms of auto standards and energy production. Many other countries are following our lead to worship wealth above sanity. We cheered tax breaks that will not address any of the issues addressed in this article. We will continue to march toward our destruction if we can't put future generations needs above our own. And the government has to play a major role as well.
21
Humanity is acidifying the oceans, destabilizing the climate, poisoning the air and water, and unleashing a mass extinction of Earth’s species.
Earle Ellis’ reaction? “Do away with the idea of limits.”
Funny, I thought that’s what got us in this spot.
Somehow Ellis thinks that ignoring limits will lead to better decisions and more cooperation. But that’s not how life works.
There’s a reason the world ‘s great religions and philosophies have identified temperance as a virtue and greed and gluttony as vices. There’s a reason they have always paired temperance with justice and prudence.
Appreciating limits is part of being a grownup and a good person. It should be obvious that it is also part of making good public policy.
160
@Philip Cafaro If you want people to come together to build a world that works for good of all, not just the wealthy and powerful, start by doing one thing: attack inequality. There is a huge body of data saying why this works. Ellis needs to look at it. We all do.
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level
1
@Philip Cafaro, nonsense, religion has gotten us into this mess. There is no god and earth and animals were not put here for us to have our way with. And birth control is not sin. Religion, ignorance, capitalism and greed are the problems.
Change is what we need now, friend. Not so much limits. They kind of got us into this.
My wife and many others like her know that the power of the purse is what gets businesses attention. It is they who brought about organic foods in most grocery stores and natural textiles to clothing stores and more efficient cars to our roads. It would be great to have a government that is for clean air, clean water in all streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans. This requires all who care about our children and their children's children to vote this November.
55
Science and humankind will have to go together.
To begin with, people have to accept the validity of science itself. The information is out there, and has been for years, but how much good can it do when too many people disregard its value?
Then, environmental protection will also require human responsibility. We will have to make decisions to do what we can in defense of our one planet, be it reducing waste, limiting plastic use, modestly using fossil fuels, and so on.
Ultimately, it falls to humans to realize that the onus is on us to ensure the long term survival of Earth, and with it, ourselves.
6
I am glad finally to read an article that is neither apocalyptic nor technophobic. No, humanity is not going extinct, even if many other species are. I don’t want to trade the wonders of human art and science for a rainforest. No, there is no return to “living in harmony with nature”. Nature is not a benevolent goddess that is interested in harmony - or anything else, for that matter. Nature is a complex but mindless system of ecological and evolutionary processes. No, we cannot recycle our way out of Anthropocene. We need to start a multi-prong process focused on a suit of technological solutions, political negotiations, and possibly population control. It won’t be pretty. It will be messy and complicated. But at the end humanity will prevail. True, the Earth won’t be the same again - just it wasn’t the same after the Permian extinction, the Cretaceous extinction and all the other mass extinctions that punctuated its history. Conservation of the status quo is contrary to the vary nature of evolution.
13
This response, like this article, embodies the human failings that have created our predicament: hubris, solipsism, and scientism that is the basis of the religion of progress. To speak of nature as though it is something distinct from ourselves (lock yourself in a box for a week or so and see how well you do without the air, water and food that come from natural processes) and to elevate humans to some fictional place above the rest of nature is to embrace a selfish and self-destructive fantasy. The poet Robinson Jeffers rightly compared this attitude to that of an egocentric baby. Living in harmony with nature does not mean going back to paleolithic living or creating some impossible hippy utopia, but it does mean recognizing that we are subject to natural limits and having a deep gratitude for the earth systems that form us.
6
@Mor
Our wonderful adaptability is not going to save us after civilization stops producing what we need to live, including knowing how to live as individuals without factories manufacturing things for us. Humanity is basically no different, in biology, than it was when we were down to 10,000 people in the entire world. Consider also what human life was like for the humans living through the very violent and resource difficult Dark Ages. It would be a typical cocky human that says, "no, we are not going to become extinct." We, naked creatures with very high food energy requirements, are much more vulnerable without the civilization we depend on. What will make it worse, our children are not learning how to make stuff and grow food from scratch resources. Most potable water is not easily available. There will be no factories producing I-pads when the price of food, clothing, and surviving disasters become more expensive relative to individual incomes.
1
One thing we can do is teach philosophy in secondary schools. Add communication and lesson on media and advertising as required courses.
Understand why we do what we do and understand better what we all ready do better can build a self identity that isn’t associated with material success. Knowing the tools marketers and advertisers used to manipulate perceptions and influence behavior will make individuals better consumers.
Our education system needs to teach more generalized curriculum. Specialization has created academic and communication divides that only grow larger as individual careers and continuing education progresses.
14