Atlantis wrote:I don't believe that the solution is to be found in ecofascism (involving a reduction of the human population) or in scale geo-engineering.
The only possible approach is a combination of sustainability; zero or low growth models; innovation in green technology, digital technology as well as in the economics and social fields, in combination with energy savings and carbon sequestration by land use and sustainable farming.
Politically, you are correct. Your approach is balanced and admirable. Perhaps it may have even worked, had we begun decades earlier.
I find Charles Stross' thought experiment convincing. He considers a scenario in which the human race disappears without otherwise affecting the planetary eco-system:
"Nuclear reactors scram automatically, grids shut down, there are various nasty industrial accidents from unattended plant, and then the atmospheric carbon pulse continues and is joined by large-scale outgassing from the Siberian tundra and possibly a crash in hard-shelled ocean dwelling species due to acidification. Global mean temperatures rise by roughly 4 degrees celsius (hey, we're not pumping any more CO2 out!) leading to considerably worse weather events and various ecosystem changes: the ongoing mass extinction event continues to coast on momentum during this period as more specialized species fail to find new niches."
So, no, even eco-fascism will not 'work' (will not avert a near-term crash).
Truth To Power wrote:More than 99.99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. Doesn't seem to have hurt us.
There are two factors at work here: the magnitude of change, and the rate of change. You naively address only the magnitude question, when in truth it is the rate of change that has everything to do with a civilization's survival
Then let me be the first: there is no necessity to do anything about CO2 emissions.
There is no political necessity, of course. But politics is not the substrate of the physical world - the reverse is true. Physical reality will adjust the parameters of human existence in due course. Neither your blitheness nor Atlantis' alarm can affect the outcome in the slightest.
This is not fatalism. In dealing with large-scale physical forces (as well as with political or technological ones) there is a limited window of opportunity to effect meaningful change. Unfortunately, we have missed the window in this case.
Of course, we have an obligation to do what we can, and hope for the best.
The current situation of human technological society is analogous to that of Air France Fight 4590:
"...During the Concorde's takeoff run, it ran over this piece of debris, cutting a tyre and sending a large chunk of tyre debris (4.5 kilograms or 9.9 pounds) into the underside of the aircraft's wing at an estimated speed of 140 metres per second (310 mph).[BEA 8] Although it did not directly puncture any of the fuel tanks, it sent out a pressure shockwave that ruptured the number five fuel tank at the weakest point, just above the undercarriage. Leaking fuel gushing out from the bottom of the wing was most likely ignited by an electric arc in the landing gear bay or through contact with hot parts of the engine.[BEA 9] Engines one and two both surged and lost all power, but engine one slowly recovered over the next few seconds.[BEA 10] A large plume of flame developed; the flight engineer then shut down engine two in response to a fire warning and the captain's command.[BEA 11] Air traffic controller Gilles Logelin noticed the flames before the Concorde was airborne, however with only 2 km (1.2 mi) of runway remaining and travelling at a speed of 328 km/h (204 mph), its only option was to take off. The Concorde would have needed at least 3 km (1.9 mi) of runway to abort safely.[citation needed]
Having passed V1 speed, the crew continued the takeoff, but the plane did not gain enough airspeed with the three remaining engines,[citation needed] because damage to the landing gear bay door prevented the retraction of the undercarriage.[BEA 12] The aircraft was unable to climb or accelerate, maintaining a speed of 200 knots (370 km/h; 230 mph) at an altitude of 60 metres (200 ft). The fire caused damage to the port wing, which began to disintegrate—melted by the extremely high temperatures. Engine number one surged again, but this time failed to recover. Due to the asymmetric thrust, the starboard wing lifted, banking the aircraft to over 100 degrees. The crew reduced the power on engines three and four in an attempt to level the aircraft, but with falling airspeed they lost control and the aircraft stalled, crashing into the Hôtelissimo Les Relais Bleus Hotel near the airport.[1][8][9][10]
The crew was trying to divert to nearby Le Bourget Airport, but accident investigators stated that a safe landing, given the aircraft's flight path, would have been highly unlikely.
As the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript recorded it,[11] the last intelligible words in the cockpit (translated into English) were:
Co-pilot: "Le Bourget, Le Bourget, Le Bourget."
Pilot: "Too late (unclear)..."
Too late, too late.
The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters. -Antonio Gramsci