Friday 7 March 2008

Doomsay

Hey, you know how food prices keep going up? That's pretty lame. Do you know why that happens? Because food is harder to grow these days. 'Cos of Global Warming.

Most of the nations that produced an agricultural surplus 20 years ago, (i.e. produced more tonnage of food that they themselves ate), now... um... don't. In Asia, for instance, China and India were once renown for their rice exports, now, in the entire region, only Thailand produces enough rice to be able to safely flog on the world markets without risking famine within its own borders.

The same goes for all other staple crops in the world. Millenia of selective breeding has made the plants we eat very specified. The problem with biological specification is that it leaves you very open to extinction, especially when your specific environment begins to whither away. Well, maybe thats a bit alarmist, there are countless breeds of staple crops - if a farmer notices his current crop isn't taking too well, he can order in a load of seeds for a different breed that will handle better... But this can only go so far, agricultural difficulties are steadily accumulating.

And hey, that word, 'steadily'... yeah... don't get used to it. Right now Climate Change is steady, but it won't stay that way. There are a certain number of 'tipping points' in the global system, that, once reached, cause huge chain reactions. For instance, the temperature in Antarctica only has to raise by a few more degrees to drastically increase the amount of meltwater dripping off the Antarctic Mountains, this water seeps down through the ice and accumulates between the snow and the land... essentially lubricating the entire ice sheet. Eventually, several million tonnes of ice will simply slip off the land that holds them, and result in a large increase in sea level.

This itself will cause a new chain reaction, a higher sea means higher winds, and higher winds means warmer weather at higher heights, warm weather at high heights, especially in the polar regions, will lubricate more ice sheets and fuck us up even more. So don't expect anything moderate. Ice Sheet Collapse will either not happen, or happen to an insane degree... and the former is not very likely.

So what do people do? They say, 'Uh-oh! We need to do something!', but, because they themselves are not very well informed, and, more importantly, because there is a huge multi-million pound industry dependent on misinforming them, the completely well-meaning urge to 'do something' ends up causing more harm than good.

Case in point: biofuels. Now, there are essentially two issues at stake in much what is jumbled under the 'Green' umbrella. The first is the maintaining of resources, making sure we don't run out of anything crucial, the second is protecting the macro-environment, minimising the output of greenhouse gases, etc... sometimes, these two issues interlap: for instance, recycling certain metals assures that new mines need not be opened, and preserves mineral resources for future generations, whilst simultaneously saving energy, as metal recycling often only requires a simple process of remelting and remoulding, as opposed to a process of heavy-mining, smelting, schmelting, zibbilimelting and all those other clever, yet very carbon-intensive processes, that metalmongers have devised over the centuries: metal recyling preserves resources and saves energy. However, this interlapping is far from common. Biofuels are often believed to be good for the environment: they are not. The chemical reaction taking place within a tank of biofuel is identical to the chemical reaction taking place within a tank of diesel... the benefit of biofuel is that it does not require the burrowing into of oil deposits, its impact on the atmosphere is negligible if not nonexistant.

Furthermore, the production of biofuels relies on huge areas of arable land... we're starting to see this today, in communities where people are starving, farmers chose to rip out their stable crops in order to produce the cash crops needed to made the biofuels. El Jefe himself, Fidel Castro, is a staunch proponent of this view: he says that Western insistance that Developing World farmers turn their attentions to the growing of plants to fill our cars' engines rather than the growing of plants to fill the bellies of the world's poorest people amounts to a campaign of Imperialist genocide... He may have a point.

So, good intentions + oppurtunistic capitalists = a plethora of supposedly 'Green' schemes to free you of your cash without necessarily assisting our species' ability to survive in the slightest.

And that's why environmentalism won't work. Because the principle actors involved in stopping Climate Change have no interest in stopping Climate Change. They have an interest in selling peace-of-mind to people by assuring them that they themselves are helping; supposedly, one would assume, the best way to convince an individual that they are helping would be to actually make them help... but this doesn't take into account how easily tricked human beings are. So people go about recycling their used paper, despite the fact that a) paper biodegrades completely in landfills, b) paper recycling is a mechanical industry, complete with all the conveyer belts and furnaces and all that carbon-burning shebang and c) tree farming is one of the only industries in the world that actually produces more oxygen than CO2.

My personal opinion is that instead of trying to prevent Global Warming, we should prepare for it. Forbid unsensible building on flood planes and deconstruct/dyke up anything under 30ft elevation above sea level, invest more money into greenhouse and hydroponic farming, and other methods that don't rely on the external environment. Because these are concrete aims. If we hire private companies to do these, there are simple and intuitive ways to make sure that they do actually do them, in contrast to the claims that we are given these days, ("We've built an off-shore wind farm that will help the environment!" - Will it? Can you prove it? - "Absolutely not!").

However, opinions like these are considered defeatist amongst mainstream environmentalists... so, yeah, that's why we're fucked.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with your 'prepare vs prevent' idea. There is absolutely no way the preventing is going to work, because a) As you said, we're barely doing anything, and b) Even if we get to a point where we're doing the most amount of plausible stuff to help the environment AT SOME POINT, it definitely will not be soon enough to change anything.
So yeah. Defeatist? Psh. Realistic.
However, that's not to say we shouldn't turn off electrical things when they're not being used, and not use a car to walk 20 metres down the road - like the fattyfatty Texans.

You know what I really hate? The environmentalists who say things like: Stop flying around the world! Stop using your car... EVER. It's just ridiculous.
Do you remember when they had that thing on the news about the cheapest car being made and pretty much all of India being expected to buy it? Loads of environmentalists got all mad about it like Indians shouldn't have the option of getting a car. They basically wanted to strip their ability to have the same right as the western world. What a bunch of fuckeneers...

Also, just thought you'd be interested in this:
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/02/25/paper-cup-vs-styrofoam-cup-which-is-the-greener-choice/

Roo said...

I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times, bring back rationing. Yes I know some liberties like freedom of choice will decrease but agriculture industries use a shit load of energy and water and in the western world most of that is just wasted. If we rationed what people ate, and pretty much forced people into vegetarianism (if not veganism) a big difference would be made much more quickly, especially as crops grown to feed livestock could then be used to feed the peoples.

It's more energy efficient, and yes, that counts a lot more than ice falling into the oceans and East Anglia going atlantis on us.

TheNineDollarBlog said...

@sarah: aye! in my opinion the point of no return in regards to stopping climate change was probably in the early 1990s, back when most people didn't believe that man-made climate change even exist.

the problem is, most scientists don't know too much about economics, and most economists don't know too much about science, and most environmentalists don't know too much about anything. like, i'm not saying i'm an expert on either of these, but from what i know, the world is actually PRETTY dependent on economic growth. its simply not enough these days to know that the global economy is growing, people need to know how well its growing, otherwise they freak the fuck out and things go to shit.

and like, that may be okay on the wealthier side of the spectrum, but for poor people, there is a completely different situation: essentially, the poor are offered the following deal, 'if you follow all of our rules, get a crappy job and work yourself stupid; then we can promise you that you will end up with more wealth at the end of the day', but as economic growth begins to drop the promise of eventual financial improvement becomes harder to believe, untill eventually people end up saying, 'fuck you and your rules, i can provide more money for me and my family by doing what you say i'm not supposed to.'

this is why people in the developing world are so much more ready to fight in civil wars against their governments, and why we have growing crime rates amongst the sub-working class here in this country. people don't believe that following the rules will bring them real tangible benefits. and by saying to everyone that long-haul flights and international shipping is going to be banned, then you're really not doing a lot to counterargue that point.

rousseau pointed a fundamental paradox in human life: all men are born free, yet everywhere they are in chains. this is because people are willing to put up with oppression if they believe they can pass on a material benefit to the next generation... this is the phenomenon commonly known as civilisation. no reliable promise of financial betterment = no reason for people to comply with their leaders = no civilisation = its all very well and good to say preserving the environment is more important than financial gain, but in real life, such a view would probably just lead to a new dark age.

and @ roo: stfu. meat is teh taste!

Parma Violet said...

Today I read about a designer handbag made of recycled corregated cardboard. It costs £180.
According to human beings, "It's a great way to show you care about the environment!"

Tom, Sarah - I think it's time we returned to our home planet. :( I'm getting really tired of this place.

Anonymous said...

Seconded, Megaloo.