March Thoughts in 2023

Trees and flowers' early blooms remind us of the Creative Force in the universe, and real self in each human, and how many people lost touch with both. Prayer, poetry, meditation, nature walks, honest conversation with partners or close friends make paths to those two realities healing many in appearance-addicted societies like the U. S.. Regarding the problem of appearances, Rumi wrote, "Death will open your eyes to what her face is: Leather spine of a black lizard."

Increasingly regarding climate issues, political survival means soul death. The most obvious teacher of this truth vs politics issue in my background is Jesus. Since I agree with Jesus' use of nonviolence, the question of our time is, "How far will one go, and what sacrifices will one make, to protect one's family, community, human and nonhuman beings?"

My favorite recent articles are "Rising seas risk climate migration on ‘biblical scale,’ says U.N. chief" by Rachel Pannett updated in the February 15, 2023 Washington Post; "Will Steffen: The dilemma of pioneer climate scientists" by Andrew Y. Glikson February 11, 2023 at arctic-news.blogspot.com; "‘The Deluge’ is a climate nightmare — and it’s based on reality" by Kate Yoder January 30, 2023 at Grist about Stephen Markley's new novel; and "A ‘climate solution’ that spies worry could trigger war" by Michael Birnbaum updated in the February 27, 2023 Washington Post. 

Birnbaum's article mentioned potential geoengineering-triggered conflicts between Pakistan and India, something I wrote about September 4, 2020, noting "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.' [ . . . . ] 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." I also asked about this at the Noble Prize Summit -- OUR PLANET, OUR FUTURE April 26/27/28, [2021] and the brief answer showed either not much thought or unwillingness to discuss this publicly at the time.  

In a related matter, I wrote in my September 11, 2019 post, "Professor Gabriel said large-scale geoengineering is a challenge because the least expensive method of using sulphate particulates is not currently possible over 1 C above the 1850 baseline when they fall from the sky, and we are at or over 1 C now. Therefore, he believes more research is needed, but small-scale geoengineering will do more good than harm." If this remains true, large-scale uses of sulphate particulates are even bigger challenges than recent reports by Birnbaum in the Washington Post, or in Oliver Milman's December 25, 2022 article in The Guardian, "Can geoengineering fix the climate? Hundreds of scientists say not so fast." I emailed Milman December 26, 2022, asking for his thoughts on inability to use sulphate particulates large-scale "over 1 C," but he never responded, maybe due to being flooded with emails like many others.