How to save the world from 2020

How to save the world from 2020

Or on saving, earth, why?

Well this is a pretentious opening postulation ploy, used just to get a weak phrase foundation for placing some erratically structured topics to thinking about the idea of how to save The World; a popular subject matter just now with narrow eclectic proponents steeped with environmental issue. One has no idea if the world really is, of its self, in danger, or from what that it is in a need to be saved. No idea if it needs saving from the eventual entropy of time, no idea which composite ‘world’ or parts of it are to be or can be saved and one has absolutely no ability to influence any actions one way or the other. But it can be certain that the world does not care about the induction of perils to its existence or the outcome. It has been extant pre saps, who have demonstrate a range of irrational discordant self obsessed importance to seem unaware of their own irrelevance that in their demise the world will still be extant after they are gone, perhaps?

Ostentatious question perhaps attached to a subject title but one that has to be thought more in hope than expectation given that so far humans have displayed remarkable little serious intent in doing any long term planning to effect a change in the destructive direction it has seemed bent on progressing. This neglect may be excused by the ignorance of detrimental resource exploitation over centuries however latterly there has been recognition that something must be done to save it and therein the life on it. On this basis one aspect being tackled is the crisis of co2 raising air and sea temperatures so speeding up climatic changes. These changes are shown in considerable climate geological research (disputed by many for decades) but that now is shown to be real and steps devised to limit ‘greenhouse gases’ and the reduce reliance on carbon based fuels. In limited affluent countries there is the dash for variety of cleaner energy production for the electrification of motorised transport and the eventual replacement of all oil/gas power.

Given that the world owes nothing to saps and can hardly be appreciative for saps custodianship, the importance of saving the world only matters in so far as saps can continue to exist to prolong the roads perhaps to their own extinction perhaps and until that time there are lots of thing to worry about, so let one opine.

And kicking off, not that this is a world worry but it does give a pointer to how easy the best laid plans of mice can be of a consuming moment and threaten ones nest but still not have terminal importance on others. So far as the Europeanised west is concerned the big play just now is what Russia is doing onto Ukraine since 24.2.22, with their “special operation”, or as pre-empted in the 2014 Russian (west unopposed) Crimea peninsula take-over. All destructive acts since then are now influencing practically everything in the western hemisphere. As a “special operation” that has for 9 months been inflicting destruction onto cities of that country in an attempt to redraw the European political map of controlling influence: it had and still has ongoing considerably much wider and potential greater danger to European peace and economic stability. This simply expressed “special operation” driven by a messianic psychosis of one man locked into his created and to some extent its country’s historic fervour, has become a clear demonstration that being a super power without ingrained widespread economic and socially ‘owned’ cohesion of resources and application, shows little more than the hard rind of a piece of rotten cheese. What one sees is not all what one gets when an overview portrays a physically powerful veneer, underneath can exist a less stable content that has a different complexity to containing the outwards shell made obvious by the misunderstanding and limits of supposed super power status expressed by the failure of Russian forces to succeed with its “special operation” against Ukraine by so far killing and trying to expunge the population of that country that holds far less military capability but has considerable social unity ‘rights’ to defend, hold back and humiliate the aggression of Putin to the embarrassing surprise of many countries.

For the Ukrainians and the west this is war by any disingenuous name, albeit for now it is for European countries, by various means, an economically leverage one shaped in the effects on energy, food, sanctions, cyber technology and hardware support in the hope that such financial and weapons supply cost, provided by the west, will eventually disable Russia aggression. It is counter actions that is built on hope, to avoid an actual destructive European conflict but it is a response, one thinks, that is wrapped in the misunderstanding of the inculcated psyche of the Russian controlling administration and that of a large portion of the population which is and has become so wholly inimical to the ‘west’ with decades of Russian media indoctrination control. Measured incremental responses by the west might only work with a ‘rational actor’; there is little rationality demonstrated thus far with the pursuit of an unwarranted invasion of a peaceful unthreatening country; so how bad will Russia’s dysfunctional mindset fall? There appears to be no sign of Russian withdrawal, no face saving outlet and no acceptable legitimacy for what he is doing and also unlikely to be any retrenchment failing an internal Kremlin administrative reconstruction. Thus far the west has been strategically retrained; responding only to Putin’s escalating assaultive acts after the event, aggressive acts that he may continue with to provoke a degradation of western support for Ukraine. It is unimaginable that Ukraine can cede any territory to Putin’s violence and the west would be unconceivable foolish to give up their support for an independent Ukraine by becoming quisling weak for Russia. Therefore how long can it be before direct defensive action by Europeans is forced to the fore, short of MAD?

The actuality for the west is that it now has to face up to a rogue state on the mainland continent of Europe, with uncertainty of actions by that state which is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future. Into this mix, Europe also has to be unsure which countries want to bat with it to counteract dangerous and offensive activities this state is likely to continue to pursue, to triumph. Some European Union countries are being stressed already by the uncertainty of duration and outcomes with a few potentially actually demonstrating inimical attitudes to the hard won democratic ideals upon which principles the EU was built, countries such as Hungary, Poland, Cyprus with suppressing laws and stem free media, others must be suspect with being or holding facilitators to Russian influence. This is ignoring the larger northern hemisphere countries that have shown great reluctance to be critical of Russia: Turkey, India, Pakistan or China etc, this means there is no global consensus to be convincingly robust for forcing Russia to cease actions yet.

The danger then is can an expansive conflict be avoided? Perhaps this time, by draining the economic power and the persecuted illusion of the Russian people shaped by its own malevolence, just, but not for long. Dictatorship, Autocracies, Democracies etc that do not encompass; open, willing, unified, popular participation in a countries direction, do, once compulsory control is practiced, eventually fail. Countries unable to respond to internal or external social changes seek diversionary escape behaviour. As with the four countries above there are many smaller countries that are in a rapidly deconstruction state but are not of themselves able to generate a global conflict as might be the case with China, Russia, USA, UK and Israel and of course to charge forward with any defensive/offensive war requires oil! Therefore there is not the slightest chance of foregoing oil use for generations to come; it will always be a carbon pump. And will the world care about it being saved after a huge all environs damage done to it by just even a ‘small global’ war? Not in the slightest.

If the above might be a passing worry and has little in contribution to saving the world, the same may have initially been said about this issue. Environmentally there is now enough actual and empirical evidence that shows there is to be at some state a tripping point in the world’s eco system. How this will affect all the global parasites is so far wrapped up in the euphemisms of ‘global warming’, ‘green house effects’, and a wish for ‘net zero’ which is giving rise to seasonal changes, shifting weather patterns, potential sea level rise; food production, coastal and ecology losses etc. It had seemed to be problems that were to be placed in the imprecise future but at a safe generational distance away so that although some limited defences can be set up under the various ‘sustainability’ banners; the high profile worry of Co2 / methane increase will, it is assumed, be slow and ‘manageable’ with corrective moves from prime carbon uses, oil/gas/coal. Although overtime there will be social /civil disruption in those areas affected disastrously by sea level rise and climate disturbance, many areas will, it was assumed, cope with the impacts, having the resources to buy accustomed time.

However in Feb 2022 the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) produced its final report on its assessment of Climate Change. A major piece of study taken over past years and it posits a number of interesting arguments to indicate the anthropological injury placed on the world and the resulting environmental dangers that will follow. “Beyond 2040 and depending on the level global warming, climate change will lead to numerous risk to natural and human systems”. “If global warming transiently exceeds 1.5’c in the coming decade or later (overshoot) then many human and natural system will face additional severe risk”. (1)

To appreciate the whole sense of the report and the work that has gone into it, does not, from the quotes and words ones has underline for stress, really cover just what the IPCC has found and the implicit warnings it states. Thus far the activity by humans is insufficient to stop catastrophic changes for humans to deal with and much more must be done within this decade to mitigate the calamitous nations shattering events to be caused by environmental disasters to follow. This report is, one would think, bringing to a close the wishful thinking of nature just doing ‘its thing’, “climatic change has happened all the time”, “it’s a regular epoch occurrence”, “humans have had little to no impact” and everything will ‘just’ carry on. In any event ‘future’ humans will have to deal with it, but not those here now. However as the deniability view is resistant to evidence, resting on ‘change happens all the time’, is it a safe stance to hold if there is a vested interest in a safe and peaceful future family continuance?

Though the whole reports are stark in reading and land with a resounding thump on the desks of governments around the world. People have many more impotent things to contend with; currently being safe from conflict, intimidation, having a home, a job, how to fund the increasing cost of food, energy and acquire fresh water. Against this news, is it really likely that the financial and habitual cost in the steps needed to be taken and inflicted onto a population to meet the Co2 target reduction, be uppermost in peoples’ minds? And will the world care about what the IPCC says about attempts being made to ‘save it’ from the environs damage being inflicted on it by undertaking a corrective ‘anthropological’ environmental crusade? Will it care about it being saved by just going ‘green’, limiting population growth (most improbable) or avoiding a damaging war? Not in the slightest.

If there is a penultimate global issue, it is, as is being slowly expanded into the consciousness of a growing concerned world population; how to save the world from dramatic environmental unpleasant change. That there will be modifications which will impact the human biosphere, is already evident but the finality of it is unknown; or how fast it will occur and to what expansive level. However there are sufficient extrapolated facets of scenarios that suggest within 100 years environ and geopolitical forces will be devastating (conflicts, war, stressed migrations and deaths) on assets of the humans holding and there will be a continuation of secreted extinction dangers within the whole biosphere. That a constituent of saps, in closed bubble-like areas will survive is most likely and at a high exigency cost but in this is perhaps the contextual eventual questions hidden. Questions that could be asked; do they (saps) as a species deserve to survive long term and for what purpose is that survival when measured against the life of the whole biosphere? Which is the more essential of those relative questions is to be predominant? Saps have flinching choices but does the world have a choice? Not in the slightest.

Being in existence and aware of self existence has and may continue give saps sole justification for its force for continual survival. Saps are the dominant species, they have agency and there is nothing to challenge their right to exist. This may be too simplistic a resolution to the idea of ‘deserving’ to live and might only propose an eventual terminal point at some distant time. By being aware of self existence and its own dependency on the nature of the biosphere imposes responsibilities which cannot be subservient to continued primary existence. Should the definitive purpose be to save the whole eco system and the life it supports, or should everything be subordinate to the survival of the human race? Without cognisant, one without the other might have no existence; does the world know, does it care, probably not in the slightest?

As one species has dominance now and can to some extent dictate the direction of environmental disintegration or not and assuming it recognises its putative superior role sufficient to want to affect an outcome, then it must do so for its own requirements. In this it might be assumed that it (saps) sees the eco systems having greater value than its own existence and knows the dependency it has on it however if this is not the case then it has to give way to something else for saving earth. The solution to this duplicitous conundrum is of course the dramatic reduction or eradication of the superior contaminating infestation. The world problem, are the problems of environmental degradation which are regionally and culturally endemic with the immediate impacts being suffered by the less resourced and they may not have the incentive to adapt administratively or culturally and look to others “who caused the problems” to initiate a reparation fix. Does the world care “who caused the problem” or where it lands a reckoning? Not at all!

It is no wonder that there is an apparent lack of drive to take seriously the challenge to save the world, is evident in the dysfunctional stages of the global economics and environment use for it relies on the huge disparity of resources location, acquisition, dispersal, consumption, population density, growth and ultimately protection of its acquired localised status which is more important to an ingenious population than considering the plight of ‘strangers’ elsewhere.

Up to now their collective unperturbed view taken of the earth, is predicated on the fact that there is a sufferable large degree of disconnect in and between the social infrastructure of countries and the relationship between each country to the other. In addition, it is the ability of market forces to take advantage of the difference between the resource rich, resource poor, powerful and power weak countries. The global administrative relationship between all is not of sufficiently strong or robust nature to react fast enough or at all to the versatility of the global market drivers and this has caused the current tensions in world trade and within local economic conditions. This is exposing many countries to the over extension of their financial foundation and consumable resources and their strategic dependence is the ultimate reliance on such consumables to the detriment of survivable self-sufficiency. This inevitable means that energy from whatever source, as currently used in oil/gas/coal, has to be ubiquitous but reliably interdependently controlled. It cannot be reliant on the external untrustworthy powers or the bought good will of strangers.

So far the prime source of near all consumptive energy is based on carbon with Co2 emissions its downfall. On this energy source the global economy depends and on that the influential powers of nations is primary therefore difficult to moderate. There is no doubt that the raw carbon energy material will eventually run out at current consumption. It is a matter of conjecture just how long this takes but a timing guess would be dependent on the global population growth increasing without curtailment, the sequestration by force of some material essentials and rate of consumption to alternative energy transition. Together with the foreseeable environmental degradation impacting transition decisions; perhaps 1 to 2 hundred years (?) for complete dependency removal. Leading up to and during such transition will be fought with considerable resistance, financial power play, mayhem, conflict, destruction and large scale deaths. Would the world be concerned about all humanities chaos? Not in the least.

There is good intent displayed by most nations to take steps to reduce the impacts of anthropologic climate change focusing on Co2 rise, if they can afford to implement changes and or by doing so it does not weaken their power positions. It is evident that this is a competition of vulnerability positions being played out now by affluent power blocks between themselves and with many island coastal nations that do not have the resources to engage in a dramatic shift to ‘green’ energy. They want the larger polluter nations to cough up ‘compensating’ cash to fund a transition. Some nations do not want to wipe-out their sources of income and power (coal, gas, oil,) and others consider the economic cost of a total green transition plus the uncertainty of future defensive abilities without the use of carbon fuels. All the discussions around the adoption of ‘green’ energy is indivisible from the economic muscle economies have gained to develop a high level of dependency affluence, built on the predecessor force of strength used by those few nations of current supremacy.

Such amassed strength is used to define for themselves global market activities to their own advantage. Their need in this dependency position has been reliant on the availability of a loose stability of an economical energy source and there are stressful reasons why this availability is maintained for continuous growth. It does show though that the rapid increased cost of all energy dependent production outputs, due to war disruption, causes massive financial exposure and undermines the drive to fund a rapid shift in greener energy sources. Producers and traders of carbon fuels are unlikely to willingly assist any transition, they will continue to operate via “Supply and Demand” through exploitation of the “market”, it being the arbiter of transactions and this is considered a fair representative game in which each party is supposed to be able to negotiates a beneficial position, one unavailable to small under resourced, under developed countries. From these positions comes the difficulty of gaining a globally unified active arrangement which offers a rapid energy transition outturn within a decade. Within this situation, apart from a few forced occasions, it, the market, has had no desire to be curtailed by governmental regulation, infringing its ability to trade anyway it can with the free movement of money and it will do so disregarding any consequential cost of residual environmental devastation. Maintained affluence will overrule taxing generosity. ‘The rich are always with us and the poor, wherever they are, must pay to help them out’

One thinks (pessimistically) that it is unlikely that a reduction in ‘green house gases’ will be achieved within the called for window of action, therefore if the environment effects unfold as intimated by COP22 report, the populations of the world are heading for a very sorry state. Perhaps that ruin is what is required to move populace to a more sustainably state of existence built on all forms of greener energy – solar, wind, hydrogen, nuclear, fusion(?), q/energy(?), but even if an energy sustainable position is reached it will still not save the world. Human population will (thus far standing at 8bln) continue to multiply and devour the world’s resources to an entropic state holding onto the social, cultural, and power economic divisiveness. Would the world be concerned for humanities eventual disappearance when it happens? Not in the slightest.

Is there any usable conclusion from all this chat about the environment dangers to the whole bio sphere and pressures caused by human activities? One might suppose that if it is wholly excepted that the evidence of ‘green house danger’ is conclusive and climatic events move as anticipated, at some future generation time there will be the question raised ‘why was not more done in the 21st century to save the 22nd’? To which one might say, the populations of the world were not altruistic enough, busy securing economic skins, unwilling to cede power positions and were not frightened enough to look at the definitive underlying cause of climatic alterations and adjust. Without collectively available clean energy, net zero pollution (green house gases etc) and procreation limitation, it seems unlikely that the earth is to be saved by saps but there is scared reserved optimism it might save itself.

(1) IPCC Sixth assessment report: Impacts Adaptations and Vulnerability. The IPCC have recently intimated, in 2022, taking into account what restraint is happening now to reduce carbon use, this target is unlikely to be achieved within this 2020 decade and will be exceeded; Co2 (and methane) is getting higher and rising faster pushing changes that are unstoppable!

© Renot

1511221633