![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bad News Express (again)
Nov. 8th, 2008 09:57 pmhttp://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4A57MA20081106?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews
The interesting question here is, of course, what 'not technically achievable' means. Or rather, what that statement is predicated on. Is the unspoken basic assumption that our current lifestyle - or something reasonably close to it - is non-negotiable, and therefore anything that would challenge that lifestyle truly radically is 'not technically achievable'? Or do they *really* mean that even with the most radical measures imaginable (e.g., worldwide, extremely strong restrictions limiting emissions for *everybody*, economic growth and so on be damned) it's still 'not technically achievable'?
The thing about those six degrees they're talking about there is... that would be the end of civilisation as we know it. And not in a relatively far off future: this century. Possibly well before the middle of this century. Mitigation for six degrees is impossible. Mitigation for four degrees is impossible, or nearly so.
So. If there's official report after official report, scientific study after scientific study saying that everything's going much faster, and much worse than predicted in the previous report, the previous study - it seems to me there are only two possible reactions:
1.) Eat, drink and be merry. There is no future. We're toast, and so is most of the flora and fauna that has the bad fortune of sharing the planet with us.
Or
2.) Do everything, absolutely everything we can to turn things around. Even if it means great discomfort and sacrifice. Even if it means reducing absolutely every form of consumption to the absolute minimum. Even if it means running 'the economy' into the ground (hey, the crash of civilisation is going to destroy it anyway.) Even if it means having to resort to strict rationing of absolutely everything, and living like people did a century ago, for the rest of our lives.
What is the rational choice?
(BTW. Just to give an impression of the frequency and amount of bad and worse news coming in: this is just one week of news.
The interesting question here is, of course, what 'not technically achievable' means. Or rather, what that statement is predicated on. Is the unspoken basic assumption that our current lifestyle - or something reasonably close to it - is non-negotiable, and therefore anything that would challenge that lifestyle truly radically is 'not technically achievable'? Or do they *really* mean that even with the most radical measures imaginable (e.g., worldwide, extremely strong restrictions limiting emissions for *everybody*, economic growth and so on be damned) it's still 'not technically achievable'?
The thing about those six degrees they're talking about there is... that would be the end of civilisation as we know it. And not in a relatively far off future: this century. Possibly well before the middle of this century. Mitigation for six degrees is impossible. Mitigation for four degrees is impossible, or nearly so.
So. If there's official report after official report, scientific study after scientific study saying that everything's going much faster, and much worse than predicted in the previous report, the previous study - it seems to me there are only two possible reactions:
1.) Eat, drink and be merry. There is no future. We're toast, and so is most of the flora and fauna that has the bad fortune of sharing the planet with us.
Or
2.) Do everything, absolutely everything we can to turn things around. Even if it means great discomfort and sacrifice. Even if it means reducing absolutely every form of consumption to the absolute minimum. Even if it means running 'the economy' into the ground (hey, the crash of civilisation is going to destroy it anyway.) Even if it means having to resort to strict rationing of absolutely everything, and living like people did a century ago, for the rest of our lives.
What is the rational choice?
(BTW. Just to give an impression of the frequency and amount of bad and worse news coming in: this is just one week of news.
