The millions of young people who skipped school on Friday to protest the failure of world leaders to fix the climate emergency had a message for politicians like Justin Trudeau — prove that you actually care about an entire generation’s future or else suffer the consequences.
“What’s the point in educating ourselves and learning the facts when the people in power refuse to listen, to be educated, and pay attention to the facts,” I heard Greta Thunberg tell a crowd in New York’s Battery Park that organizers of the Global Climate Strikes at one point estimated at250,000 people. “Everywhere I have been the situation is more or less the same, the people in power who write beautiful words are the same, the number of politicians and celebrities who want to take selfies are the same, and the promises are the same and the lies are the same.”
Thunberg earlier this month travelled to New York on a zero-emissions boat. Several days earlier she told U.S. congressmembers that “this is the time to wake-up.” The 16-year-old climate change icon from Sweden said the leaders gathering next Monday for a UN emergency meeting on climate change ignore young people at their peril.
“Do you think they will hear us?” she asked the crowd of schoolchildren, teens and their adult allies. “We will make them hear us.”
Trudeau could easily fit the cynical description of politicians offered by Thunberg. In June, the Liberal government passed a motion declaring that we are in a climate emergency, deeming the warming that’s affecting Canada two times as fast as the rest of the world a “real and urgent crisis.” It then approved the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain oil sands pipeline the very next day.
Conservative leader Andrew Scheer would likely also qualify for putting forward a climate plan that includes no actual commitments or targets for reducing emissions. Then again, so might NDP leader Jagmeet Singh and Green party leader Elizabeth May, some observers argue, for failing to call out the fossil fuel industry with the forcefulness required.
The hundreds of thousands of youth who marched in New York, as well as the millions more in 150 cities around the world (including hundreds of people in Vancouver), are sick of politicians lying to them.
The homemade signs in New York offered a glimpse into the anxiety young people feel about the climate emergency, as well as their desire for radical change to avert it: “Don’t let Gen Z be the end”, “The Earth is on fucking fire”, “Will there be a happy ending?”, “Stop the burning”, “We have every reason to worry.”
At one point I saw a young girl carrying a sign that said, “What if we held billionaires accountable for the massive amount of pollution they cause.” Climate strikers are fed up with those in power publicly telling them soothing tales about innovation and progress while making deals with corporations behind closed doors to maintain the status quo. “Stop sugar-coating global warming,” read one teenager’s sign. Nearby, a girl who couldn’t have been older than 10 marched solemnly with a sign that read: “We are all literally going to fucking die.”
Hundreds of thousands of youth marched in New York on Sept. 20. Photo by Geoff Dembicki.
Varshini Prakash told an earlier gathering in Manhattan’s Foley Square it’s no coincidence that young people around the world are feeling panic-stricken and isolated about an emergency that threatens the natural systems upon which human civilization depends.
“We’ve grown up seeing the political establishment fail us, and for twice as long as I have been alive on this planet we have known about the crisis,” said the co-founder and executive director of the Sunrise Movement, which has worked with Canadian author Naomi Klein, progressive superstar Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others to push for an economy-transforming Green New Deal. “The wealthy and the powerful have profited off of pollution, have lied to millions of people about the science, have choked our democracy with their big oil dollars and stolen our futures.”
Prakash’s voice became angrier and more intense. She clenched the mic. “Today, this generation is taking over,” she declared. “Our days of waiting for action, our days of waiting to be heard are over.”
She acknowledged that though the climate strikes were a good start, there is a long road ahead: “We’ve got to be honest with each-other, if we want to survive, if we want to win, there are not enough of us here yet… we have to bring society and our economy to a standstill, politicians are going to have to know that they are going to win or lose based on where they stand on this issue.”
Canada provided a case study of that in 2015, when young voters fed up with Stephen Harper running the country like a petro-state turned up in above-average numbers and elected Trudeau as prime minister. Though Gen Z and millennials are now the largest voting bloc in the country, it’s unclear if they’ll show similar enthusiasm for Trudeau in the October election, especially given that polling suggests two-thirds of 18-29 year-olds think the current federal government is doing too little to fight climate change, the highest of any age group.
“We deserve a safe future, we demand a safe future, is that really too much to ask?” Thunberg said. “If no one else will take action, then we will. It should not be that way, we should not be the ones who are fighting for the future, and yet here we are.”
She had a clear warning for political leaders who stand in the way: “We are not just some young people skipping school or some adults who are not going to work, we are a wave of change. We are unstoppable.”
The crowd raptly listened to every word. “We will rise to the challenge,” Thunberg said. “We will hold those responsible for this crisis accountable and will make the world leaders act. We can and we will.” The teens around me roared with approval.
I reject the liberal media and the way in which they have exploited this for an agenda that has little to do with Greta and young people like her.
I was invited by NZ researcher Ben Vidgen to give an interview on his new radio station. He set out a loose outline of what we were to discuss, including "Climategate". All that was supposed to be involved was that I would ring in at a particular time and we would have a nice, relaxed conversation, "just like in a cafe".
I went to considerable lengths to prepare, including going out to buy a cellphone so I could call in without paying 35c a minute to do so - something that was attended by two visits to the shop and then to Vodafone - just to get it so I could use it.
By the time it came around to ringing in was already feeling very unwell and was told, could I ring back in half-an-hour because he had "lots to do". Then, could I ring back in 5 minutes. When I rang back there was no reply and when I did get through I could not hear properly, having been told to take off the headphones which I had prepared to help me follow the conversation.
I was supposed to just hang about until they worked out their technical problems.
This was not how I do things so when we reached about an hour after the scheduled time I just rang off and went for a walk and spent the rest of the day resting and recovering.
I had put a few thoughts together which I shall share now:
****
We get otherwise quite rational and well-informed people saying things like, "this is extreme weather caused by "global cooling" (sic) and not global warming".
None of this comes with a skerrick of proof and is always related back to theories about the UN, Agenda 2030 and so forth.
Some of what is claimed seems overblown to me but then again when I see what the mainstream has to say about climate change.
What
we have is physical reality – actual climate change that is
happening far more rapidly than anyone ever imagined.
I have been following this for too long and monitoring changes in real time for too long for there to be any doubt in my mind.
As a sidebar, I actually prefer the original term "greenhouse effect" - because that it is what it is (something that I have been aware of since the age of 12). Either that or "global warming" (or heating) causing catastrophic climate change" . THAT is an accurate description of what is happening.
So we have the actual reality. Mother Nature does not care a brass razoo about what humans THINK. It simply IS.
Then
we have stuff happening on the edge, all related to the response (or lack of) from humans.
I’ve
never really looked into the arguments of deniers carefully because I know what the
physical reality is, but my deep suspicion is that if you asked who
benefits, tit could be traced back to the oil companies.
Put simply, the deniers are the dupes of the oil and coal companies and the like (the first time I saw this was 30 years ago with a full-page article from someone in the NZ coal industry).
And
then, on the other hand, we have the denial of the mainstream that will ban talk of climate change unless it is coupled with "solutions".
The only results of climate change large parts of the media will talk about relate to sea level rise - and all connected with a magic date, 2100.
Amongst
the scientists we have those who literally sit in front of their supercomputers and build their models which posit "the shit hitting
the fan" by about 2100, and those who are doing work on
the ground based on observations.
Through the time I have been following this I have observed a debate, or rather a conflict, between the consensus-based IPCC
people with their computer models that have been shown to be out by 70 years - and those who are doing research on the ground
and observing what is really happening on the ground.
This
latter group are often described as "alarmists" by the former group, but are being proven
correct.
One thing the denialists do have right is to say is that climate change as presented by the IPCC, governments and the media is fully linked with a globalist agenda that is corrupt.
It is linked with the destruction of the "old economy" and the bringing about of a "new industrial revolution" based on new technology.
Much of the "new economy" is predicated on having plenty of time (hence 2100), and magical thinking that is highly unlikely to bring the results that are touted and is based on a new colonialism, the prime example of which I regard to be the admonition to go completely over to electric cars, which relies on an easy source of earth minerals and the mining of cobalt from mines in countries such as the Congo using slave child labour.
This is a combination of the worst of colonial and imperialist thinking with technological utopia and magical thinking.
Part of this is the whole structure of the IPCC and the UN which goes something like this:
Much of the work done by scientists (and computer modellers) takes time so that it may already be out of date by the time the reports even hit the IPCC. Once the scientific papers come out, are peer-reviewed and finally hit the IPCC they have to go through a process of political consensus.
The data which comes out of the IPCC may be years out of date and then that is used by various governments to determine their policies, so the picture that we are getting is nothing like what is
happening to the environment in real time.
We do not need lies by the likes of Al Gore, and the UN - which conspire to completely distort the science to the extent that the computer models are 3 generations out in their predictions.
All of this is the very opposite to the conclusions of those who believe this is "a scam".
Over the last year I have started to realise that there are other things going on as I have observed changes in our skies and looked for explanations.
Through that I have become almost convinced that there is manipulation of our weather and climate going on that is in addition to human-caused climate change. In fact, geoengineering is being used in a futile attempt to mask the very real effects of global heating. This is ignored by 90 percent of those who believe in "chemtrails" as a explanation - something that frustrates me at least as much as those who scoff at the whole idea.
This has led me to revise previous assumptions, and that has put me at odds with yet another group.
A few months ago I was approached by Kevin Hester to appear on his and Guy McPherson's radio show, Nature Bats Last. It was, I was told, to say "thank you" for all I had done.
After the hostile visit I had a few months ago I realise it was to put it all into the past tense.
Going on the show (which was connected with "technical problems" and an inability to connect which, it was implied, was my fault, the result was far from what I thought it would be. By the time I came on air I was pretty stressed.
I was, in effect being booted out of the "tribe" that I was never truly part of. Listening to it now it sounds more like a valedictory than a meeting of minds. Kevin Hester said I had been working on their behalf. I can say I have never worked on anyone's behalf.
What for? I will never know, because these people will never honestly say, but I have my suspicions. I think it comes down to doing my own research that involves thought processes and conclusions that did not fit well with the ideology of the tribe, especially at a time when they have stopped doing any form of research and monitoring of the ice from people who want to go round either with their hands on their heads proclaiming "we're all going to die" or partying because the blue sea event didn't happen and we are "safe for another year"
I strongly suspect the militant and cynical atheists who think that they are, with their egos, the apex of the Universe and who think they don't need a God or Higher Principle, are going to have just as hard a time as those who will (and are) being caught like possums in a car's headlights.
My response to all of this is to stay in the present moment as best I can, from one day to the next, to keep up monitoring while I still have the energy, and most importantly to stay true to myself at the risk of offending others simply by speaking my truth.
This is not the time to start lying, either to myself or others. The end is, indeed near, and it is time for people to get their spiritual houses in order.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle this is what Britain's Channel 4 comes up with. RT is partially right when it points out this is about a "fourth Industrial Revolution". Just a pity about the planet and its inhabitants.
Can capitalism combat climate change? Bank of England says business can benefit from saving
planet
Meanwhile in New Zealand.The Green Party I was once a member of was implacably against genetic engineering for good reason.
Now its corporate implant, leader James Shaw (who worked, I understand for BP and Bayer, is trying to get the party to make a u-turn if Mike Hosking says this you have to get REALLY WORRIED!
A
Dutch company is pushing on the Government to work quickly to get a
'silver bullet' for reducing methane from cows in New Zealand.
But
Agriculture Minister Damien O'Connor and his ministry both say the
product could technically be used now and have expressed some worry
about it's effect on New Zealand's brand overseas.
Meanwhile,
the Climate Change Minister has expressed excitement about the
product.
It is not usually my way to scoff. While I am confident in my own knowledge I am willing to play round with different ideas but the 'coming Ice Age/ solar minimum is not one of them, The denialists are really tying themselves up in knots while the Arctic melts and the world burns. I am far more worried about the more subtle form of abrupt climate change denialism from some mainstream sources.
Radio
New Zealand which is pointing the 'climate change denial” finger at
other media but neglects to discuss their own denial which is more
subtle than the crude form on talkback radio and is more dangerous
but seeming to tell the truth but totally neglects to tell most of
the story – even its own backyard.
This
is one of the best interviews I have heard in a long time.
In
this interview Peter Wadhams covers the denial (and consequential
censorship) by the mainstream scientific community for no better
reason that they think it can't be happening (and therefore it
isn't).
One
of the biggest problems I see right now is with certitude. All we
can say is that based on the knowledge we have this is the conclusion
we reach. There are many uncertainties in the science and all we can
do is to infer the outcome from the evidence we have.
Please
watch this very important interview with Dr. Peter Wadhams. He is
professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group
in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics,
University of Cambridge. Here he discusses the very real threat of
abrupt releases of methane from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf
(ESAS). He discusses what has been termed scientific reticence and
(in his words) a "lack of objectivity" among some in the
scientific community and those funding scientists' research, as well
as issues in the peer-review process (also discussed by Dr. Natalia
Shakhova who has conducted extensive Arctic methane research). There
is also the problem of observational science evidence being set aside
in favor of modeling which need the observations to correct them.
In
this interview, Dr. Wadhams stated that he's not certain there has
ever been a modeled study on the global effect of an abrupt methane
release. Last year, I did find a study (Obata & Shibata, 2012),
discussing the global effect and vegetation biomass damage from a
sudden 1000-fold increase in atmospheric methane concentration
specifically from methane
hydrates
(<1 ppm to 1000 ppm). It is from 2012, but it is really the best
paper I have found on the issue, particularly the use of an Earth
System Model to understand impacts. See the attachment below. Here is
the abstract:
Decadal-time-scale
responses of climate and the global carbon cycle to warming
associated with rapid increases in atmospheric methane from a massive
methane release from marine sedimentary methane hydrates are
investigated with a coupled climate–carbon cycle model. A 1000-fold
methane increase (from <1 to 1000 ppmv) causes surface air
temperatures to increase with a global warming of >6°C within 80
yr. The amount of carbon stored in the land biosphere decreases by
>25%. This is mostly due to a large decrease in tropical net
primary production during the first few years (~−40%), which is
caused by a decrease in photosynthesis and an increase in plant
maintenance respiration with the early warming of ~3°C, leading to
tropical forest dieback (>20%) and the largest decrease in
vegetation carbon of >50% (~80% of the decrease in global
vegetation carbon). The decrease in global land carbon is also partly
due to forest diebacks (mainly boreal forest dieback by heat stress)
at northern middle latitudes. In contrast, vegetation increases by
>50% at northern high latitudes because of the amelioration to
warm and wet conditions. Sensitivity experiments show that the
warming of >6°C consists mainly of >5°C by the 1000-fold
atmospheric methane and an additional increase of 1°C by the
atmospheric CO2 increase due to the land CO2 release and that the CO2
fertilization of land plants prevents further warming of 1°C by
limiting the atmospheric CO2 increase. The large decrease in land
biomass estimated in this study suggests a critical situation for the
land ecosystem or agricultural production, especially in the tropics.
Because global methane content of marine methane hydrates is
estimated at ~10 000 Gt, more intense warming leading to greater
damage to the land biomass than the authors’ experiment (~2000 Gt)
is possible in the future methane release event that would be caused
by the ongoing anthropogenic warming.
You
can learn more about the methane danger and permafrost melt HERE,
HERE,
HERE
, HERE
, and HERE.
My
thoughts -with these rapid changes underway, the likelihood is
high
that there will be sudden, irreversible and discontinuous change to
an unfamiliar climate state very quickly. This will be caused by
tipping points and such change will be on the order of years. This
has been noted in Dansgaard-Oeschger events (during ice
age/interglacial transitions), and during the Paleogene-Eocene
Thermal Maximum (PETM) 55 million years ago (which may have included
a huge spike in global temps within just a decade). I discuss more
about Earth System Nonlinearity HERE.
Posts
![[Tyee]](https://thetyee.ca/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
