The world might already be at a tipping point when it comes to climate change and yet our leaders still seem to be in denial about the reality that we have to face. So, how late is too late when it comes to making the changes required if human life is to survive on Earth?
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
How late is too late when it comes to climate change?
I've been looking at information about climate change for over 50 years. Some of the books behind me are on that subject. One of them is a book written in 1967 by a man called E. J. Mishan and it's called ‘The Costs of Economic Growth'. I read it when I was a sixth former, in 1975. It was the first-ever theoretical economics book that I actually got my head around and read from cover to cover. And what he said then, could be said now, that we have to change the way that we live if human life on Earth is to survive.
Economic growth. is destroying our well-being.
It's destroying our planet.
It's also absurd. It's very obvious that on a planet of finite resources, you cannot have infinite economic growth, which appears to be the aim of our politicians.
We're now seeing the consequence of 50 years of ignoring this information because the climate movement did fundamentally develop during those 1970s when I was a teenager, as I was when I first became aware of it.
What are those consequences?
We've seen flooding in Europe recently.
We're seeing hurricanes hitting America with greater force than for decades if not centuries. We're seeing damage of untold amount.
We're seeing unusual climate patterns.
We are seeing places in the world where water is virtually disappearing.
We're seeing what were arable areas ceasing to be able to produce crops.
We're seeing stress on people as a consequence, who literally have to move because their means of survival no longer exists.
All of that is because we decided that we could carry on burning fossil fuels.
We decided that this planet could be heated.
We decided that the pursuit of profit was more important than the pursuit of sustainability.
We decided that our current ability to globe-trot around the world was more important than providing our grandchildren with a safe place to live.
We decided that this was how we wanted to live.
And we've got it wrong.
Let's be blunt. There is no way that we can carry on as we are.
I'm not saying life on Earth as we have recognised it will cease if we manage the whole process of sustainability. We will have homes. We will have jobs. We could have food. We will travel, not maybe in the same way as we have. We will consume, but perhaps different goods - and a lot more services, because they have, by and large, a much lower carbon impact. But the point is, we can have life on Earth, still, just about, if we change. Or, we can blow this world apart. As far as we're concerned, that is.
Of course, the world will survive. The world is indifferent as to whether we're here or not.
Many other animals will also survive because they can withstand a process of change better than we can because they don't have the advanced society and infrastructure that we require to support our way of life.
But can we survive? My answer is, I don't know.
Recently, a whole load of climate scientists have said we have reached the tipping point, where it is possible that societal breakdown might happen as a consequence of climate change. I think they're right. Societal breakdown? Because quite simply, hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, on a planet where there are now around 8 billion of us, will have to move because they have no viable home, and that we will therefore have to accommodate, at least in part.
That we will have to absorb into our society because we, in the UK and in Northern Europe - and there will, of course, be other places where this is also true - have a chance of maintaining life in the place where we are.
But can we withstand the strain that this will create?
Can our political systems adjust so that the current narratives, which hate the ‘other', with the other being defined as the person who wants to come and live in the UK, whoever they might be, can we see changes in those narratives in sufficient time to handle the stress that climate change is going to create with regard to migration?
Can we change our consumption patterns?
Can we change the attitude of our government when, for example, our government has just decided to invest £22 billion in carbon capture and storage, which is a giant con trick by the fossil fuel industry so that it can keep burning those things that are destroying our planet for a decade or so longer, causing untold harm as a consequence when that £22 billion would be vastly better spent on reducing our consumption of fuels by insulating homes, providing alternative sources of energy, creating new transport systems which do not pollute in the way that our existing ones do, and on and on?
Can we make these changes?
I don't know.
I wish I could tell you that I do.
I used to think I wouldn't be as worried in old age as I was when I was younger, that things would have resolved themselves, and I would now be sitting in relative comfort. But I'm not. I'm more worried now than probably I've ever been. Because I've got through most of my life - let's be realistic, when you're 66, that has to be statistically true - but when I look at the prospects of those who are younger than me, which is, of course, now most of the world, I realise that the legacy of my generation is dire, to be blunt.
Horrible.
Unacceptable.
Something for which we can only apologise because we can't make amends for the mistakes we made.
But we can change our patterns of behaviour now.
Our government could do a Green New Deal, which would invest in our sustainable future. It could find the money in question. It would be much better spent than putting £22bn into meaningless carbon capture and storage to simply fuel the profits of big energy companies.
We could change our approach to sustainability with regard to food and so many other issues.
We could begin to imagine a world where we know that people will have to move and we have to plan for that possibility so that social stress does not arise when it happens.
We could do all those things. They're all entirely plausible. As a consequence, we could survive. But is it too late? Are attitudes going to take too long to change?
That is the biggest question of all. Can we create the mindset where we will survive? Or is that not possible in the time remaining to us?
These are questions I can't answer. You can. You can muse on them. You can decide for yourself. You can ask others about them. You can debate them. You can, as I am trying to be by making this video, part of the change that we require.
But at the end of the day, none of us know whether we're too late or not. We just have to cling on in the hope that we might still have a chance.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
A good place to start would be the law.
A law that recognises corporations as ‘persons’, which then has the same rights conferred upon them than we ‘real’ people do.
And, which has deeper pockets – because you need to be rich to bend the law to your will.
And then we need to deal with party funding which just helps the corporate persons fill our politicians ears with cotton wool as they fund political campaigns. We also need to publicly fund these public discourses and have meaningful debates. We need to get these debates out of sofa government and ‘political advisors’ and on the streets, in homes, schools
The direction of travel is not publicly owned. That is the problem.
The fossil fuel industry has known about global warming since the 1950s:
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/
And yes, it is too late. The challenge now is managing the inevitable decline.
Obviously it needs political will, worldwide, to give the human race at least a chance of surviving. Is that likely? Possibly, but I see no signs of it happening.
You nailed it Richard – your blog this morning is a fantastic summary of our collective climate change predicament as well as the questions we face. However, as long as most governments answer primarily to corporate interests rather than those of the people I fear a far worse outcome than humanity should have to bear.
Thanks
Apologies for the double post but the economists are partly to blame for awarding a Nobel Prize for “proving” that if we don’t throttle back the economy to deal with climate change then we’ll have so much extra money when the problems occur we’ll be able to solve it with that.
I wish I was joking:
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-nobel-prize-for-the-creator-of-an-economic-model-that-underestimates-the-risks-of-climate-change/
Steve Keen has written a great deal about this
Nordhaus ? Yavvinalarf….
Simon Sharpe’s book ‘Five Times Faster’ includes a brilliant demolishment of Nordhaus. I hadn’t realised he’d been awarded a Nobel. Sickening.
Even if we stopped carbon emission today, there is a large amount of global warming already baked in. With the slow rate of progress, we are well past the point of no return. We will blow past the 1.5 and 2 degrees targets. We might manage to stay below 3 degrees. There will be severe consequences. Many people just don’t seem to care. Including a government whose only target appears to be growth, growth and more growth. Like a cancer.
Agreed
We have the answers to climate change but are already 20 yrs too late, possibly 30.
The resistance and inertia of corporate capitalism has and will continue to prevent adequate actions towards net zero, let alone materials overshoot and appalling loss of biodiversity.
The people with power are too insulated from the results of their actions, and too thick, to get it. The alchemy of economics has served them only too well.
We may not have reached any of the tipping points quite yet, nobody know for sure, but several are very close indeed.
All the guilty men will be long dead, but their grand children probably still clinging on to the flotsam of shareholder value, and whatever wealth they think can insulate themselves – a forlorn hope.
Man will leave an amazing fossil record.
I doubt there will be much of a historical record salvageable.
And still, in 2024,, we can just about, but only just, live in hope, that the power elite will come to their senses.
But, as the song has it…..They’re not listening now, they do not know how.
How do you counter this?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-coal-power-construction-in-2023-report-says/
Bu noting that no country os going greener faster than China
Massive PV
Massive EV innovation
We are lagging behind it
And yes, it does need to end coal
And by acknowledging that where we are today is as a result of historic emissions. On a per capita basis the UK’s very best to of this list, or current wealth is built on these historic emissions so we have an obligation to lead (as well as the massive benefits from being a green technology leader)
Having travelled a lot on the North Wales line recently, after Cheshire you can play a game called ‘spot the solar PV’ because all along the line with all the houses you can see along the way, you do not see much PV at all. It is a real eye opener and very worrying. New build homes are completing all the time without PV installed. I should know because I am buying them through s.106 and even those fr the market are not fitted with PV. It’s a huge error of judgement.
Totally agreed
Stop buying stuff you don’t really need.
@Matthew T Hoare – And stop flying to places we don’t need to go.
Aha It seems my reading list was similar to yours!! Yes I have been concerned about environmental issues for 50 years plus. Its both alarming and depressing to think that the actions required are either non-existent or minimal. Governments of all persuasions either indulge in greenwash or simply ignore what needs to be done. There is also a problem in that rather too many people are reluctant to make any changes – so continue to fly off to places, drive around as if everything is fine. I flew very little in the past and now, although I actually enjoyed the experience, would not dream of flying anywhere. So how do we persuade people to fly less, if at all and drive less? Obviously there has to be government lead on this and major cuts for the main culprits – which is the very affluent. So private jets should be banned pronto!
[People still regard it as odd if you say you don’t fly or drive a lot!]
At the moment its a depressing picture!
I agree with your penultimate paragraph
But the same people seem wholly unaware how much there is to see and do nearby
The problem is, people have been told experiences and ‘memories’ must be bought
Thank you for yet another caring article!
A decidedly diffident suggestion is that, whether we have reached a tipping or hinge point or not, it is in the better interests of the World, everyone, our descendants and ourselves to keep on trying to look after our World etc. And to thank and praise those who do.
Historically we have become used to the idea that social change can take decades to effect, from the time it is first mooted, until the time it is accepted and legislated. The fight for an 8 hour working day, women’s suffrage, gay rights, all took over a century to reach the statute books. I’m not comparing these issues with the severity and danger of climate change; but fifty years have already passed, and we are not good at effecting swift change, except it seems when we think we need to go to war. And it’s a war mentality we need to tackle climate change, as extinction rebellion have been saying now for over a decade.
Agreed
Problem is that personal behavioural change is a tiny % of required change. The top 100 corporations are holding all the trump cards.
Yes, consumer expectations need to be managed downwards, less is so much more, but that is down to advertising and marketing, and guess who controls those budgets ?
The problem is they manufature demand for things we do not need
“consumer expectations need to be managed downwards”
No company/corporation will do that. The major event that has accomplished this is: large-scale war.
Thus humanity has two choices: conciously manage expectations downwards or…. “events” will intervene.
I have a report from circa 2010 by the US militiary (assorted retired top brass) -quoting: “climate change is a threat multiplier”.
The neo-libtards have “primed the pump” with respect to the deterioration of the relationship “citizens & (vs?) gov” – this adds to the “threat multiplier” element. Thus one could expect that multiple climate events in a particular area could (will?) lead to failed states.
I think I can safely say that the chemistry of the atmosphere was understood about two hundred years ago and Swedish Scientist Svante Arrhenius had made some very accurate assessments of the likley effect of raising CO2 concentrations in 1896.
Similarly the Jeavons Paradox was published in 1865, not from concern about the environmental effects of burning coal but more about resource depletion, which was certainly a major concern from the start of The Industrial Revolution until at least WW1 for coal and into the 1920’s for oil.
Clearly had those resource depletion concerns been addressed, as they were to a limited extent in France and Germany who had the double whammy of limited domestic resources and an inclement climate in winter we might have been if not better, then less badly off.
Of course we can. But we won’t.
I could write books about the reasons but Nate Hagens with his Podcast “The Great Simplification” is one of quite a few that explain, rather detailed, why we are where we are and why the outlook is not great.
There are only two glimmers of hope:
1) all those scientists are wrong about climate change and ecosystem destruction (I doubt that…)
2) Human ingenuity will save the day (I won’t count it out but would bet absolutely nothing on this scenario)
Richard, I am somewhat younger than you are but I feel the same towards the even younger. I really appreciate your recognition of your own generations’ contribution to the situation as is. In doing so you belong to a minuscule minority. Rationalisation is much easier than acceptance, let alone systemic change.
A similar relation as between old and young can be drawn between rich and poor people, regions, countries.
Best,
Thanks
Richard, As you know, is well established among mainstream policy makers that economic growth is often at odds with environmental sustainability – see Link A. Despite aspirations for decoupling, evidence suggests that continued growth exacerbates rather than alleviates environmental pressures. Urgently needed therefore, is a paradigm shift towards a post-growth approach where human well-being takes precedence over GDP expansion. However, with empirical evidence demonstrating that there is strong relationship between economic growth (expressed in GDP terms) and Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, energy use decoupling on the scale required willprove extremely challenging.
Link A: https://limits2growth.org.uk
What we therefore need is a new paradigm that reconciles continued development of human societies with the maintenance of the Earth system in a resilient and stable state. This means we need to find ways of meeting the ambitious goals of the Paris Agreement while simultaneously respecting other environmental and social constraints. This will require not only rapid reductions of GHG emissions and other climate forcers, but also the decoupling of economic output from material throughput, pollution and biodiversity loss. The first step along this road is to recognise that GDP growth is not a good measure of human progress – see Link B.
Link B: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/well-being-and-beyond-gdp.html
This takes us down the route of post-growth economics, which for two reasons is now receiving increased attention – see Link C. The first, is obvious – economic growth is seen to exacerbate environmental problems; and secondly, because growth rates in high income countries have been declining for over half a century i.e., secular stagnation – as populations age and become more risk averse, and global trading systems fragment under the weight geo-political strains – see Link D.
Link D: https://theconversation.com/there-are-4-economic-scenarios-for-the-rest-of-the-decade-ive-reluctantly-picked-one-217519
Beyond replacing GDP as the hegemonic measure of human progress, what needs to be assessed is the macroeconomic implications of a postgrowth transition and how this can be managed. The EU has recently launched a six-year research programme to help generate ideas, models and metrics to move us in this direction – see Link E.
Link E: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/projects-details/43108390/101071647/HORIZON
Thanks
Richard, Link C was missing in my comment above – see below
Link C: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/747107/EPRS_BRI(2023)747107_EN.pdf
How many earths would we need if everyone lived like the US or Bangladesh? It made news some years ago. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33133712
The Global Footprint Network tries to look at the issues of consumption, resources, population and overshoot/undershoot. Another way in which we are in trouble. And we shouldn’t ignore the taboo of population. Those who live in the poorest countries have a right to expect a decent standard of living just as the “relatively poor” in our country have a right to expect the same, and the implication is that we can’t afford the rich.
https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.93432404.818441457.1728820398-905402109.1728820397#/
Thanks
I use the comparative annual energy useage of a Norwegian and Nigerian as an example of relative size of energy and/or material footprint between a developed post industrial nation and a relatively undeveloped but non renewable resource rich country.
It is 550x for the Norwegian.
Given that Nigeria has large fossil fuel reserves and an oil industry that has been both polluting and politically very dodgy, including promoting a civil war, their experience has not been an unmitigated success as an example of post colonial exploitation.
And most of the profits end up with the multi nationals.
Then we have Norway, highest EV purchasers, massive sovereign wealth fund from oil and gas, so managing to secure plenty of oily profits, yet is still expanding fossil fuel production, and will do for the next 20 years.
Norway is hardly seen as the one of the bad guys, but have to reduce their global energy and materials footprint big time, whilst all Nigerians deserve a material standard of living, free from want, pollution, and strife.
How that rebalancing might be achieved I cannot imagine, without a powerful and influential supranational body like a UN with teeth.
A weak international order is likely to be fatal for our current pretendy civlisation.
And it is being deliberately kept weak.
Toys. A society based on the ownership of toys – is what we have. & which is a big driver of the climate disaster.
Few years back @ some EU meeting in… the Brussels car museum. Got talking to one of the representatives of the European motocycle industry. He admitted that what is mostly made and sold are used as toys – Harley Davidsons being the most egregious examples. He noted that perhaps 5% of motorbikes werre used as commuter transport. Cars are no different – “motor sport” (oxymoron?) used to promote the sale of functionally pointless stuff 4 & 2 wheeled. & societal structures designed to drive the acquisition of toys (e.g. “Fast & Furious”). You can even see it in cycling – suddenly “gravel bikes” are all the rage – I will pass over in silence electric bikes ridden by young people in lieu of a normal bicycle – “exercise? nah that’s what I do in the gym”. Pathetic.
A great deal to agree with
This issue is so important that you really should give Nordhaus consideration. To dismiss his Nobel-winning analysis that we’ll do less emitting of CO2 if we pay a high price for doing so is not worthy of a serious academic.
You can argue he’s wrong on that base contention, but you can’t argue that he’s one of the bad guys, but my main point is that you have to take the argument seriously, then explain with evidence why it’s wrong, because the evidence that the policy is accepted as correct from international organisations to national governments like Ireland’s is building.
Ban his name from your blog and frankly you can’t seriously claim there’s an emergency.
Politely, read Steve Keen on this issue
Nordhaus is an economic ignoramous of quite staggering proportions
Nordhaus worked on the assumption that global warming meant that a, say, 1degC rise in global temperature meant that the average temperature at every point on the planet would increase by 1deg, and nothing else would change. That is such an unutterably stupid and ignorant idea it could be demolished by a 10-year-old. And for that complete failure to understand even the most basic climate science, he was awarded a fake “Nobel(not) prize”. The man’s a dangerous embarrassment.
Population is a problem population matters.org
Humans, uniquely (probably – other sentient beings? tbd elsewhere) are creatures that consider the future, can conceive of scenarios, plan, take preventive actions, defer rewards, etc.
And yet… we haven’t developed this capability adequately. Or rather, those societies that have dominated the world for several centuries – the empires of conquest, colonialism and more recently economic hegemony – have, perhaps deliberately, discounted the future. So the present value/cost of situations, problems, actions or obligations in the future is reduced; and can become vanishingly small, so is ignored.
Some societies do things differently; and take into account ‘seven future generations’ or similar, when taking any decision.
Even those with children and grandchildren, in my experience, amongst my acquaintances, see their future obligations in terms of passing on ‘wealth’ (expressed in present-day, financial terms).
Neoliberal, financialised capitalism is the most-extreme form of this discounting-the-future-so-the-problem-goes-away…
“Let us eat, drink and be merry; for tomorrow we die.” (But let’s not mention the second half in our marketing and sales communications!)
Much to agree with
Two links that anyone with an interest in the potential catastrophe that climate change may befall us:
1) https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2023/12/double-blue-ocean-event-2024.html
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52TWH2bSQ0A
The first is a page from Arctic news and raises concerns about a Double Blue Ocean Event – that is imminent, ie within the next few months, this is where arctic and antactic ice is so thin that the planets albedo (the amount of heat the planet reflects back into space) is severely reduced and the potential results of this. So YES is the answer to your question have we already reached a tipping point.
But all is not lost as is explained in the discussion in link between Rachel Donald of Planet Critical and earth scientist James Dyke, who proclaims early on in the hour long Youtube programme, that the Paris Agreement, upon which most so called CC policy has been predicated on, is DEAD. We’re over 1.5 degrees, carbon capture is a distraction, won’t be able to capture any more carbon than the “industry” itself creates, and won’t be viable in terms of development for the best part of a decade. Fossil fuels MUST stay in the ground as soon as it is practical to do so, ie NO NEW SITES FROM TODAY _ PERIOD. And we need to give developing countries massive support in renewables and adaption.
The urgency of the situation cannot be underestimated. The UN needs to declare a global programme ending the development and sales of all weaponry – heavy and light, land based and space based, a peoples declaration against war, a global citizens charter of freedom from suppression and new liberalism, and the world bank needs to herald the end of capitalist, unsustainable growth, and outline a new global system for the redistribution of wealth based on an investment of humans wellbeing not profit for the multinationals and the world’s elite.
What do you think the chances are? – Ends with a slightly hysterical whimper laugh………..
While we have world leaders (like Putin or insert any despot here) and candidates (like Trump) who are clearly unhinged and resort mainly to unscrupulous and often violent methods to achieve their ends then we will never stand a chance.
I would venture to say the ultimate expression of competition is war. For centuries competition has been the dominant economic paradigm and it still is. Competition has its place like in sport but if we are to survive as a species then we need to undergo a complete societal and economic paradigm shift from competition to collaboration. But how?
We humans have some brilliant minds amongst us but collectively we’re mainly pretty stupid and we’ll probably destroy ourselves before we collectively evolve to the point where we’re able to prevent this from happening. That’s my tuppence worth anyhow.
Keep up the good work Richard.
I totally agree. The core problem of course is that, like our primate cousins, we are highly tribal animals. It’s an innate instinct which is very hard to overcome. Sport has developed over millennia to serve as an outlet, but doesn’t help with the visceral reactions that occur when we feel our tribe is threatened by a different one. That’s what underlies racism and nationalism, and explains why these emotions are so easily stirred up by authoritarians seeking to achieve the “alpha-male” role.
Then when these alpha males like Putin and Netanyahu become obsessed with smashing up everything belonging to their perceived enemy tribe (much like a silverback on an angry rampage), it becomes virtually impossible to pull everything back and talk about global cooperation.
How late is too late?
Good question. I suspect a while back was already too late. From here on in we will just have to cope as best we can.
It’ll be messy and unless I’m blessed with unlikely longevity I’ll miss it. (The worst of it anyway). I’ve no doubt this is the rationale of the current political class: let the next lot deal with this.