You may have heard the climate science consensus that a Blue Ocean Event (total melt of Arctic Ice in Summer) is expected by 2023. That's a BIG tipping point. But we may be in hot water sooner. Nicholas Beuret says ...
Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, has consistently criticised IPCC reports for magical thinking, for assuming that at some point in the near future technology will be both invented and rolled out on a mass scale that will suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (so-called negative emission technologies). At the moment, there are none that are close to being ready to be mass produced. Take these out of the most recent IPCC report and instead of 12 years to stop dangerous climate change we have just three.
... it could be tempting to blame the state of things on the climate villains – who doesn’t want to blame authoritarian or outright fascist government leaders for the world’s problems? But the problem isn’t bad leaders, but the entire system itself. The reality of climate change is that we need a radically different economic and political system if we are to limit future warming and ensure adaptation is fair and just.
Let’s be clear about what must be demanded of nation states: not some kind of minor adjustment or new zero-cost policy, but the end of economic growth. It would require legislating for de-growth, something that could be considered ... as electoral suicide.
If the nation state is the wrong climate change actor, then the national economy is also the wrong perpetrator. Yet this is what every plan to combat climate change focuses on: national emissions. But this focus hides ... both who is responsible for carbon emissions and who has the power to arrest them.
... start to take action immediately against two groups largely responsible for climate change. They are the 100 or so corporations responsible for 71% of global carbon emissions and the wealthiest 10% of the global population responsible for 50% of consumption emissions. To put the latter in perspective, if this 10% reduced their consumption to the level of the average European that would produce a 30% cut in global emissions.
Focusing on the wealthy and their corporations would enable us to bring about an immediate cut in carbon emissions. But it would also form part of a just transition, ensuring that the majority of the world’s population do not have to pay for climate policy, a conflict we have already seen on the streets of Paris in recent weeks in the yellow vests movement. [emphasis mine]
Beuret's telling me that there isn't time for writing to legislators. It's time to nonviolently disrupt corporations causing 71% of emissions and the organizations manipulating politicians and the public on behalf of the wealthiest, like The Heritage Foundation. As well as targeting the 10% wealthiest individuals with our nonviolent moral demands to slash their carbon footprints.
Three years to avoid locking in near term catastrophic climate change, folks! Unless magical thinking is your bottom line.
“...to ... ensure adaptation is fair and just.”
Ruth, do the metaphorical Ma and Pa Nature know anything of fairness or justice?
Nope, Ma & Pa Nature know nothing of fairness & justice. Big eat small, just as small things, such as bacteria, eat the large organism. A river knows nothing of fairness to trout, salmon, or crawdad. A liver fluke cares nothing for the health of the liver.