I read Jeff Gibbs' interview regarding his controversial film Planet of the Humans which I saw. In Gibbs' interview he noted "All of the data in the form of charts and graphs are from the most recent year available, typically 2019 or 2020." The problem, as Dave Borlace notes, is Gibbs' main arguments in the film about such things as solar panels and electric cars are from long ago, not "2019 or 2020." However, I like Gibbs' argument about "a vast amount of energy storage which does not exist at scale" which is what Paul Kingsnorth also said.
According to Borlace's evidence, this Gibbs' statement is the wrong focus: "Switching from carbon based energy sources to so-called 'renewables,' even if it was possible, INCREASES our dependency on, and consumption of, non-renewable resources, hastening the demise of industrial civilization." Overall, carbon-burning is the main problem with the focus being fossil fuels, and while switching to "renewables" will increase dependency on non-renewable items used to make them, favoring "carbon-based energy" is what is currently "hastening the demise of" all civilizations and all human, and non-human, life on Earth.
Regarding Gibbs' nuclear energy analysis, I have to agree with James Hansen. The window of opportunity for meaningful action is rapidly closing. Specifically, Brian Kahn, citing Science Advances issue 02 Sep 2020, reported at GIZMODO, "the Bering Sea hasn’t seen a winter like 2018 in at least 5,500 years. The study also shows that the world may have locked in irreversible changes that will leave the sea completely ice-free this century. [ . . . . ] Miriam Jones, a paleoclimate researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey, led the new research [ . . . . ] Perhaps the most shocking part of Jones and her team’s analysis is the tie between Bering sea ice and carbon dioxide. [ . . . . ] [T]he results suggest that it’s possible today’s sea ice is coming into equilibrium with carbon dioxide levels from 100 years ago." Obviously, if that is true, 50 and 100 years from now will mean horror film-scale melting.
According to the film Before the Flood, India needs much more electricity now. In the film Sunita Narain, Director General of Center for Science and Environment in Delhi, says "We have seven hundred million households who cook using biomass today. [ . . . . ] If those households move to coal[-produced electricity] you have that much more use of fossil fuel. Then the entire world is fried." I'm not a fan of biomass but I'm unwillling to criticize those who have no other options. In other words, if India burns its massive coal reserves, "probably the 3rd or 4th largest reservoir of coal in the world," climate damage will rapidly increase. It seems better to use new nuclear technology now then phase out all nuclear plants over time.
At SCRIPPS last year I heard "In the event that geoengineering did cause disparate regional impacts, a regulatory scheme would need to develop that would contain enforceable compensation mechanisms to compensate those who suffer any damages." Sources noted China said it will use geoengineering, if needed, and I believe it is coming sooner than most realize, and likely without "compensat[ion" for those who suffer damages in other countries seriously affected. I hate hate hate nuclear energy because it seems wrong to produce waste that will be hazardous to humans for 500 thousand years (plutonium), but I hate India burning coal even more because of all the threats to survival for humans and non-humans.
For example, I'm concerned what will happen when China goes ahead with aforementioned geoengineering without "compensat[ing] those who suffer any damages," especially since India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and seem unlikely to just let their people die on massive scales that are possible with 4 C and 5 C if Shell gets its way.
Regarding Gibbs statement about the green movement, I think of Bill McKibben being harassed by "Right-Wing Stalkers," and how McKibben noted "when I first heard rumors of [Gibbs film 'attacks'] last summer I wrote the producer and director to set the record straight, and never heard back from them."
Gibbs was asked "Should the more conscious and radical activists engage in environmental movements to change them from the inside or are there better places and ways to conduct this battle?" His complete answer was "Good question. I think the most important thing is to have the correct vision. This is way bigger than a climate emergency, as dire as climate is. Our entire industrial civilization of seven going on eight billion humans is coming to a close. We either get ahead of the now emerging civilization and biological collapse or suffer the most extreme consequences. Non-human species are already suffering the most extreme consequences across the globe." Regarding this, I have long supported Extinction Rebellion because I like how it, as an organization, requires nonviolence. Two of it's founders were Roger Hallam and Gail Bradbrook.
I must disagree with Gibbs closing: "We learned our so-called critics are shameless in their dissembling, slandering, coordinated, and apparently well-funded attacks. They choose to ignore the larger truths to keep people distracted. Once people have seen the film, the criticism seems ridiculous." Dave Borlace does not seem to fit Gibbs' description.
Gibbs also wrote "Now, while we still have blue whales and redwoods,songbirds and butterflies, it is a fine time to come to grips with the only hope we have: either less is the new more, or we’re going on the scrap heap of failed civilizations taking everything down with us." Saying "it is a fine time to come to grips," and making a film attacking Bill McKibben and all green energy does not actually solve the problem. Bill McKibben's years of sacrifice led to global awareness/fossil fuel divestment, and Roger Hallam and Gail Bradbrook's nonviolent protests, and Extinction Rebellion's three stated goals,can help. Many students challenged me about what I have done to reduce carbon, and I answered in December 2017 "short of violence against against corporate and political climate criminals, I did what I could."
On the plus side, it seems Gibbs, Moore, I, and many others, are willing to make sacrifices if they mean "blue whales and redwoods,songbirds and butterflies" Gibbs noted in his interview could have a fighting chance. My March 31, 2019 Solution to Reducing Climate Change is Purple is on par with Gibbs saying "it is a fine time to come to grips," meaning both are wildly idealistic given political reality in the U. S., and globally.
I know we don't get to decide much but how we spend our time and energy, while, as I wrote in my last post, "I recall a Shell CEO told Hans Schellnhuber (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research), 'The climate problem is real but it is completely intractable. You can not solve it. So, let's get rich quick before the world ends, huh?'"
As carbon increases in the sky and oceans no matter what nations and individuals say, I imagine many more voices will compete for attention and meaningful action. At the least, it would be great if the U.S. could better fund birth control instead of allowing millions to die in a climate tsunami of starvation, disease, and war. As the World Health Organization citing the Guttmacher Institute notes, "Worldwide, an estimated 214 million women in developing countries have an unmet need for modern contraception."
No comments:
Post a Comment