When Britain’s Prince of Wales shows clear signs of agitation at world leaders’ curious paralysis in the face of the rapid deterioration of planetary ecological conditions, it should send a message to everyone concerned. And that means every human being on the planet, where humans are (supposedly) the custodians of planetary “health” but have been guilty of gross neglect in this regard lately.
Charles has appealed to world leaders to “adopt a better, more integrated approach to issues like climate change”. He did this in a video address to delegates at a UN conference on ecological sustainability in Brazil, stressing that the present widespread inaction is likely to have “catastrophic” consequences, which do not merely concern the phenomena usually associated with climate change – such as rising global temperatures and sea levels – but food and water security as well. Needless to stress, these are potential problems that could tip an already economically unstable world into outright economic and political (if not military) chaos.
To his credit, the Prince of Wales showed himself to be no dullard when it comes to an acute awareness of the unprecedented problems the world faces at present.
He said: “I have watched in despair at how slow progress has sometimes been and how the outright, sceptical reluctance by some to engage with the critical issues of our day have often slowed that progress to a standstill. Already levels of CO2 have exceeded 400 parts per million; 450 parts per million is the tipping point we have to avoid so every day of delay threatens to make the change more dramatic.”
Charles highlighted the fact that the source of his concern is scientific research (and not mere alarmism), which has already outlined the possible consequences of not acting timeously, and in concert on a global scale. If humanity really values science – and in every other respect it seems that science is valued by most thinking people – it would awaken out of its stupor of inaction, and start doing something significant and concrete in the domain of policy in every country on the planet, with the necessary coordination by international agencies such as those under the auspices of the UN.
Charles is in a position to extend criticism to those leaders who do not show sufficient concern about a potential catastrophe – that seems to be looming larger every time a new scientific report on the state of the planet is published – because he was responsible for establishing the International Sustainability Unit (ISU), tasked to promote global sustainability, in this way showing initiative worth emulating by other leaders.
He was addressing Rio+20 (the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development), which is happening this week in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20 years after its inauguration. Referring to the urgency for the combined collection and holistic analysis of adequate data on water, forestry, energy, soil and biodiversity, which is usually collected separately, Charles pointed out: “We do not have long to capture such a comprehensive picture, and so I would appeal to you as you meet here in Rio to make an even greater and concerted effort to persuade policy and decision-makers to act before it is finally too late.”
The Prince of Wales’s appeal to world leaders comes at a time when more and more signs are appearing that present climate change is anthropogenic, that is, caused and exacerbated by human behaviour. A recently published study in the journal Nature provides evidence that the earth is edging closer to what is described as “a dangerous climate tipping point” as a result of destructive human activities and habits.
Among the factors listed by the international panel of authors as contributing to the process moving us towards what may be irreversible biological changes, are the ongoing clearance of the planet’s land surface for agriculture and urbanisation (at the cost of the indispensable “lung” function of rain forests, to mention but one thing) as well as the ever-accelerating growth in the human population of the globe. (At the same time it seems puzzling that these significant changes are being ignored, and in some cases even speeding up.)
They freely admit what many climate change denialists have constantly harped on, namely that throughout millennia the earth has witnessed several serious biological changes, of which many annihilated thousands of the species living at the time. Of the present time they say: “Humans are now forcing another such transition, with the potential to transform Earth rapidly and irreversibly into a state unknown in human experience.”
In an interview with the LA Times, professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley Anthony Barnosky – who is the chief author of the paper – remarked that: “The net effects of what we’re causing could actually be equivalent to an asteroid striking the Earth in a worst-case scenario.” He said that he did not want to come across as predicting “Armageddon”, but that, by turning a blind eye to the “warning signs” that are indications of the way that humans are changing the earth, it would not be an exaggeration to say that one may anticipate biodiversity loss of 75% or more.
The scientists’ warning should be clear: it appears to be the case that current generations of humans, by and large, do not really care, or have given up hope that they can do something about, the consequences of their consumption habits and their excessive use of planetary resources. BUT if these practices – including fossil fuel consumption, destruction of forests, overfishing, polluting of the earth’s land and oceans, and rampant population growth – continue unabated, the inheritance of future generations will be “a biologically impoverished Earth”, lacking integrative ecological functions such as those of insects that “pollinate crops, forests that provide clean water, and tropical species that are the source of new drugs”.
What are the chances that human beings will wake up to the seriousness of the present situation? Or would the very people who attach such high value to science choose to ignore the scientists on this issue?
The main problem is that we’re trying to solve a technical problem by means of politics. Political leaders have to win popularity contests. Engineers and scientists have to make things work.
I think most people realise and agree that the situation is critical. I don’t think engineers and scientists know exactly what to do to remedy the situation.
Here’s a game theory analysis of why measures like the Kyoto protocol often reach and impasse, as well as potential ways to break it:
http://www.economist.com/node/9867020?story_id=9867020
Agree with Garg, essentially we are dealing with political and economic interest. A solution must address these issues – the key to a sustainable future lies in political rights, technological innovation and economic growth…it is the only way you are going to convince people that it is in their interest to change…Now only if the green movement would embrace this route, instead of being anti-poor, anti-growth, biased against marked solutions and morally self righteous.
Maybe Charles and Camilla instead of hobnobbing with Majarahs in India and Zulu Kings in South Africa as fellow royals, should teach them how to be farmers and not just royals!
A few years ago we were told that 350 ppm was the ‘tipping point’. There is even a web site called 350 that punts (mostly very well) this point. Now when we top 350 the absolute max when the world will tip off its axis is 450ppm. Bert that is why so many of us (including past scientific leaders in global warming) are having 2nd thoughts. The problem it is being led by politics (smelling the huge amounts of money=power that would come their way) instead of science. And by science we mean all science the pro and anti not just the pro.
Brent
How exactly do you stop the planet and the sun from shifting the climate?
The Charles connection does not excite me.
The future of our planet could be a more serious issue than the future of Charles. On the other hand the reports on the “world” are confusing between “total disaster” to “don’t panic”.
Issues vary from exhaust gasses (cars, planes), coal gasses (electricity), water polution, end of fish population….all of which is -in the end- related to too many people on the planet using any of the above.
The various conferences on the “health of the world” in widely spread world destinations by themselves, generate all of the above helping the world coming to a quick end.
Solution?? Travel – holiday or business – as little as possible and preferably by foot, reduce eating cooked food, ban plastic (oil residue), ban paper (to safe forests), stop eating fish and reduce human procreation.
The response to austerity programs in Europe will give you an impression of the expected world repsonse. Any politician volunteering to start? Other than the famous Prince Charles….not too many, I guess.
New world order at its best …..
@HD: You exemplify the problematic mindset underlying the problem with your talk of a growth economy and market solutions and your terrible rhetoric about ‘greens’ being ‘anti-poor’. Seriously, are you taking notes from Helen Zille or something?
The anthropogenic disruption of the natural order of the planet can mainly be attributed to the excessive breeding patterns of its human populations (7 billion and counting). This in turn is supported by political and economic leaders whose agendas are driven by self- interest and selfishness. The more people, the more power. This is probably why environmental forums like the Rio+20 will always end up unresolved and controversial.
Talking of political factors, take Germany. Having taken the political decision to abandon clean (from a carbon dioxide perspective) nuclear energy, they are now mining and burning brown coal to fill the base power energy gap caused by the immediate shutting down of the seven oldest nuclear plants ‘in response to Fukushima’. They have installed windmills and solar panels to the tune of 100 billion euros, but cannot manage that power efficiently, so a large percentage goes to waste. It really makes one despair about so-called democratic decision-making on technical matters.
And what about the little point that earth is said to be about to shift her axis and move (up/down) in relation to the sun?
There has always been climate change in the whole history of the planet – which caused the Ice Ages, the Flood, the disappearance of land bridges between continents, the dying out of species like the dinosour and the sabre toothed tiget – get real – none of that had anything to do with carbon emmissions.
Please Bert, why should we listen when Charles sends a message in a speech that was probably written for him. That Elizabeth doesn’t abdicate is probably because whe doesn’t even trust him to be an effective ceremonial figurehead.
It is also dishonest to describe climate sceptics as denialists, since they do not deny that it is taking place, to the contrary they say it is an ongoing thing ever since the earth was formed some 4,5bn years ago.
Remeber hurricane Katrina? The climate scientists told us that this was going to happen on a regular basis every year and not just one a year but several. They alos told us in about 1996 that, according to their computer models, the earth’s average temperature would increase by at least one degree within the next 12 years or so. Well, they got that also wrong, so why should we believe them about their predictions for 2050 or 2100?
This comment has been edited.
Good for Prince Charles. I have the utmost respect for him on environmental issues as I have followed his well informed environmental opinions for years. He has helped sway public opinion on several issues.
At this stage it looks as if we are doomed; ignorance, profit, greed and lack of political will remain in charge.
>>>
@ Lyndall: In addition to that, Egyptian history owes two of its defining moments to climate change:
6000 years ago: Sahara region goes from savannah and woodland to full-blown desert resulting in eastward migration towards the Nile. Egyptian civilisation begins shortly thereafter with the rise of the Old Kingdom.
4200 years ago: Shortly after the death of Pepi II, another shift stops the rains from falling in Ethiopia, thus preventing the Nile from flooding for several years. Situation become so dire that many resort to eating their own children to survive. The period of the Old Kingdom ends along with the outright belief in kings being divine. No new pyramids are built as a result. The Akkadian Empire, along with other population centres as far afield as Greece also suffer and disappear.
The present House of Saxe-Colburg (re-named the House of Windsor during the war) have an admirable Germanic dedication to duty and admiration for military prowess, but, in my opinion, a singular lack of imagination – with the exception of the Queen, herself.
Prince Charles, following the precepts of his godfather, Laurens van der Post, greatly admires the Zulu monarchy and their army as “the best fighters in Africa” (to quote van der Post).
It does not seem to strike them that this army was motivated by fear of the King.
With all respect to the Ubuntu theories of Mandela, this did not apply to the Matabele Kings Mizilikatzi and Lobengula, nor the Zulu Kings Shaka, Dingaan, Mpshe and Ceteswayo – with them it was “my way or the highway”, and disobedience to the king meant being tortured to death together with the members of your family – death on the battlefield being much more preferable.
Of course, as a Scot, I regard the Stewarts as the legitimate kings of the British isles anyhow!
Bert and others please have a read of the following: “http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/matt-ridley-on-scientific-heresy-and-the-temptations-of-confirmation-bias/” and see how urgent global armageddon is. Global warming is a consensous but it causing armageddon is not.
Brent
Enough Said, thank you for that – anyone who maintains a stereotypical, cynical attitude of rejection towards Charles just because he is a Windsor, has not taken the trouble to be informed about Charles’s responsible approach to ecological matters. He is also very clued up on architecture. I have no great love for Britain’s royals – in fact, I believe that royalty is an anachronism – but give credit where it’s due.
Ah, what would a thoughtleader article be without a moronic comment from Lyndall Beddy?
Come on Bert! The guy once wanted to reincarnated as a tampon. Charles is a joke and does nothing for your cause. He is the scion of privilege. He’s been supported by the state his whole career. He’s sheltered and out of touch. He takes Foucalt seriously. He thinks people care what he says. He’s critical of capitalism and the basis of why he is where he is. He comes across as a complete moron. Okay, I begin to see why you identify with the chop!
Charles is always agitated about something. It’s his default public posture. He is agitated about architecture he doesn’t like. About homeopathy he does like. About organic food he likes. And now about global warming.
Unfortunately he doesn’t have any particular qualifications, expertise or skill in any of these areas.
As an aside, the ‘parts per million’ is not an SI unit. This means that as a form of measurement, or as an indicator of how dire our situation is, it is not really meaningful.
This blog does more number crunching:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/
Also read the comments. It should serve to dispel the rumours that science is dogmatic or that there is only one true way to look at the problem of global warming.
Some wisdom for both sides of the debate to consider:
“What sustains pseudoscience is confirmation bias. We look for and wel-
come the evidence that fits our pet theory; we ignore or question the evidence
that contradicts it. We all do this all the time. It’s not, as we often assume,
something that only our opponents indulge in. I do it, you do it, it takes a
superhuman effort not to do it. That is what keeps myths alive, sustains con-
spiracy theories and keeps whole populations in thrall to strange superstitions.
Bertrand Russell pointed this out many years ago: ‘If a man is offered a
fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the
evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand,
he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his
instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”
Climate science to day is the ‘in thing’ everything else is heresy, that alone should make all reasonable people stand back and think carefully
Brent
@Brent and other anthropogenic climate change denialist ignoramuses.
If you cannot raise someone up to a higher level of scientific understanding, I guess the next best thing drag them down to your level of ignorance.
Bert’s information on climate science is mainstream and measurable, maybe not perfect yet, but certainly not not the ‘in-thing’.
The average idiot who denies human culpability in current global warming/climate change is stupid enough not to be able to distinguish the difference between science and industry propaganda.
@Bert – what do the great philosophers say on the lowest common denominators in society, other than empty barrels make the most noise.
PS. I guess the next comment by some moron will say no need for ad hominems. The average right wing moron always uses that as a defense for the ignorant trash they espouse.
>>>
@Enough Said:
The average idiot is also not savvy enough to differentiate between climate science and Al Gore’s propaganda. Suffice to say that the weather is not a predictable thing, let alone climate.