1) This point is so well put that I want to start a mini thread to discuss, and maybe start a discussion about why this basic fact is not being acknowledged.
Because of the climate crisis there is no future where things are not going to be radically changed and different.
3) I've always known what change is coming whether you like it or not, because I have been saying this for a very long time. However, my impression is that no national or world leader, no politician, very few journalists, really understand what this means.
4) When talking about the future, politicians, journalists and mainstream commentators, talk about the future as it will be much like it is now. This is a physical impossibility and it illustrates that these people have no grasp of sustainability at all. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainab…
5) The industrial revolution, based on the burning of fossil fuels, put in place a system, where either we would have to radically change direction, or the ensuing climate and ecological crisis, would lead to the collapse of our civilization and mass biodiversity loss.
6) However, virtually all politicians, even green politicians, seem to imagine a future where everything will be much like it is, where at the most, there are just a few technological changes to our power sources. This is absolute fantasy.
7) I've always called this "magical battery thinking", where it is bizarrely seen that we just need to swap one power source for another, like changing a battery - then we can carry on with business as usual, and the problem is solved. It is completely delusional.
8) Let's just imagine in this thought experiment that we create a magical power source, some type of cold fusion, that allows us to produce endless electrical power, at virtually no cost, with no pollution and carbon emissions. Such magic is highly unlikely in the extreme.
9) Currently most biodiversity loss is driven by causes other than climate change. Although as the present climate regime breaks down, it's impact on biodiversity will become much bigger. theguardian.com/environment/20…
10) Biodiversity loss is as big a threat to our civilization as the climate crisis.
"We cannot solve the threats of human-induced climate change and loss of biodiversity in isolation. We either solve both or we solve neither."
11) Therefore, as most biodiversity loss is not being driven by the climate crisis at the moment, a magical clean power source, even if such a thing was possible, would do nothing at all to stop us heading towards civilization collapse and mass starvation.
12) In other words, even if this magical power source (the centre of the "magical battery delusion") was possible, we would still need to radically alter how our system operates, to avert disaster in the near future.
13) Yet no politician, no mainstream economist, no mainstream journalist or commentator, foresees this radical change of our system. They just dismiss it out of hand as unrealistic. Something not even worth contemplating.
14) However, if we just carry on with the current system, we are going to induce such massive changes to the global ecosystems and climate regime that keeps us alive, that it will collapse the business as usual economic growth system, they are desperately trying to maintain.
15) A modern financial economy such as that we have created, based on a need for continuous economic growth, cannot possibly function if we collapse the climate and ecosystems, that sustain it and make it possible.
16) Yet it seems that mainstream commentators, politicians and mainstream economists, cannot get their head around this simple fact. Because that is the tacit implication, the big picture, tacitly implied by the scientific evidence.
17) However, anyone that points this out, is dismissed as a crank. All those who imagine the present system carrying on as it is, are simply unable to address the biodiversity/ecological part of the equation.
18) They insist that if we create "clean power", that we can just carry on as normal - without any radical changes to the system.
19) Let us look at the background context, to see why this is completely delusional. Currently only a small proportion of the world leads a very high consumption lifestyle as typified by the US, but also present in other wealthy countries.
20) Yet the economic growth model underpinning the world's economic system, envisages every person in the world catching up with this high consumption lifestyle enjoyed by a few.
21) In reality, it is not just one country against another, because even in a country like the US, everyone is trying to catch up with the lifestyles of multi-millionaires and billionaires. There is no end to it.
22) The wealthier someone is, the bigger their carbon and other consumption footprint is. After all, what is the point of having a lot of money, if you don't use it to buy stuff, or to amuse yourself with space flights?
23) Self-evidently, everyone in the world cannot catch up with the lifestyles of the richest people in the world, who are trying to get richer. Yet that is the very assumption at the heart of the economic growth system, which politicians, economists etc, are trying to preserve.
24) It really is a stark choice. Either we radically alter our system, to create a truly sustainable system, or we will induce such changes to our climate, and ecosystems reliant on the current climate regime, that will collapse our economic system. It's as simple as that.
25) There is no future where things are not radically altered and different. That is what "change is coming whether you like it or not" actually means.
Why are the powerful desperately trying to stop change to a system, which is going to be radically altered anyway?
26) This is not a doomster point of view. We can create a sustainable system, but to achieve it, we must make radical changes to our system. There is no other way around it. All the rest is fantasy and delusion.
Please note this is one of a series of complaints I made about the @Guardian claiming that 2C was an internationally agree safe level of warming, which it was not. It is difficult retrieving them now, but some definitely used the SEI reference. theguardian.com/environment/20…
Here is a screenshot of my comment. I am not trying to single out either the @Guardian or the @BBC. What I am illustrating is that over the last 30 years the media and governments have seriously misled the public into believing that 2C of warming was safe.
2) In an otherwise good article, @RHarrabin bizarrely concludes.
"What do we imagine things will be like with a rise of 2C, which was until recently considered to be a relatively "safe" level of change? " bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-…
3) If you understand the history of the 2C figure as regards to climate change, and how it was defined and explained, it is impossible to understand how any informed person thought it was a safe figure. carbonbrief.org/two-degrees-th…
The failure to give this thread much notice or even recognise what I said, massively illustrates the main problem as regards the ecological and climate crisis i.e. that there is virtually no ecological understanding of the crisis we face.
As a society we have become totally disconnected from the natural systems that keep us alive, and there is virtually no understanding of ecosystem processes, what biodiversity is, and how it sustains us and makes our lives possible.
Just a week ago I started a thread on why it is essential to use the term biodiversity for biodiversity, and not nature or wildlife as a euphemism for biodiversity, as they refer to something else and are ill defined terms that mislead the public.
1) Most old growth natural forest in the world has already been destroyed through clear felling. I want to explain why replanting does not replace these incredible ecosystems, but just creates a deceiving facsimile of what was there previously.
2) Old growth forests are unique habitats. An incredible interlinked habitat develops over many thousands of years. Their soils are unique, as is the incredible fungal networks which lie in the soils of these old growth forests.
1) Again @GretaThunberg offers some of the most insightful commentary on the climate and ecological emergency. No one sees the big picture any clearer than this. What she says seems deceptively simple, but it is entirely accurate.
2) What I wanted to start this mini thread for is there is now a tendency, to tell individuals what they should do to address the climate and ecological crisis, as if this is the way to address the crisis, and why we have not addressed it i.e. the public are responsible.
3) However, as Greta brilliantly expresses in just a few words, it is impossible for anyone to live a truly sustainable lifestyle in a system controlled by governments which impose an unsustainable system on us.
I was making some audio recordings of a male Common Cuckoo on Whixall this morning and noticed some odd vocalizations, which appeared to be coming from the Cuckoo. The gruff sounds you hear at the beginning and throughout, are coming from the Cuckoo. xeno-canto.org/655226
The context is I had crept in close, to check it was the male Cuckoo making these sounds. I then saw the male Cuckoo being mobbed by a small songbird (likely a Meadow Pipit) but possibly something else (I didn't have a clear view).
Further to the context, about 10 minutes earlier I'd seen a female Cuckoo come in, following the calling male.
Does anyone know what range of vocalizations male Cuckoos make.