East Antarctica, often times referred to as “the final frontier of global warming,” is making headlines once again.
A few weeks ago East Antarctica’s temperatures soared by 50F to 90F above normal. (Ref: Antarctica Crushes Records, March 23, 2022)
A couple of weeks later East Antarctica’s Conger Ice Shelf (1,200 sq km) completely collapsed and two additional calving events occurred at other glaciers, all in the same week.
This prompts an interesting dilemma. According to David Spratt, research director of the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration in Melbourne: Early IPCC reports said Antarctica would be stable for a thousand years. Then, in 2007 Richard Alley (Penn State) said it was already melting 100 years ahead of schedule.
Is it ahead of schedule once again?
Indeed, if Antarctica continues beating climate models by first lopping off a few centuries and then lopping off decades, and now who knows what the outcome will be or when it’ll happen.
Map of Antarctica – Landsat Image Mosaic of Antarctica team – Public Domain
East Antarctica, as distinguished from its far more vulnerable first cousins West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, has always been characterized as solid, a rock-solid 1-to-3-mile thick ice sheet the size of the United States that does not budge. Now, it’s budging.
On or about March 15th Conger Ice Shelf, East Antarctica completely collapsed. This collapse followed record temperatures of 40C+ warmer than seasonal norms only a week previous.
According to Helen Amanda Fricker, professor of glaciology at Scripps Polar Center, three calving events occurred in East Antarctica in the month of March: (1) Conger Ice Shelf (2) Glenzer Ice Shelf (3) a smaller event at the enormous Totten glacier. “Much of East Antarctica is restrained by buttressing ice shelves, so we need to keep an eye on all the ice shelves there.” (Source: Satellite Date Shows Entire Conger Ice Shelf Has Collapsed in Antarctica, The Guardian, March 24, 2022)
Moreover, according to Peter Neff, glaciologist and professor at the University of Minnesota, even a small ice shelf collapse (Conger) in East Antarctica was a surprise, in fact: “We still treat East Antarctica like this massive, high, dry, cold and immovable ice cube,” Ibid.
In February 2019, John Englander, oceanographer and world-renown sea level expert, spoke at The Royal Institution, London. He discussed sea level rise. The ice shelves are the buttresses that hold back rapid flow of glacial ice from flowing to the sea.
Englander said: When warming cycles happen, sea level rise usually takes centuries and centuries to increase. For example, 14,000 years ago an increase in temperatures took seas up 65 feet over 400 years. Accordingly, that’s 1.5 feet per decade, which calculation led John Englander to factor into an assumption that today’s sea level rise will be 1-2-3 feet by mid 21st century. In turn, that would be a real shocker, especially to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with its median expectation of one-half a meter or 1.6 feet by 2100. The IPCC’s absolute “worst-case” guesstimate is 32 inches by 2100, but a footnote hidden in fine print says the IPCC does not factor Antarctica into their calculations. Hmm.
At that speech three years ago Englander gave his best guesstimate: By mid-century, we could get a couple of feet of sea level rise. A big takeaway from Englander’s speech, with emphasis, he said: “Reduce emissions immediately!”
Oops, that suggestion has not panned out. When Englander spoke CO2 in the atmosphere was 407.9 ppm versus 419.28 ppm in February 2022. That rate of increase over the past three years makes the annual rate of increase from 1950 to 2000 look like a cakewalk.
Prof Matt King, who leads the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, said because ice shelves are already floating, the Conger ice shelf’s break-up would not impact sea level much. He said that fortunately, the glacier behind the Conger ice shelf is small, so it’ll have a “tiny impact on sea level in the future”.
“We will see more ice shelves break up in the future with climate warming,” King said. “We will see massive ice shelves – way bigger than this one – break up. And those will hold back a lot of ice – enough to seriously drive up global sea levels… The speed of the breakup of [the Conger] ice shelf reminds us that things can change quickly… Our carbon emissions will have an impact in Antarctica, and Antarctica will come back to bite the rest of the world’s coastlines and it may happen faster than we think,” Ibid.
“Reduce emissions immediately” (John Englander speech at The Royal Institution, London, 2019)
Based in Los Angeles, Robert Hunziker is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and published in over 50 journals, magazines and sites worldwide.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in many respects, is a Delphic institution whose reports are a function of political discretion as it provides justification for nation/state policies that are seldom fulfilled, e.g., only a handful of the 193 signatory nations to Paris ’15 have met commitments. This scandalous outright failure at a dicey time for the climate system only serves to hasten loss of stability and integrity of the planet’s most important ecosystems.
That provocative depiction is examined in a recent Nick Breeze ClimateGenn podcast interview: Existential Risk Management with David Spratt, research director of the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration in Melbourne. Dr. Spratt is highly regarded for solid research, which is evidenced throughout his refreshingly straightforward interview.
Spratt’s interview tackles: (1) failings of the IPCC, (2) tipping points, and (3) a nearly out of control global warming challenge that’s not realistically understood, even as wobbly ecosystems start to falter.
The truth is the IPCC has been politicized to such an extent that its reports unintentionally confuse public opinion whilst misdirecting public policy issues for mitigation. At the center of the issue the IPCC does not expose the full extent of existential risk, which happens to be such an unthinkable event so hard to accept that nobody believes it will ever really truly happen, more on this later.
During the interview a tipping point is discussed in the context of reduction of Arctic summer sea ice to 3/4ths of its volume, as the Arctic’s highly reflective ice melts into a dark background of sea water that easily absorbs almost all of the incoming solar radiation, in turn, absorbing warmth that would otherwise be 80%-90% reflected back to outer space via the long-standing albedo effect of ice. In turn, a warming Arctic causes excessive warmth to hit Greenland, which, according to Dr. Jason Box (professor in glaciology at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland) is already “past the point of system stability,” meaning past a tipping point of no return. Recently Box publicly warned of abrupt climate change forthcoming. Meanwhile, Greenland’s melt releases cold water into the Atlantic, in turn, slowing down the Atlantic Gulf Stream, and, as follows, weakens Atlantic circulation that, in turn, negatively impacts precipitation in the eastern Amazon.
Like a series of dominoes falling one onto another, one initial event (a) loss of Arctic sea ice brings (b) warmer Arctic waters (c) cascading into more Greenland melt-off, causing (d) slower Atlantic circulation, triggering (e) loss of precipitation for the eastern Amazon. The net result because of one non-linear event, i.e., loss of Arctic sea ice triggers four additional major events. Ipso facto, those five events reinforce each other for who knows how long?
According to Spratt: “So, we see that a change in one system, i.e., Arctic ice volume echoes or has domino effects through other systems,” which triggers a tipping point that, in fact, is already at a seminal stage.
Regarding the IPCC’s approach to risk, first it is important to emphasize the fact that big risks must be the key to successful climate change analysis. By definition, big risks are at the top end of a range of possibilities. But, the IPCC does not see risks that way. Their view is more generalized and this has become normalized over the past 20 years, e.g., we have a 50% chance of not exceeding 2°C with our current carbon budget. According to Spratt: That is catastrophically wrong. That type of risk assessment has been normalized now for 20 years in policy-making, and “it is horribly wrong.”
When risks are existential, and they clearly are in this particular instance, everybody knows if it gets to the range of 3C to 4C pre-industrial (and 60% of scientists say we’re already headed for 3C plus) “we’ll destroy human civilization.”
Therefore, when risks are existential, you can’t look at an on-average analysis, rather, you must look at the worst possible outcome as your primary calculation. It’s the only way to approach an existential risk.
In that regard and interestingly enough the foreword of the IPCC report of a few years ago actually said: “Critical instances calculating probabilities don’t matter. What matters is the high-end possibility.”
But nowadays a figure such as “50% probability introduces a fundamental problem with the assessment process. More realistically, the proper way to look at existential risks is by stating x-amount of additional carbon has a 50% chance of reaching 2C but also has a 10% chance of 4C or in other words, a 50% chance of staying below 2C is also a 10% chance of reaching 4C. Would you take an elevator ride with a 10% chance of the cable breaking at the 75th floor?
When it comes to existential risks, the expectation should be: “Why should we accept risks with the climate system that we would not accept with our own lives?” They are really one in the same.
Thus, the core of existential risk management must focus on the high-end, not middling ranges of probability. The focus must be, and this is an absolute: “What is the worst that can happen, and what do we have to do to prevent it?”
That assumption is not part of the latest IPCC report. When it comes to non-linear responses of cascades, the IPCC says: “There is no evidence of such non-linear responses at the global scaling climate projections for the next century. But, according to Spratt: “This is just wrong.”
After all, “everybody knows, for example, that emissions from permafrost are non-trivial at the moment. We know that warming in the last decade has been higher than in previous decades and the system is about to warm at an accelerating rate as major systems are already changing state. And the IPCC says there is no evidence of moving into non-linear climate change. This is absurd!” (Spratt)
Ipso facto, because of a badly misjudged bias, IPCC models can’t deal with non-linear processes. As a result, they’re missing the big picture by a country mile. And, mitigation policies, for what that’s worth, are inadequate.
Yet, according to Dr. Spratt: “The paleoclimate record tells us that, in the long run, each one-degree of warming brings 10-20 meters (32- 66 feet) of sea level rise. Frankly, that would be a legitimate statement for the IPCC, but they do not deal with non-linear events.”
All of which leads to inadvertent problems for policy makers because people judge the IPCC report as pure science. “It is not. The IPCC is a political body. Diplomats of 190 governments run the IPCC. They appoint the lead authors for reports. The IPCC is the intersection of policy and politics.” (Spratt)
Meanwhile, as if misdirection by the IPCC is not enough of a problem, change is happening so much faster than forecasts. For example, early IPCC reports said Antarctica would be stable for a thousand years. But, back in 2007, Richard Alley (Penn State) said it’s already melting 100 years ahead of schedule.
Of special concern in the near future, when the Arctic goes Full Monty, a 100% ice-free summer, “it will drive changes that will be unstoppable.” This existential risk is already capriciously inconstant across the entire northern horizon.
Furthermore, it’s already apparent to many scientists that we’ll be at 1.5C a decade from now, regardless of emissions over the next 10 years. In fact 1.5C around 2030 looks to be locked-in in part because of the aerosol dilemma. If so, we’re only a decade away from Hot House Earth becoming reality. Thenceforth, the climate system will accelerate much faster than ever before.
Fourteen years ago Spratt published a book Climate Code Red, which codified the idea of a climate emergency by conceptually stating that the climate problem could not be solved “with business as usual.” (Footnote: It’s still business as usual, but bigger)
A review of the book states: Climate Code Red: The Case for Emergency Action is a 2008 book which presents scientific evidence that the global warming crisis is worse than official reports and national governments have so far indicated.
Based upon this current interview, Spratt seems to indicate that it is even worse (actually bigger) today than it was in 2008.
To avert what looks to be an inevitable existential event requires an enormous commitment of resources comparable to a wartime economy with single-minded focus on climate policy, and it also requires a major change in the way society works. Those are awfully big requests, so one has to wonder what’s truly feasible.
As things now stand current mitigation stems from the IPCC’s embedded idea that there can be “incremental non-destructive change as a solution… This will not work.” (Spratt)
The harsh truth is global emissions are continuing to go up, as all of the decarbonization efforts like wind, solar, electric cars, and energy efficiency only serve to produce “more energy for growth.” For example, if the global economy grows 2% per year and 2% of the energy system converts to renewables, then the same amount of fossil fuel energy is used every year. That is a very rough facsimile of what has been happening. Fossil fuel use as a percentage of all energy is essentially the same today as 50 years ago.
Moreover, “there is no way that a system with ‘hands-off’ government, other than a few token regulations, and ‘the free market deciding the outcome’ is going to work.” In fact, the evidence is already telling us it does not work. Not even close.
A true fixit requires overwhelmingly powerful political leadership. In that regard, according to Spratt: “What I really fear and my experience is that those in the elite, whether it’s in business or in politics, simply, I think, do not understand the problem as it really exists.”
There’s a profound ignorance because of the IPCC telling a story that incrementalism is a successful approach when it’s clearly not.
A collateral problem is a large segment of the professional climate advocacy NGO community has been “swallowed by the whale,” meaning they buy into the lame Conference of the Parties “COP” meetings and swallow the corporate-origin net zero nonsense by 2050, over and over again, umm, but it’s too little too late, horribly misdirected. Whereas, according to several scientists, 2030 is the deadly deadline, not incremental movement to 2050.
The crux of the matter is that the most prominent existential risk in human history does not conform to scientific models. It’s almost always ahead of the scientific models, sometimes by several decades. Then, why would it wait around for net zero by 2050?
Based in Los Angeles, Robert Hunziker is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and published in over 50 journals, magazines and sites worldwide.
In the year 2021 methane (CH4) concentration in the atmosphere exceeded 1,900 ppb for the first time in human history recorded by Global Monitoring Laboratory, Earth System Research Laboratories, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
That level of 1,900 ppb is triple the pre-industrial level of 700 ppb. Furthermore, it is suddenly mysteriously accelerating over just the past 13 years. In turn, this exceptional acceleration could hasten global warming considerably. Of even more concern, the acceleration appears to be regenerating on its own accord sans human influence.
“Methane levels are growing dangerously fast,” according to Euan Nisbet, Earth scientist at Royal Holloway, University of London. (Source: Scientists Raise Alarm Over “Dangerously Fast “Growth in Atmosphere Methane, Nature, February 8, 2022)
Euan Nisbet, one of the world’s leading methane experts, was extensively interviewed on Alex Smith’s Radio Ecoshock on February 23rd, 2022, www.ecoshock.org, which is one of the best outlets for ecological information and the status of the planet. Nisbet’s studies lead to a conclusion that increasing methane emissions likely originate from tropical nations more so than anywhere else on the planet: “There is strong evidence to suggest increasing tropical biological sources such as ruminants and wetlands are major drivers of methane’s recent growth. Growth in tropical methane emissions is consistent with a widening of regions experiencing tropical climate, land-use intensification and rapid population rise coupled with explosive urban growth.”
The upshot is CH4 has put on a stronger performance since pre-industrial than CO2, which is up roughly 50% or 1/6th the increase of methane’s 3-fold increase. Molecule-per-molecule methane is most effective over the short term (10 years) at trapping global heat. This sudden acceleration is not good news. It’s a climate change horror story that’s starting to come true.
Identifying the sources of methane is crucial for potential mitigation efforts. But unfortunately mitigation looks iffy or dubious, as shall be explained further on. Meanwhile, 600 million tonnes of methane is released into the atmosphere annually of which 2/5ths come from natural biogenic sources like rotting vegetation in swamps with the balance or 3/5ths tied to human activity. However, that ratio is changing in favor of biogenic.
Human sources include (1) agriculture, which is the largest source at 150 m tonnes (2) Urban landfills and sewage system at 70 m tonnes (3) fossil fuel industry at 100 m tonnes via leaking wells and pipelines and coal ventilation shafts in mines.
Unfortunately, the prevailing issue and big new concern is the startling fact that biogenic sources are now starting to predominate, which means that nature is outpacing the human influence. This is markedly true since 2007 and originating at the tropics, sub-tropics, and high northern latitudes. This is a classic example of positive feedback with “warming feeding more warming.” (Source: Methane in the Atmosphere is at an All-time High- Here’s What is Means for Climate Change, The Conversation, January 26, 2022) Ed. – University scholars and researchers with deep expertise author The Conversation articles.
This means that methane emissions are now accelerating “hands free” sans human impact. This is exactly what scientists have feared for decades. It’s notable that isotope signatures can determine methane sources, i.e., methane from nature (carbon-12) has a different signature than does methane from human sources (carbon-13).
Xin Lan, atmospheric scientist at NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, says studies show that the rapid increase since 2007 is 85% due to microbes or natural sources. This, therefore, is evidence of nature’s positive feedback loop at work with nature now producing accelerating levels on its own accord, an endless acceleration fed by global warming feeding itself! This is not comforting knowledge for those concerned about abrupt climate change with consequential excessive global heat.
Although, climate scientist Euan Nisbet says research is still ongoing as to the primary source. So, the source of accelerating CH4 is still up in the air, however, he claims: “Is warming feeding the warming? It’s an incredibly important question. As yet, no answer, but it very much looks that way.”
Additionally, of special note, and of special concern about future renegade methane emissions, NASA’s Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment of a couple years ago identified methane hotspots via airborne sensors over nearly 12,000 square miles of Arctic landscape: “We detected 2 million of these hotspots over the land that we covered… mostly concentrated within about 44 yards of standing bodies of water… we found abrupt thawing of the permafrost right underneath the hotspots.” (Source: Clayton D. Elder, et al, Airborne Mapping Reveals Emergent Power Law of Arctic Methane Emissions, Geophysical Research Letters, February 10, 2020)
Two million Arctic hotspots where methane emissions were detected should give pause to the countries mentioned below that refused the Global Methane Pledge.
“Methane hitting 1,900 ppb is a fire alarm. We cannot stop natural wetland emissions. But human-caused emissions can be reduced, quickly. At COP26 in Glasgow – the most recent UN climate change summit in November 2021 – more than 100 nations signed the Global Methane Pledge, promising to cut methane emissions 30% by 2030.” (The Conversation)
It should be noted, and broadcast worldwide on a weekly basis, that the biggest emitters, including China, India, Russia, Qatar, and Australia refused to “pledge.” Yes, they refuse to cut methane emissions. The named countries want nothing to do with any attempts to diminish global warming’s favorite point of supply.
Thus and therefore, the question arises whether the Global Methane Pledge will be one more sour failure in the world’s lame attempts to mitigate climate change/global warming. It sure looks that way. Moreover, this repeating failure of nations to take on mitigation efforts is more than frustrating. It is endangering the equilibrium of the planet to support life.
This taxing nonsensical routine of nation/states committing to mitigation plans and not following through, e.g., Paris ’15, or refusing to commit to key mitigation efforts alongside other nation/states, e.g. the Global Methane Pledge, is starting to look like the “the kiss of death on auto pilot.”
Evidently, the horrifying message that global warming is nearly out of control, RGW (runaway global warming) is not getting through to the world leaders that are able to make a difference. This frustrating fact has led some climate scientists to seriously consider “tossing in the towel,” stop research, stop writing papers, go on strike. (Source: These Climate Scientists Are Fed Up And Ready To Go On Strike, New York Times, March 1, 2022)
The lackadaisical attitude by world leaders reflects a world that has turned anti-intellectual, anti-science just when it is needed the most. If it were otherwise, with scientists held in highest esteem, a lot of the planet’s upcoming dark era could be eliminated.
Based in Los Angeles, Robert Hunziker is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and published in over 50 journals, magazines and sites worldwide.
Russian forces have captured Chernobyl, a 1,000 square mile radioactive exclusion zone. But more significantly, what about Ukraine’s nuclear reactors smack dab in the middle of a theatre of war?
A complicating/dangerous aspect of Russia’s invasion is the status of Chernobyl’s sister reactors, 15 reactors at four nuclear power plants exposed in a war zone of bombing, missile attacks and rampant gunfire or perhaps a breakdown of crucial infrastructure that keeps super hot atom-splitting vessel containers and spent fuel rods in open pools of water cool enough to prevent a massive zirconium fire or hydrogen explosion that spews radiation across the countryside.
With an odd twist of bad is good for the enemy, Ukraine’s rickety Russian-designed nuclear power plants serve as a defense mechanism for Putin’s armed forces, essentially prohibiting any involvement by NATO forces that must know that the worst possible tactic would be to escalate warfare in Ukraine with 15 vulnerable nuclear reactors in the line of fire.
Fifty percent (50%) of the country’s electricity generation comes from nuclear. Of heightened concern, some of the 15 operating old Soviet model nuclear reactors are deemed to be so rickety that they would not be allowed to operate in the EU today for safety reasons.
All of Ukraine’s nuclear power units were designed in the Soviet Union, comprising 13 VVER-1000 type reactors and 2 VVER-440 units. None of the units currently meet modern international safety standards. Twelve of the fifteen units have already exceeded their “designed lifetime” of 30 years. (Source: Ukraine’s Nuclear Impasse, The Heinrich Böll Foundation, Brussels, European Union, April 26, 2021)
Following the Fukushima disaster, stress tests were carried out on all European nuclear power plants, including Ukraine: “The aim of the assessments was to check whether the safety standards used when specific power plants received their licenses were sufficient to cover unexpected extreme events. Specifically, the tests measured the ability of nuclear facilities to withstand damage from hazards such as earthquakes, flooding, terrorist attacks or aircraft collisions,” Ibid.
As a result of deficiencies with Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, the Ukraine government approved a Complex Consolidated Safety Upgrade Program with an initial deadline of 2017 funded by a Euro 600 million loan. Because of several postponements, the deadline was shifted to 2023. Therefore, and forebodingly, the existing nuclear power plants are not completely safe, as some safety measures are still not implemented.
Nuclear reactors require a constant supply of electricity and water to operate. As such, infrastructure away from the plants is crucial for on-going operations. Fukushima has already shown what can happen when infrastructure support for a nuclear plant goes bad. Ukraine’s 15 operating reactors depend upon the electric grid to help keep things cool in the event of an abrupt shut down. Additionally, some of the deficiencies found at Ukraine’s reactors had to do with weaknesses exposed by back up generators and electrical control systems.
Misfires or stray artillery or misguided missiles are the main risks, as for example, a thermal power station at Shchastya caught fire only recently amid shelling, leaving 40,000 Ukrainians without electricity.
In the case of destruction of a nuclear power plant, according to Dmytro Gumenyuk, Kyiv nuclear safety expert: “I think the consequences would be so much worse than at Fukushima and Chernobyl together. If speaking about consequences of this war situation, Europe will be totally contaminated.” (Source: Nuclear Risk From War in Ukraine Isn’t Targeted Missiles but Accidental Hits on Reactors, Safety Expert Warns, INews UK, February 24, 2022)
An additional risk is the Chernobyl decommissioning site with 22,000 assemblies of spent nuclear fuel stored in special casks. These are not designed for protection from military firepower: “In case of the destruction of these casks, radioactive materials could be released and transferred to Ukraine and other European territories. This is a very dangerous situation.” (Gumenyuk)
According to the Nuclear Security Index for 2020, under the category “risk environment,” which calculates political stability, effective governance, pervasiveness of corruption, and illicit activities by non-state actors, Ukraine scores a sub-par, lowly 14 out of 100. And, that was before this war.
Yet, there’s even more: A radioactive time bomb is already ticking away at the Yuny Komynar (Yunkom) mine in occupied Donetsk (a Russian breakaway faux state), which has been slowly contaminating the environment for some time but could become a freakish radioactive monster. This stems from a deep underground nuclear test conducted by the Soviet Union in 1979. The nuke explosion melted the walls into glass, creating the Klivazh facility, which is a vitrified capsule of radioactivity. It requires constant pumping of water out of the shaft to prevent flooding.
Prior to Russian occupation, the Ukrainian government spent millions pumping water. But, when the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) took over in 2018, pumping operations ceased and the infrastructure was sold for scrap metal.
According to a 2021 report by Truth Hounds, a Ukraine-based human rights NGO, at the Yunkom mine: “There is a risk of the glass capsule being destroyed, and the leaking of highly hazardous radioactive elements into surface waters. Just two months after water pumping ceased, the level of mine water in the shaft of the mine increased by 157 meters.”
Now, the capsule is believed to have flooded, and according to the International Human Rights community, the concentration of radionuclides in the aquifers 5km away from the site register 20-34*103 becquerels/kg. Accordingly, low-level radioactive waters are already entering drinking water sources.
A bigger risk yet is the Yunkom mine radioactive cocktail spreading far beyond Ukrainian borders should it seep into the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea on to the Mediterranean Sea.
It should be noted that Russian-backed separatists deny any changes in radiation levels or inordinate risks at the Yunkom mine site. However, it should also be noted that the Russian separatists have denied an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) request to access the site for evaluation purposes.
Meanwhile, Sergiy Kyslytsya, Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United Nations has called upon the UN to carry out an environmental impact assessment in Donetsk and Luhansk.
In the final analysis, the Ukrainian/Russian imbroglio is like falling into a surreal state “down the rabbit hole,” not knowing what peril is right around the corner or when it’ll strike but knowing it lurks in the shadows with enormously devastating impact.
Based in Los Angeles, Robert Hunziker is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and published in over 50 journals, magazines and sites worldwide.
Factory farms are the Grim Reapers of civilization, inhumanely penning up and slaughtering cows, pigs, and chickens by the tens of millions, as well as unintentionally, but effectively, poisoning, maiming and/or killing birds, insects, amphibians, mammals, and crucial life-supporting ecosystems that are key to human life. And, it’s legal.
Factory farms have suddenly arisen out of nowhere, e.g., in Iowa “the state’s number of concentrated animal feed operations, known as CAFOs, grew from 722 in 2001 to more than 10,000 in 2017, according to a study on the industry by two retired University of Iowa professors.” (Source: Environmentalists Make Long-Shot Attempt to Ban New Factory Farms, Pew Trust, February 19, 2021).
The first sentence of the Pew Trust article reads; “Iowa has a poop problem.”
Meanwhile, factory farms are an environmental train wreck gone ballistic. The Center for Biological Diversity in conjunction with World Animal Protection-US released a new report entitled Collateral Damage (February 4, 2022) that studied the impact of an estimated 235 million pounds annually of herbicides and insecticides applied to feed crops for factory farms in the US for the most recent year for which complete information is available. The chemicals are applied to corn and soybeans for farmed animal feed in the US. Roughly 50% of highly hazardous toxic pesticide use on a global basis is for corn and soy for factory farms.
The report describes a brutal process of extremely tight-fitting ill-conforming inhumane penning/feeding of animals to fatten‘em up as quickly as possible for slaughter to satisfy the world’s addiction for fast food. The entire process from A-to-Z uses assembly line techniques to get food from pesticide/herbicide enriched mono-crop farm plantings into the grubby hands of stretched-wide-open-mouth humanoid creatures, eating and sweating like stuffed pigs, as the death knell of the Wet Bulb Syndrome –WBS- (95°F/90% wet) starts ringing its bell above and below the equator. Global warming has brought the onset of this deadly event that can kill a person within 6 hours, if they cannot escape the deadly combination of heat and humidity.
The Collateral Damage report describes the impact of widespread use of highly toxic chemicals, specifically herbicides and insecticides, applied to feed crops for factory-farmed animals.
According to the study – Collateral Damage: How Factory Farming Drives Up the Use of Toxic Agricultural Pesticides by World Animal Protection, New York, NY, February 2022: “High levels of meat consumption are driving the decline in wild animal populations via the ever-increasing intensification of monoculture feed crop cultivation to feed the farmed animals raised in the factory farming systems that produce the majority of meat consumed in the US today. This is best evidenced by the hundreds of millions of pounds of hazardous chemicals applied to corn and soy crops as pesticides in the US. These toxic chemicals are impeding the ability of insects, birds, fish, and other taxa to survive and thrive as well as destroying the diversity of native plants on which they rely for shelter and food.”
That’s a mouthful. In other words, the lifecycle of entire ecosystems are put at risk so humans can stuff food down their throats. That entire process is loaded with moral issues, and even plain ole common sense says “something is not right.” Prompting the question of whether humanity is trapped within a toxic chemical world for its survival. That paradox is beyond the pale, but real.
Glyphosate, which is the most widely used herbicide worldwide, is used extensively in factory farming. This is a nightmarish chemical that literally hangs over society like a hangman’s noose. Studies show that glyphosate reduces overall biodiversity by 22%. According to a 2020 EPA study, “it harms, injures or kills 93% of plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act,” Ibid. That’s in line with total extinction numbers. Meaning that one chemical is accomplishing over the course of a few decades what the Permian Triassic extinction event, aka: the Great Dying, of 252 million years ago accomplished over a period of a few million years.
As for human health, already more than 13,000 lawsuits claim the pesticide causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The WHO “Research on Cancer” claims that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
“Scientific studies show a strong correlation between glyphosate and serious health hazards including disruption of the hormonal system and beneficial gut bacteria, damage to DNA, developmental and reproductive toxicity, birth defects, other cancers, and neurotoxicity,” Ibid.
Other than glyphosate, atrazine is one of the most widely used, and toxic, agricultural pesticides in the US, primarily used on corn, sorghum, and sugarcane. According to Collateral Damage: “The vast majority applied in the US, some 87%, is applied solely to corn and an estimated 60-70% of all corn is treated with atrazine.”
Moreover, as stated in the report and of heightened concern, and nearly beyond belief: “Despite its popularity in the US and the Asian-Pacific region, atrazine has been banned in 35 countries. It was banned in the EU due to persistent groundwater contamination. It is relatively mobile, regularly entering water bodies via runoff and rainfall, and has been detected in rain or air in Europe and the US more than any other currently used pesticide. According to United States Geological Survey (USGS) assessments, atrazine has been detected in streams at levels of 200 micrograms per Liter (μg/L) and repeatedly detected at above 100 μg/L. In waters adjacent to treated fields atrazine was found in concentration as high as 1000 μg/I,” Ibid.
For comparison purposes of the impact: “Atrazine is highly toxic to algae in culture at concentrations ≥100 μg liter.” (Source: Kyle D. Hoagland, et al, Effects of Organic Toxic Substances, Algal Ecology, 1996)
According to the report, atrazine is a known endocrine disrupter with high toxicity, for example: “Atrazine is a potent endocrine disruptor and is linked to a variety of human health issues, including different types of cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and harm to the reproductive system. After just six hours of exposure an increase in cell death and DNA damage were observed. The same level of damage from exposure to Gamma radiation would take a full 15 minutes. Atrazine also alters the levels of dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain and decreases the electrical activity of certain cells in the cerebellum (the region of the brain that controls motor function). As an endocrine disruptor it can interfere with the balance of hormones in the body, significantly impacting overall physiology and development,” Ibid.
It’s not at all surprising that 35 countries, including the EU, banned atrazine. But, it’s enormously popular in the US.
The report does provide three pages of specific recommendations for governments and intergovernmental orgs and businesses and institutions and individuals. And, as a general approach, the report calls for individuals and institutions to opt for healthier diets and menus that prioritize plant-based foods to “lower impact on animals and the planet.”
It’s also worth noting that only recently a major international study on the impact of chemicals on the planet was released. It substantiates Collateral Damage, to wit: Marc Préel, Plastic, Chemical Pollution beyond Planet’s Safe Limit: Study, Phys.org, February 15, 2022.
The study states that chemicals have exceeded the limits of safety for the planet: ““We have overwhelming evidence of negative impacts on Earth systems, including biodiversity and biogeochemical cycles.”
In total, three hundred fifty thousand chemicals are now altering the composition of the surface of the planet. Switzerland’s Institute of Environmental Engineering only recently compiled the quantity, surprisingly finding the quantity of chemicals to be three times more than prior estimates.
In a similar fashion, greenhouse gases alter the composition of the atmosphere. All in, Earth has become an artificial chemically charged planet. Consequently, nobody knows what’ll happen next with the biggest chemistry experiment of all time. But, how could it possibly be good?
Based in Los Angeles, Robert Hunziker is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and published in over 50 journals, magazines and sites worldwide.
The extraordinary statement “we cannot truly die” is found on page 133 of Joseph Selbie’s book, The Physics of God (New Page Books, 2021). Indeed, it’s a book for people who want to understand and believe that there is more to life’s course than earthly corporeal existence.
Based upon reams of fascinating scientific and metaphysical research, Selbie connects the dots in a masterful blend of science and religion taken to the edge of multi-universes and beyond to the heart of the astral plane.
Our existence is much more than a boring standardized physical life on Earth. Selbie offers an uplifting view of so much more with considerable science-based evidence as well as personal experiences by people of intellectual stature. Life on our planet is but one small leg of a much bigger journey, a phenomenal journey unlike anything ever experienced or ever dreamed, in as much as, we truly cannot die.
Based in Los Angeles, Robert Hunziker is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and published in over 50 journals, magazines and sites worldwide.
Photograph Source: Camera Eye Photography – CC BY 2.0
Ocean Heat Killing Spree
By Robert Hunziker
The oceans of the world are undergoing a dangerous and damaging upheaval that manifests throughout scientific studies of late. Whether it’s the world’s fisheries of the Bering Strait or coral reefs of the Mediterranean Sea or emaciated Gray Whales along the Pacific coastline, study after study after study describes sudden, sharp downturns in all categories of marine life. What is going on?
Global warming is the culprit of this deeply disturbing disheartening affair, and it begs the question of whether any nation/state or unified nations can do anything about it. After all, “save the whales” and “save the oceans” have been rallying cries in grocery store parking lot signature gatherings, indicative of the broad reach of public concern, for decades now but to no avail; in fact, over time as the signatures piled up, it’s only gotten worse and worse and now scary.
Deadly marine heatwaves that repeat over and over again within short sequences carry a massive destructive punch. These events are new to the scene, starting in the 21st century when anthropogenic warp speed that impacts and alters the climate system inadvertently kicked into gear.
According to a feature story in Nature: Fevers are Plaguing the Oceans and Climate Change is Making Them Worse d/d May 5th, 2021: “Sudden marine heatwaves can devastate ecosystems, and scientists are scrambling to predict when it will strike.”
The same Nature article discussed when scientists first noticed serious damaging levels of significant impact by marine heatwaves: “Ten years ago, dead fish began washing ashore on the beaches of Western Australia. The culprit was a huge swathe of unusually warm water that ravaged kelp forests and scores of commercially important marine creatures, from abalone to scallops to lobster. Over the following weeks, some of Western Australia’s most lucrative fisheries came close to being wiped out. To this day, some of them have not recovered.”
Recent studies have focused on the frequency of marine heatwaves as the main culprit in this grisly affair. Interestingly enough, marine heatwaves are happening coincident with ground heat waves. (Search: Dangerous Heat Across the Globe, January 14, 2022).
The planet is heating up like never before, as “ground temperatures” hit all-time records in the Northern Hemisphere as well as the Southern Hemisphere, and ocean temperatures threaten the world’s major fisheries of the Far North.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) July 2021 was the hottest month in recorded history for the world. The European Union (EU) satellite system also confirmed that the past seven years have been the hottest on record.
Already for this new year, the Southern Hemisphere summer of 2022 has witnessed several all-time peak temperature records in January, especially Argentina; similarly Australia has set new all-time records in January, as the beat goes on.
“The world ocean, in 2021, was the hottest ever recorded by humans, and the 2021 annual OHC value is even higher than last year’s all-time record value.” (Source: Lijing Cheng, et al, Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues Through 2021 Despite La Niña Conditions, Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, January 11, 2022).
It’s indisputable that the world’s seas are under massive attack by excessive amounts of CO2 and way too much heat (oceans absorb 90% of the planet’s heat) because of global warming, killing marine life outright at a record clip; for example, a billion sea creatures killed by ocean heat off the British Columbia coast in the summer of 2021. The situation is even worse than that, as the world’s major fisheries of the Far North are threatened like never before, potentially, the crisis of all crises. (Search: Warnings from the Far North, December 27, 2021 and The Oceans are Overheating, January 14, 2022)
The essence of the issue is not simply ordinary ole marine heatwaves, similar to regular climate change, which is the common retort by climate deniers, with bogus statements like: “the climate always changes.” Au contraire, garden-variety climate change is not the issue here, not at all, not even close. The problem is the frequency or recurrence of consequential deadly severe heat waves such that marine life does not have enough time for a comeback once it has been blasted.
Only recently a team of curious journalists from the LA Times traveled to the Far North to meet marine scientists and reported: “Forces profound and alarming are reshaping the upper reaches of the North Pacific and Arctic oceans, breaking the food chain that supports billions of creatures and one of the world’s most important fisheries.”(Source: Susanne Rust, Unprecedented Die-offs, Melting Ice: Climate Change is Wreaking Havoc in the Arctic and Beyond, Los Angeles Times, December 17, 2021)
Repeating/analyzing their nightmarish scenario: “Breaking the food chain that supports billions of creatures and one of the world’s most important fisheries” is an eye-opener, a shocking statement that lingers and one that should motivate a worldwide movement to halt greenhouse gas emissions, the principal cause behind excessive ocean heat in favor of saving marine life. Hello, anybody out there?
Furthermore, speaking of “breaking the food chain”: “Since 2019 until July 29, 2021, a total of 481 whales have stranded along the beaches of North America, including 69 in California.” (Source: Susanne Rust, Something is Killing Gray Whales. Is it a Sign of Oceans in Peril? Anchorage Daily News, August 15, 2021)
Unprecedented death of marine life is happening all across the planet. This is not normal. An important study of coral reefs in the Mediterranean Sea shocked scientist Joaquim Garrbou, stating: “Frankly, I never thought that I would be seeing it. And, it’s happening really fast.” (Source: ‘There’s Not Much Hope’: Mediterranean Corals Collapse Under Relentless Heat, Mongabay, February 4, 2022)
The Garrbon study found coral reef communities that had been devastated by heatwaves 15 years ago still not recovered because of the short sequence between subsequent heatwaves.
Another study explains: Corals need at least 10 years to bounce back, but increasing global warming is reducing the ability to adapt. Moreover, “we project that more than 99 percent of coral reefs will be exposed at 1.5C to intolerable thermal stress, and 100 percent of coral reefs at 2C.” (Source: Adele M. Dixon, et al, Future Loss of Local-Scale Thermal Refugia in Coral Reef Ecosystems, PLOS Climate, February 1, 2022).
That calculation was in response to IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) projections that 1.5°C above pre-industrial could hit as early as the 2030s. That’s right around the corner.
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the largest coral system in the world, has experienced five mass bleaching events – 1998, 2002, 2016, 2017 and 2020 – all caused by rising ocean temperatures driven by global heating. In the year 2020 water temperatures hit the highest ever recorded since instrumental records were first kept in the year 1900. (Source: 2020 Marine Heatwave on the Great Barrier Reef, Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology, 2020)
“A survey of 1,036 reefs in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) over the last two weeks of March (2020) revealed the most widespread bleaching event on record.” (Source: Theresa Machemer, The Great Barrier Reef Is now Facing Most Widespread Bleaching Event Yet, Smithsonian Magazine April 9, 2020)
That was only two years ago, demonstrating the narrowing time sequence between bleaching events. Additionally, a recent (2022) unpublished study written by experts at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coral Reef Watch unit, states: “The Great Barrier Reef was in the grips of a record-breaking heat spell yet again in November and December (2021).” Ibid.
The Great Barrier Reef, which is one of the great iconic ecosystems of the planet, easily spotted from the international space station, has a history of resilience, but how much more can it take?
A recent comprehensive study of oceans in toto from 1870-to-2021 discovered: “57% of the global ocean surface recorded extreme heat… For the global ocean, 2014 was the first year to exceed the 50% threshold of extreme heat.” (Source: Tanaka, KR and Van Houtan, KS, The Recent Normalization of Historical Marine Heat, PLOS Climate, February 1, 2022).
The statistic 57% of global ocean surface experiencing “extreme heat” is nearly impossible to fathom. It is disturbingly far-reaching and reason for concern about the entire ocean system. “What can be done” is the question of the century, and who’ll do it? The known perpetrator is excessive greenhouse gas, like CO2 from cars, trains, and planes and cows and industry filling the atmosphere with a heat-trapping blanket of greenhouse gases.
In a 20-yr study: Scientists discovered a distinct pattern of sailor jellyfish, or velella, washing ashore and dying on beaches around the world. The dead fish number in the trillions, and the culprit was a recurring marine heatwave. (Source: Timothy Jones, et al, Long-term Patterns of Mass Stranding of the Colonial Cnidarian Velella: Influence of environment forcing, Marine Ecology Progress Report, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, March 18, 2021).
All of this is happening with overall global temperatures at only 1.2°C above pre-industrial, according to the World Meteorological Organization, but is it really only 1.2C above? That depends upon the date used for the baseline, which has been moved up over time. So, maybe 1.2C is too low vis a vis a more realistic baseline.
After the Paris 2015 UN climate conference, the IPCC suggested staying below 1.5°C pre-industrial to prevent major disruptions to the climate system that can result in failing ecosystems. But, failing ecosystems are already happening at only 1.2C.
An open question remains when and how the world’s governments will unify to stabilize or lower greenhouse gas emissions enough to make a difference, assuming it’s even possible, for marine life to continue, well, actually for all life to continue.
Meanwhile, more than one billion marine creatures killed by a heatwave off the coast of British Columbia less than one year ago serves as one gigantic wake up call! But, if one billion deaths does not slap in the face and wake up global governing bodies, then what does it take, two or three billion, or how many more?
Although at the rate things are going, the world will be running out of marine life soon enough that it may not really matter.
Assuming no major radical (yes, radical) changes in socio-economics (neoliberalism) accompanied by all-powerful eco-related policies by the leading nation/states of the world, some scientists believe the oceans, limping along, only have another three decades. Sayonara!
Cut to: Don’t Look Up (Netflix, December 2021) as Meryl Streep, playing US President Janie Orlean, boards a “sleeper ship” blasting off for Planet B.
Based in Los Angeles, Robert Hunziker is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and published in over 50 journals, magazines and sites worldwide.
A Wall Street Veteran Speaks Out – Bubbles & the Planet
By Robert Hunziker
Some time ago Jeremy Grantham (83), a renowned value investor who runs the $65 billion asset fund GMO, called the stock market a “super bubble.” (Source: Erik Schatzker, Jeremy Grantham Has an Even Scarier Prediction Than His Crash Call, Bloomberg, January 26, 2022)
Nowadays, a lot of the air has come out of hot stocks of the covid era, losing 30%-40%-50%, or more, in only a couple of months, e.g. Netflix falling from $700 down to $390/share within 3 weeks. That’s a lot of hot air wheezing out quickly. As Joe Granville, market technician 1923-2013, famously said: They (investors) are “bag-holders.”
The title of the Bloomberg Grantham article refers to more than overvalued stocks, wherein he claims a Goldilocks period over “the past 25 years is ending, and the world needs to prepare for a future of inflation, slower growth, and labor shortages,” as stated in the Bloomberg Front Row interview.
Beyond the scary world of overvalued stocks, Grantham also launched into some biting commentary about the scary real world, the tangible earthy world, saying what few on Wall Street care to admit, as follows: “Climate change is coming with heavy floods, serious droughts and higher temperatures – none of these make farming easier. So, we’re going to live in a world of bottlenecks and shortages and price spikes everywhere.”
The octogenarian Wall Streeter went on to discuss more than climate change, floods, droughts and temperatures, he also claimed: “The growth of the past century in pursuit of ever-higher standards of living left depleted soils, poisoned ecosystems and a changing climate… That’s why wildlife is disappearing, biodiversity is in jeopardy and human reproductively is slowing.” (For scientific reviews of those subjects, see: Poisoning the Planet’s Web of Life d/d May 12, 2021 and Toxic Chemicals Engulf the Planet d/d June 11, 2021 and Complex Life Threatened d/d January 22, 2021)
Pointedly, Grantham said: “We have simply shot way beyond the long-term capacity of the planet to deal with us… Nature is beginning to fail. And in the end, if we don’t fix that, we begin to fail as well.”
Of course, Grantham’s referring to the Great Acceleration since WWII as population tripled in only a few decades, thus, according to the Global Human Footprint Network utilizing 14,000 data points to determine that humanity is using 1.75 Earths to support life whilst “failing to husband its resources.” The lines first crossed to a deficit in 1977, meaning the year when humanity started using more resources than Earth can naturally replenish in any given year. We’re already 45 years on borrowed time. By definition, that’s an on-going formula for disaster.
In harmony with thoughts about the state of the planet, the Grantham Foundation has venture capital investments in renewable energy and carbon capture. Good luck with that, as the scale required for carbon capture to make a serious dent in greenhouse gases is, in a word, enormous!
According to renowned physicist Klaus Lackner, director of the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions, in order to stay abreast of current emissions: “If you built a hundred million trailer-size units you could actually keep up with current emissions.” (Source: Elizabeth Kolbert, Can Carbon-Dioxide Removal Save the World? The New Yorker, Nov. 20, 2017). Ergo, one hundred million (100,000,000) 55-foot units end-to-end would circumnavigate the planet 42 times.
Assuming Grantham’s statements about the sorry state of the planet are on target, the bigger issue is what can be done about a worsening condition that appears to be tumbling apart in several ecosystems, like the Far North where the world’s primary fisheries are threatened by global warming. Yes, global warming reaches all the way down into the sea, as the oceans have been absorbing 90% of the planet’s heat and a third of fossil fuel CO2. (See: Warnings from the Far North d/d Dec. 27, 2021)
It is doubtful that the current socio-economic game plan of neoliberal capitalism in harmony with the rapaciousness of Wall Street’s slam-dunk investors will be of much help. After all, that’s the primary cause of the sorry state of the planet in the first instance by advocating growth to the moon at any costs as long as profits hit the bottom line, and not to worry about Earth’s ecosystems, which are there for the taking. After all, seemingly, although he did not say as much, that’s what led to Grantham’s rant. Maybe they need to try a different approach, like Amsterdam’s experiment with doughnut economics (See- Doughnut Economics Boots Capitalism Out! d/d February 2, 2021)
Mr. Grantham has nailed a problem, actually a series of problems, that have the potential to make a vicious bear market on Wall Street look like a walk in the park. Maybe it’s true that what goes down on Wall Street comes back up, but ecosystems that go down stay down and do not come back up. Major ecosystems of the planet are listing/heeling right now on the precipice, like the Great Barrier Reef, Amazon rainforest, the Arctic, Antarctica, Siberia, Greenland, worldwide drought, e.g., the Hoover Dam at its 1937 level when it was first filling up and Brazil’s 62% hydro power at risk of cut offs.
The planet is in deep trouble and rising stock prices aren’t going to fix it nor will falling stock prices, which only serve to piss off a bunch of people who jumped on the bandwagon as it was nearing the end of the parade route.
Hopefully, Mr. Jeremy Grantham’s precocious words will cause others to stop and think through how best to navigate the most challenging times since Homo sapiens first huddled together in caves.
But, what if degrowth is the only possibility? Umm…
Based in Los Angeles, Robert Hunziker is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and published in over 50 journals, magazines and sites worldwide.
Photograph Source: Danumurthi Mahendra – CC BY 2.0
The Doomsday Clock SOS
By Robert Hunziker
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists unveiled the resetting of the Doomsday Clock on January 20th 2022, electing to keep the clock’s setting at 100 seconds to midnight, same as 2021, which is not at all encouraging since that’s as bad as the setting has ever been.
The past few resets of the incomparable clock have essentially been SOS signals to world leadership to get its act together or suffer horrendous consequences, specifically regarding: (1) nuclear and biological weaponry, (2) climate change/global warming, and (3) disruptive technologies exacerbated by an over-the-top, in their words: “Corrupted information ecosphere that undermines rational decision making.”
The world-famous clock was initially set at the dawn of the Cold War at 7 minutes to midnight in 1947. Subsequently, its best (most promising) level was 17 minutes to midnight in 1991, following the fall of the Soviet Union, widely considered the end of the Cold War.
In 2016 the clock was set at 3 minutes to midnight but subsequently dropped like a lead balloon and now appears to be suspended in midair beyond the cliff’s edge à la Wile E Coyote trapped in a persistent cartoonish make-believe world at 100 seconds to midnight.
The Chicago Atomic Scientists group that developed the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project founded the organization in 1945. The midnight hour of the clock is the metaphoric imagery of apocalypse with its target at 24:00 hours, now only 100 seconds away, symbolic of an impending nuclear explosion countdown. The famous clock is located in the lobby at the Bulletin Offices of the University of Chicago.
Accordingly, the clock shows how close… “we are to civilization-ending apocalypse because the world remains stuck in an extremely dangerous moment, in 2020 we called it the new abnormal, and it unfortunately persisted.” (Source: John Mecklin, editor, At Doom’s Doorstep: It is 100 Seconds to Midnight, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 20, 2022)
So, what gives? What is so horrible in the world that the Doomsday Clock is stuck at a nail-biting 100 seconds to midnight?
The following is a summation of the opinions of the roster of luminaries, including 11 Nobel laureates, who determine the eminent setting of the Doomsday Clock: “Last year, despite laudable efforts by some leaders and the public, negative trends in nuclear and biological weapons, climate change, and a variety of disruptive technologies—all exacerbated by a corrupted information ecosphere that undermines rational decision making—kept the world within a stone’s throw of apocalypse. Global leaders and the public are not moving with anywhere near the speed or unity needed to prevent disaster.”
The members consider the following issues as important “for continuation of civilization”:
* Regarding nuclear weapons: The push by China, Russia, and the US to “develop hypersonic missiles; and the continued testing of anti-satellite weapons… if not restrained, these efforts could mark the start of a dangerous new nuclear arms race.”
* As for climate change, the headline about the issue sums it up: “Climate change: Lots of Words, Relatively Little Action.” Global warming remains an underappreciated stuck-in-the-mud threat that simply will not go away. Accordingly, “For many countries, a huge gap still exists between long-term greenhouse gas reduction pledges and the near-and medium-term emission-reduction actions needed….”
* The members applauded the new Biden administration’s strong commitment to reestablishing the role of science and factual evidence in public policy, a welcomed relief from years past, but they said: “Corruption of the information ecosystem continued apace in 2021,” which is a continuing thorn in the side of science and thoughtful policy-making.
* Reference was made to the craziness of internet-based disinformation infecting America with an utterly false narrative that Joe Biden lost the presidential election. This threatens to undermine (1) future US elections (2) American democracy in general, and (3) severely limit the US ability as a global leader in managing worldwide existential risks.
Moreover, an enormous vacuum of any semblance whatsoever of thoughtful leadership these past few years, since 2016, has put the world on edge and into a deep hole that’s difficult to climb out of, leading to concern of whether a significant prominence in leadership in this topsy-turvy world can be effective once again.
In concluding remarks, the members stated: “Leaders around the world must immediately commit themselves to renewed cooperation in the many ways and venues available for reducing existential risk. Citizens of the world can and should organize to demand that their leaders do so—and quickly. The doorstep of doom is no place to loiter.”
Their concern about loitering around “the doorstep of doom” prompts consideration of what is required to blunt rampant lies about the 2020 presidential election. Lies that are relentlessly pounded and embedded into the public’s mindset via the personification of a screaming megaphone propped up on disproportionately small talons that tear apart weak-kneed ignoramuses.
Studies of the Illusory Truth Effect have been done about people believing whatever they’re told, but only if told repeatedly enough times: “Repeated information is often perceived as more truthful than new information.”(Source: Aumyo Hassan & Sarah J. Barber, The Effects of Repetition Frequency on the Illusory Truth Effect, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, May 13, 2021).
The Hassan/Barber study tested people’s perceptions: “People tend to perceive claims as truer if they have been exposed to them before. The more often participants had previously encountered a trivia statement, the more truthful they rated it.”
Repetition can establish false truthfulness or an illusory state of mind that believes lies. Of course, this is the open secret behind Trump’s boldfaced lies about the 2020 election.
So, why does Trump’s fake news persist even when clearly proven wrong? Answer: Studies have proven that “repeated information” is perceived as more truthful than “new information.” Typically, new information or facts that discredit the lie are not repeated over and over and over again, thus losing relevance to the lie that continues repeating as a truthful lie.
The only solution is the truth, the truth, the truth over and over again and again in direct contrast to the lies, and it must be repeated over and over again until people are sick and tired of hearing the truth, and, over time, it becomes indisputable because people believe (1) repetition of fact or (2) repetition of a falsehood, either one, whichever is repeated the most! That’s factual!
Based in Los Angeles, Robert Hunziker is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and published in over 50 journals, magazines and sites worldwide.
The planet is heating up like never before, as “ground temperatures” hit all-time records in the Northern Hemisphere as well as the Southern Hemisphere, and ocean temperatures threaten the world’s major fisheries of the Far North, which are imperiled beyond any known historical precedent. (See- The Oceans Are Overheating, January 14, 2022)
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) July 2021 was the hottest month in recorded history for the world. The European Union (EU) satellite system also confirmed that the past seven years have been the hottest on record.
Too much heat brings unanticipated problems of unexpected scale, putting decades of legacy infrastructure at risk of malfunctioning and/or total collapse. Nobody expected so much trouble to start so soon. Nobody anticipated such massive record-breaking back-to-back heat, north and south, to hit so soon on the heels of only 1.2C above estimated baseline for global warming.
In that regard, and with deep concern, the Council on Foreign Relations (founded, 1921) stated: “More than one-fifth of the global population now lives in regions that have already experienced warming greater than 1.5°C (2.7°F), an increase that almost all nations have agreed should be avoided to significantly reduce the risk of harm from climate change.” (Source: A World Overheating, Council on Foreign Relations, October 18, 2021)
Moreover, as further stated by the Council: “Exposure to a sustained wet-bulb temperature of 35°C (95°F), a point of intense heat with extreme humidity (90+), has been identified as the limit for human survival. When wet-bulb conditions develop, sweat can no longer evaporate off a person’s skin and the body cannot cool down. Just a few hours of this kind of heat exposure can lead to death… Some regions, including southwestern North America, South Asia, and the Middle East have already endured conditions at or near this limit, and certain areas will experience the effects more intensely than others. One projection indicates that, by 2030, this type of heat wave could afflict over two hundred million people in India alone.”
Notably, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA): Only 8% of the 2.8 billion people living in the hottest parts of the world have air conditioners.
Furthermore, the Council claims: “The infrastructure of today was not built to withstand surging temperatures.” As follows, global heat is rapidly outpacing infrastructure capacities. This is a surefire pathway to disaster on a scale seldom, if ever, witnessed.
Over time, excessive heat impairs and/or destroys infrastructure. Hot weather, when too hot, causes power lines to sag. When water used to cool power plants becomes too hot, electricity production measurably decreases, and drought conditions lower water levels beyond effectiveness for hydropower plants. This is already threatening in Brazil where hydro amounts to 62% of its total installed electric generating capacity. (Source: Brazil Hydro Plants May Go Offline From Drought, Bolsonaro Warns, Bloomberg News, August 27, 2021).
In America, the Hoover Dam, which serves electrical power to 8 million people, is at it lowest level since 1937 when its lake was still being filled.
And, too much heat causes steel-comprising damage to drawbridges. Train tracks can bend under intense heat, which actually caused train cancellations in Europe in 2019. (Source: Sag, Buckle and Curve: Why Your Trains Get Cancelled in the Heat, Wired, July 26, 2019) And, planes can struggle to fly in extreme heat conditions.
According to the EPA, when cities are exposed to extreme heat, it can magnify heat conditions by up to 15C above surrounding rural conditions, effectively turning major cities of the world into furnaces of trapped heat.
Already, South America’s summer of 2022 is hot as blazes: “Practically all of Argentina and also neighboring countries such as Uruguay, southern Brazil, and Paraguay are experiencing the hottest days in history.” This is according to Cindy Fernández, meteorologist at the official National Meteorological Service. (Source: ‘Another Hellish Day’” South American Sizzles in Record Summer Temperatures, The Guardian, January 14, 2022)
Argentina, as of January 12, 2022 reported: 129°F ground temperatures that brought blackouts. “This is a heat wave of extraordinary characteristics, with extreme temperature values that will even be analyzed after its completion, and it may generate some historical records for Argentina temperatures and persistence of heat,” according to meteorologist Lucas Berengua. (Source: Copernicus Sentinel 3 Satellite data discussion)
Thereafter, Argentina’s infrastructure sagged and 700,000 people were without power, and drinking water purification systems went on the blink. Argentina’s ground temperatures echoed readings from the Northern Hemisphere of only 6 months ago, which, in retrospect, served as a foreboding for the southern continent, as it now begins its summer.
The heat has been so bad in Argentina that it was briefly the hottest place in the world, surpassing parts of Australia that usually carry that dubious honor during austral summer.
According to BBC News, Australia equaled its hottest day on record at 50.7C or 123.26F in Onslow, Western Australia on January 13th, 2022. The normal average temperature for Onslow (a coastal town) this time of year is 36.5C, not 50C. Additionally, Mardie and Roebourne, two other towns in the area, reported temperatures over 50C. And, in South Australia Oodnadatta reported 50.7C on January 2, 2022. (Source: Australia Equals Hottest Day on Record at 50.7C, BBC News, January 13, 2022)
The summer of 2021 up north found the Anthropocene, the geological period of human influence, turn into the Pyrocene, when a shocking number of wildfires consumed vast areas of the Northern Hemisphere. It was “the summer of hell.” Global warming dried out grasslands and forests turned to tinder. The chief of the US Forest Service declared a “National Wildfire Crisis.” (Source: Here are the 6 Major Regions Literally on Fire Right Now, Gizmodo, 7/29/21)
Oregon and California fires were powerful enough to create stand-alone weather systems. The town of Lytton, British Columbia burned to the ground like a smoldering matchstick. Ground temperatures in Washington State in June 2021 hit 145F (63C) during an unprecedented Pacific Northwest heat wave too hot to even walk near concrete or squishy asphalt.
In Canada’s northwest, Ontario and Manitoba experienced 157 severe wildfires intense enough to create stand-alone weather systems.
Siberia experienced Biblical-scale fires like nobody has ever seen. A study showed the extreme heat driving the fires to levels calculated as 600 times more likely to occur because of climate change. Siberia at its most northern reaches registered a shocking 118 degrees F (48C) in June.
In the Mediterranean region, the summer of 2021 experienced wildfires raging out of control in Turkey and Greece with ground temperatures of more than 127F degrees (53C). (Source: EU Earth Observation Program, Copernicus Sentinel 3 Satellite)
There is a point to be made about this disheartening litany of the world succumbing to heat since it’s happening with global warming at only 1.2C above pre-industrial. But, is pre-industrial (same as post-industrial) really since 1880 or 1950, or should it be 1750, or is the entire affair really worse than we’ve been told at any rate? Answer: Look at the evidence and make a judgment.
The aforementioned facts are about climate conditions over the past 12 months throughout the world, which are worse than anybody projected, especially at only 1.2C above the alleged pre-industrial level. Along those lines, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established a red warning at 1.5C beyond which serious climate trouble will occur with 2C as an extreme limit not to be exceeded, but based upon the challenging climate conditions already evident at 1.2C, how challenging will things be at 1.5C?
The fact is at only 1.2C the world has got its hands full of infrastructure failures combined with an emergent Wet Bulb potentiality of people dropping dead in the streets.
All of which points to the upcoming significance of the US midterm elections this year. If Republicans, aka: Deniers, gain control, you might as well “pack it in.” In other words, global heat will celebrate!
On the other hand, if the Democrats gain enough control to actually do something constructive about greenhouse gases and provide global leadership towards net zero emissions within the decade, there’s a slim chance for survival, but the odds are rapidly diminishing.
So far, excessive levels of damaging global heat, in part, have been the result of the failure of political leadership of both major parties that have repeatedly been warned by scientists to minimize CO2 emissions. The warnings have been ongoing for decades, like a scratched record that replays the same song over and over again but to no avail.
America’s leaders have miserably failed to safeguard the American people from the most advertised, the most talked about, the most obvious existential threat the country has ever experienced!
Human-generated global heat is easy to describe: Whether it’s emissions via carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) from cars, trains, planes, trucks, cows, power plants, oil & gas wells, or industry that blankets the atmosphere, thus trapping heat, i.e., “the greenhouse effect,” it predictably and relentlessly causes global temperatures to increase, which have now surpassed all-time highs going back to when humans first rubbed two sticks together.
Based in Los Angeles, Robert Hunziker is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and published in over 50 journals, magazines and sites worldwide.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. For more information see our Privacy Policy.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
