Down veils

There's constant chatter and considerable despair about climate change, at least in my readings. Not sure it is so common amongst readers of the Right or the coalies. I don't understand Palaszczuk or Turnbull and Abbott and their mobs. It's all so perverse given the science and so dumb given the economics. I don't understand the cockiness of those who will argue against the science, or who will argue for coal or will twist facts for their political purposes. It seems to me there's an unavoidable limit here, at the existential, at the possible demise of civilisation, at a rate that seems to be quickening. I've written letters to a string of pollies saying just that: "How will you live with yourself". A recent graph just highlighted this, where young women/mothers/scientists placed bars for themselves, their children and their grandchildren on a chart of expected global temperatures (Caring about climate change: it's time to build a bridge between data and emotion / Ketan Joshi. IN The Guardian, 7 June 2017). View that (below) and try not to weep. Then a run of letters to the editor of the Canberra Times. Amusingly, I wrote a letter on the psychology of denial which happened to be published under one that questioned CO2's role and also whether temperature is changing unduly. My letter: "I'm intrigued by the psychology of denial. Is it a deep internal conflict that expresses itself in phrases like "I don't question the science, but..."? Or in claims of "technology neutrality" associated with demands for coal, or attacks on the "ideology" of others while ignoring or twisting the science. Or worse, maybe they are just lying through their teeth, or have sold their souls. Remember, we're talking end of civilisation here. Not trivial. I wouldn't want that on my conscience. " (CT letters 16 June 2017; the Editor removed my last sentence). Then a letter in response attacked me for 'using emotion-charged terms like "denial" and accuses people of "lying through their teeth" and "[selling] their souls" for daring to express a dissenting point of view"' and claiming scepticism for those questioning this "new hypothesis" (that CO2 might be related to warming) that "might be ... untestable" and "this is the difference between science and faith" (CT letters 17 June 2017). Mmm. My response was not published by CT but here it is " Oh, ..., the response came quicker than I thought! I used climate "denial" with reason. In the same way that Chesterton and recently Finkel said "do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out". I'm no scientist so I accept the overwhelming advice of the experts - I'm conservative in that way. And I've long thought there's a Nobel prize for anyone who disproves climate change to the satisfaction of science, but no-one's claiming it!". And otherwise recently, there's ongoing Adani, GBR bleaching, hottest years and the rest.


Thanks to Ketan Joshi and Lesley Hughes - see link above

That's just a preamble to how I found the book launch by Anna Krein at the ANU interviewed by Will Steffen. Well, I heard little new for those who read reasonably widely. Nothing much positive, either. Some themes or topics included: Adani; GBR; Q&A (esp Brian Fox and Malcolm Roberts); communicating to cross divisions; conviction and science; the foolishness of investment in coal; the requirement for rapid change and how some others are doing it; science and entrenched power; politics. obviously, and negligence by pollies; Finkel and the Climate Council; Shell's scenario planning; correlations of inequality with social and health problems; lies and misleadings; bad outcomes coming earlier than expected; feedbacks and runaway climate change; Paris and Stockholm; moral reprehensibility and the argument "the GBR is already cactus so why not keep digging"; jobs, coal and prime agricultural land; regulation; cities and states replacing federal action; the SA blackout; newspeak and pollie talk (or non-talk) on climate. Newish to me was the argument that if Adani goes ahead, so will other mines in the Galilee Basin. I wondered about the discussion of economics post-WW2. I see key problems arising with Neo-Liberalism after the '70s, at least in our ability to deal with issues, even if CO2 was increasing back then, too (it was, but it was little known). I was particularly interested in the latest updates on where various tipping points are expected. WS suggested 2degC, perhaps 2.5degC, definitely by 4degC. WS and colleagues have written an update article for PNAS that's currently under peer review, due later this year. It's a concern of the Stockholm Resilience Centre where he has recently spent time. There was some discussion on the recent Finkel report, its "blind acceptance" of an inadequate 26-28% cut vs. 2005 (lowest of G20 countries), lack of effective action, approach limited by politics (and, I expect, the terms of reference). Anna was asked what the "long goodbye" in the book title refered to, but it's not defined. Rejection of the word "belief" regarding climate change, preferring "acceptance" (nice observation - I too have wondered about that word, belief, in the context of science). Some questions about the "critical decade", which is now coming close to an end, and its little achievements (expect another report from WS and mates about this later this year). The last decade of cc politics and communications. Rudd and Penny Wong came in for some questioning on their politics playing with Turnbull and also for not communicating with some affected populations that sought change (Port Augusta, Gippsland region). And the quality of day-to-day politics, with, as an example, the derision around Whish-Wilson's quote of "and then we wept" from GBR researcher and students. (this got me: "My veil is down ... I have cried. I have broken down in front of cameras. This is the most devastating, gut-wrenching fuck up" / Prof Justin Marshall, re GBR bleaching). Yep, couldn't have said it better.

Anna Krein was interviewed by Will Steffen at the launch of her new book, The Long Goodbye : Coal, Coral and Australia's Climate Deadlock / Anna Krein [Quarterly Essay 66].

Fire and deep history

Attending a book launch about the Anthropocene by climate scientists is not a task to take lightly. There are real issues of survival, devastation and the rest and it's not in a phony skeptical environment, where there's any doubt. This is the real thing. There's real end-of-civilisation desperation here although it's not too obvious: these guys are scientists so they explain with rigour. There's respect for evidence that is just a phony incantation amongst the denialists. They call these people warmists using language to change thinking (this is the real political correctness). Their obfuscation and confusion works with some. It's worked with some Prime Ministers of late. Like it works for some in denying evolution. Like it worked in the past for smoking and asbestos and any other denialism, self-interested or not. Just that this is bigger. There were four scientists launching a book by two of them. It was at ANU. The authors were published impeccably by Springer. All well evidenced and presented and praised as a summary of the status. The book is Climate, fire and human evolution. The authors are Andrew Glikson and Colin Groves. Here's a summary better than I can provide:

“Andrew Y. Glikson and Colin Groves’ new book Climate, Fire, and Human Evolution traces the fascinating and complex history of the Earth over the past 4 billion years. It explores the fundamental context of the Earth’s climate system; the cycles of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen and the crucial role of fire, to provide the critical baseline for our understanding of how a single species, Homo sapiens, has changed the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere. The fate of our species, and all the others with which we share this planet, is now in peril from the unintended consequences of our development, and especially our use of energy. I commend this scholarly yet readable work as a vital reference for understanding our past and present, and hopefully for saving our future.” / Prof Lesley Hughes Macquarie University

The event was introduced by Will Steffen, noted climate awareness raiser and Prof of Biological Anthropology. The authors are Andrew Glikson and Colin Groves. There was another introducer, Steve; I missed his full name, an academic in Earth sciences. They said varied harrowing things. About research by Vaclav Smil that found 65% of current biomass on the Earth is human domesticates (cattle, horses, pigs,...), 32% is humans, only 3% is remaining wild biomass (Harvesting the Biosphere : What we have taken from nature / Vaclav Smil). That there are many tipping points and we reach them at various times and that Arctic ice is probably "already history". AG spoke of many things: of fire as the start of our claiming control of the immense energies of carbon; of gazing into a campfire as a link to the natural world; of the starts and ends of geological eras as the most interesting times; of his realisation that the past geological catastrophes he was studying as a geologist "looked more and more familiar"; thoughts about how this could happen, to an intelligent species; about the whisper of time that represents human civilisation (~10,000 years) and how the Earth was for most of time unwelcoming to us; of human mastery of fire dating back 1.8m years, of extensive land cultivation from 7k years back, of the industrial revolution from 200 years and the Anthropocene from 1950. But he is generous: there are personal responsibilities, but our species is imperfect; we are just living in the time the lack of control of energy reaches its outcome. Colin Groves spoke mostly of denialism, how creationism misleads, how it's a parallel to climate denialism, how it's not at all skeptical, how it claims credentials and manages language, how it's so slippery in argument ("like eating icecream with chopsticks"). He lamented Abbott's ignorance of the science, CSIRO CEO Larry Marshall's action to "disgracefully, more or less shut down climate change research", death threats against scientists in the USA, "a considerable chunk of the public doesn't know what science is" and a need to "ensure a situation like this does not continue". I could only hear this as desperation amongst ignorance.

There were questions about Paris. Monbiot claimed it as a political miracle, but a scientific disaster. Our speakers: " wonderful but requires real action", "people need hope", "so painful to be a climate scientist" (knowing what they know and how our public conversation misleads). We have already exceeded 1.5C in some locations; very close to 2C: temperatures that match the Pleistocene so expect flooding to match and "tens of thousands of years to recover". What of the future? Accept the Earth will be a different place: climate, rain, sea level changes; diseases; "much, much poorer". Perhaps there's some answer in geoengineering, but it's unproven and the time required to restore carbon to its storage will likely be too long. Or more philosophical: perhaps accept that life and its beauty is transitory. Either way, there's no doubt that big, unpleasant changes are racing towards us. AG: "Try not to think too much about the future". AG had suggested a meeting on geology of the future but colleagues declined. Be aware that it's the rich West that's the main cause, either from its own actions or the Chinese manufacturing for our purchases. Think inequalities between/within countries and our immersion in a tech-sphere and distance from a biosphere. There are messages from Pickety and Naomi Klein about our soci-economic organisation and climate change. One questioner had obviously read an article I'd read just today, about February as the hottest Feb ever, after the hottest Jan ever, after 2015 as the hottest year ever, after 2014 as the previous record. She admitted to some panic. Another asked are we so important. I've always thought we are, if only to us, but the Earth will continue regardless of our civilisational collapse. Not a pretty thought ... for us. Then a final few words on the Anthropocene. Human history is of "people painting themselves into a corner" but are they any happier? Now, we've reached another, most dangerous corner.

Lots of ideas; lots of concerns; well informed by evidence. Few of our pollies see or at least respond to the urgency; several even promote their own and others' ignorance, perhaps from influence or reading in a bubble. A session like this is an eye-opener. These guys are calm but internally despairing and they are the ones who know. Have hope because without hope we fail, but don't be ignorant. Whatever chance there is, it is with this.

Will Steffen and another academic launched the new Springer publication by Andrew Glikson and Colin Groves called Climate, fire and human evolution : the deep time dimensions of the Anthropocene, at the ANU.

A political indulgence

Julia Gillard was more personable than I’d expected given that she seems so strained and wooden on TV. But she was amongst admirers, or at least amongst fellow travellers for a price on carbon. We were at an event organised by GetUp! In case you are living under a mushroom, GetUp! is Australia’s centre-left new-style online Web-generation political movement. It’s got a membership of several hundred thousand. Membership is not demanding, just receipt of a few emails each week, but you can take it further and be involved: attend demonstrations, write to pollies, do handouts, lump up some cash for whatever cause, even attend sessions with the PM. So there we were. The main speaker was Julia Gillard, with a retinue of press, taking questions for 30 minutes from GetUp!’s founder, Simon Sheikh. She was interesting and quite pleasant in person: not particularly au fait with the science, a little better on the economics, but her job is not the detail, it’s the politics and negotiations and persuasion. Certainly, her fellow speakers were on-side with the effectiveness of the plan (carbon tax moving rapidly to a market in carbon). Will Steffen, head of the ANU Climate Change Institute, gave a potted summary of climate change science and its implications, and it’s not a comfortable and relaxed story. Ben McNeil of UNSW spoke on the opportunities in the green economy. I was particularly impressed by Will S, but science and rationality are things I hold dearly. Ben M had me heartened and unexpectedly optimistic. His line was that the green revolution is as significant as the industrial revolution or our recent information revolution and there are great opportunities in it (and great dangers for countries that hold to the old path). This accords with what I’ve been thinking recently. Getting in early enough (perhaps not first and we’re not the first) is an advantage, although there are transition costs (and thus winners and noisy losers). Climate change is a big and difficult issue. We’ve known of the physics for over a century but we’ve only known of our own climate change for 25 years or so. It will take a mammoth change in our technologies and we have to make the change over only a few decades and in the context of the GFC, peak oil, Fukushima, crises with water and food and the rest. It’s never a good time to make massive change that will have an effect on entrenched wealth, but we gotta do it. Megan and I felt oddly positive when we left. As for the party politics, I do wonder what Abbott would do if he got in, and it’s possible he will in a few years. I can’t really believe the Liberal Party would allow him to dismantle carbon pricing. I guess he’d make some changes and claim he’d done what he promised, especially given that his market-free alternative goes against party philosophy and market economics (being essentially socialist: climate change paid for by the tax-payer through payments to industry). He’d have to believe the science is bunkum, which he may do and a few others (eg, Minchin, Pell) obviously do, but despite the polls, it’s clearly a losing bet that would take Australia’s economy with it and civilisation as we know it if the rest of the world followed suit. How would you like that on your conscience? Not to say anything of his negativity and Tea-Party-style emotionalism (but then the Labor Party is hardly politically angelic, either). Pricing carbon is the future; carbon as an economic externality is clearly the past. Accept that one and we have a chance of a liveable future. Good on ya, Julia: win or lose, your conscience is clear, and all else is forgiven if you pull this one off.