Education for the Transition? My 2nd Seminar in Paris

There I am, together with Gaell Mainguy, Directeur du développement et des relations internationales du Centre de Recherches Interdisciplinaires in Paris. It was on Wednesday, Oct 11 and we are on the 21 floor of the "Tour de Montparnasse", spectacular view of Paris and of the Eiffel Tower.

We had a good hour or more of discussion about the role of education in shaping our future. I was truly impressed by the competence and the dedication of the people who participated in the debate. Yet, I remain somewhat skeptical about the possibility for education - at any level - to change society.

On this point, I have some personal experience as a teacher, but more than my limited record I tend to trust Jorgen Randers, one of the original authors of "The Limits To Growth" who defined himself as "a depressed man with a smiling face." That was for various reasons, one was that after, maybe, 40 years of teaching his students about sustainability, he observed that when they moved into the real world, outside the university, they behaved exactly in the same way as the people who had not been taught these matters. Dennis Meadows told me something very similar regarding his own experience. And all that fits well with my personal experience.

Basically, people normally tend to go along the path of lowest resistance and in a society that does not reward sustainability-oriented actions, they will rapidly learn how to maximize their utility function, even though that means forgetting what they learned in school.

That doesn't mean it is useless to teach sustainability and, of course, no rule is without exception. Maybe the kind of creativity that people can develop after a certain training remains an asset all over their life. It means, however, that as long as society remains what it is, the lofty principles that we learn from the science of ecosystems will not be put into practice. So, what is the solution? Well, a good Seneca Cliff can do wonders in terms of changing things!


Apart from lofty principles and Seneca cliffs, a good beer in Paris is always a good thing! Here I am, after the seminar, in a bistrot of Montparnasse together with Jean Pierre Dieterlen, a member of the Adrastia association.

H/t Jacques Chartier-Kastler for the organization of this meeting

Climate Change and the Horse Manure Catastrophe

One of the reasons of the success of the motor car in replacing horses was that cars didn't leave solid waste behind. It would take almost a century to understand that the exhaust of motor vehicles is way more toxic and polluting than anything that the rear of a horse could produce. (Above, 1898 car ad). 

The success of the Paris climate conference may have been only partial, but it has surely thrown into some disarray the anti-science party. For instance, at the National Review, they haven't been able to criticize the Paris agreement with anything better than the old canard of "the horse manure catastrophe," (see here for the origin of the story). Their recent piece on this subject is titled "Why Climate Change Won’t Matter in 20 Years" and it is penned by Josh Gelernter. It contains nothing new, but it is a slick and well-written piece that deserves some attention.

The central argument of the text derives from the horse manure pollution problem in the 19th century. Gelernter cites Michael Crichton and says,

What environmental problems would men in 1900 have predicted for 2000? Where to get enough horses, and what to do with all the manure. “Horse pollution was bad in 1900,” said Crichton. How much worse would someone in 1900 expect it to be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?"

From here, the text goes on listing the many changes that we have seen since that time and arguing that, today, it is impossible to predict what technology will be like in a hundred years from now, and that even 20 years from now climate change will not be a problem anymore.

The way the text is written, Gelernter argument seems to stand; but if you examine it in detail, it becomes a sandcastle at high tide. Basically, the example of the horse manure is stretched way beyond its importance. Chricton was probably correct when he said, "Horse pollution was bad in 1900," but there is no evidence that anyone considered it a catastrophe in the making or extrapolated it to the remote future: there was no such a thing analogous to our IPPC, say, an IPMC (International Panel on the Manure Catastrophe).

Then, horse manure may have been offensive for the delicate noses of town dwellers, but it never was toxic, never destroyed the ecosystem, and it could always be swept away by a sufficient number of people armed with brooms. The exaggerated importance given to this story may derive from a factoid that you can easily find in the web that states (in various slightly different versions) that "Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure." I have been trying to find the source of this statement, but it doesn't seem to exist. It is, most likely, just a legend, as indicated by the vagueness of the attribution to "one writer" as the author.

Apart from exaggerating the importance of manure pollution, the whole argument of the National Review article stands on a very shaky logic. The first problem is that, even though cars seemed to be much cleaner than horses, it would be discovered later on that the emissions at the exhaust pipe of a car are way more dangerous than anything that could come out of the rear end of a horse. And people armed with brooms can do nothing against gaseous pollution. Seen in these terms, cars are a classic case of a solution that worsens the problem: one can only shiver at the thought of what the next technological "solution" against car pollution could bring to us. (and there are already concerns that the catalytic converters of motor cars may do unexpected damage to human health)

The other problem with Gelernter argument is a fundamental logical fallacy. It basically says, "there were pollution problems in the past. These problems don't exist anymore today. Therefore, the climate change problem of today will not exist anymore in the future" This is a fallacy of over-extrapolation, known, sometimes, as the "turkey fallacy". Imagine you are a turkey; then you observe that humans have been feeding you every day since the day you were born. So, you extrapolate to the future and you conclude that humans will keep feeding you forever. Then, thanksgiving comes.... So, the fact that we were able to solve some pollution problems in the past (or, at least, that we believe to have been able to solve) doesn't mean we'll always be able to solve all of them.

Apart from the shaky logic, the interesting feature of Gelernter's piece is how extreme it is. It is faith-based from top to bottom: the whole argument is a hymn to technology that will solve all problems as it has always done in the past. In the spectrum of the current visions of the future, it stands at the opposite end of Guy McPherson's "near-term human extinction," (NTE). Both imply that you should do nothing to prepare for the future. Both allow no "plan B," in case the future turns out not to be the one assumed to be.

That's reckless, to say the least. There are surely ways that could make human generated climate change an obsolete problem (including major technological innovations, but also, for instance, a nuclear war). But there are also plenty of chances that climate change could turn out to be a major, unmitigated disaster, as it is already. So, if you don't want to face the destiny of turkeys for thanksgiving, you'd better take a flexible stance and avoid getting caught in the traps generated by opposite extremes. The future often surprises you, but you'd better prepare for it.




(h/t Alex Sorokin)

The COP21 in Paris: it was a victory

After a series of defeats suffered at the hands of the Swedes, the Russian Czar Peter the Great is reported to have said that, "Eventually, they'll teach us how to beat them". Then, in 1709, at Poltava, the Russian army decisively defeated the Swedes. Victory often comes from persistence and if we keep fighting for the earth's climate, eventually we'll win (Image by Mikhail Lomonosov,1762-1764 )

Before the COP21 meeting, I expected that the agreement that was to be signed would be something like the one that was actually signed. And I saw myself taking a position similar to the one taken by James Hansen and others: I thought I would have joined those who are now screaming "hoax!"

But no; after some thinking over the matter, I had a minor enlightenment. The Paris agreement is a victory. Maybe not a great victory, because from a technical viewpoint it is certainly insufficient. But, in communication terms, there is no doubt that it is a victory.

Put yourself in the shoes of those who have been pouring millions of dollars into "perception management" on climate (that is, good old "disinformation"). They might have thought that, after the Climategate story, after the demonization of Michael Mann, of Al Gore, of Phil Jones, and of many others; after that all the Republican candidates were convinced to refuse to admit that climate change is human caused, after the Trumpcane, and more things, then, the idea of human-caused climate change would be erased from the collective consciousness and its proponents reduced to the same level of prestige that Saddam Hussein enjoyed in the West when he was president of Iraq.

And yet, climate science is not dead and the concern about climate is alive and well in the world. The COP21 in Paris has shown that. So, the Paris conference is a victory because it showed the resilience of the climate movement. We have been attacked, ridiculed, demonized, harassed, insulted, dismissed, threatened, punished, and more. But we are still here. And we are growing. We are also getting smarter. We haven't won, yet, but we are learning how to win.

So, "they" must be thinking: what was all that money good for? Don't you think they are now thinking about whether putting some more money into a losing battle is a good idea? They may even be scared: it is shown by the reactions to the news of the agreement. Sometimes nasty, sometimes silly, sometimes rabid; always in a defensive mood. Look at this report, where the secretary general of Eurocoal has declared that the coal industry “will be hated and vilified, in the same way that slave traders were once hated and vilified" If this is not panic, what is?

This story reminds me of something that Peter the Great said after he was defeated, one more time, by the Swedes, "eventually, they'll teach us how to beat them". Then, there came the Russian victory at Poltava and the Swedes never were again a threat for Russia. In war, just as in most things in life, persistence is the essential quality. If we keep fighting, we'll win the climate battle.

Climate: walking along a mountain path with our eyes closed, hoping that the cliff is still far away....

The danger of climate change continues to be widely misunderstood and ignored.

The COP21 of Paris is starting and trying to gain a slot in the mediaspace. But, at best, it will be a short flare of attention; soon fading in the general indifference. Climate change, it seems, is seen as something remote; its importance dwarfed by more immediate threats; from terrorism to financial concerns. And governments seem to suffer from a split personality disease; with politicians flocking to Paris to declare the absolute need of saving the planet for the future generations and then going back home and declare the absolute need of restarting growth.

But the climate threat is not for the future generations. It is something that's going on now, that has been going on for a century, and that keeps going, taking us along a dangerous path that ends somewhere, probably with a steep cliff.

Here is a summary of the situation as it is today. It doesn't attempt to be exhaustive, but it tries to catch the main points of what's going on.


1. Temperatures. Climate change is not just about rising temperatures, but that's probably its most direct and visible manifestation. The earth as been getting warmer and warmer during the past century or so and, today, the so-called "pause" is over, if it ever existed. 2015 is on track to be the hottest year ever recorded, with good chances that 2016 will be even hotter. We are very close to, or we have passed,  1°C of average surface temperature increase in comparison to pre-industrial times. The effects of this warming are multiple: droughts, heat waves, glacier melting, sea level rise, and more. And the more the earth warms up, the more these effects are important.

2. Greenhouse gases.  Carbon dioxide and methane are the main greenhouse gases generated as the result of human activities. Their buildup in the atmosphere continues. About CO2, 2015 was probably the last year in history when humans could breathe an air containing less than 400 ppm of it; from now on, concentrations will be higher. We don't know what effect these concentrations will have on people, but we know that humans had never experienced an atmosphere with more than 300 ppm of CO2 during the more than a hundred thousand years of their existence as a species. We also know that the human cognitive process is already measurably impaired at concentrations under 1000 ppm. Regarding methane, concentrations are also rising after a period of stasis that had lasted until 2006. There exists the worrisome possibility that increasing temperatures will generate a "tipping point" in which the release of methane trapped in the high latitude permafrost would become an independent and out of control source of greenhouse gas. So far, there is no evidence that this is happening, but there are worrisome reports of bursts of methane released from craters in Siberia.

3. Ice melting and sea levels. The melting of the icecaps and glaciers continues unabated. The risk of some major instabilities exists, for instance in Antarctica; even though no spectacular events have occurred, so far. Some studies seem to indicate that Antarctica has been gaining some ice up to 2008 owing to increased snowfall but, even if that turns out to be true, the overall melting trend is evident. The melting of continental glaciers is destabilizing the mountains, causing extensive landslides. The freshwater flow into the oceans is one of the main factors causing a rise in sea levels. At present, we stand at a level some 20 cm higher than when the measurements started, in late 19th century. So far, no coastal city or inhabited island has gone underwater permanently, but if the rising trend continues this is going to become a gigantic problem.

4. Weather and climate related disasters. The changing weather patterns are one of the factors that have generated a rapid increase in natural disasters during the 20th century. The number of disasters appears to have peaked around 2004-2006, even though the damage done keeps increasing in monetary terms. The change in weather patterns is causing considerable damage to agriculture, affected by droughts (as it is happening in the US)  and by unstable rainfall patterns. So far, food production has not been heavily impacted, at least on the average and the production of cereals remains stable, or even increasing. However, poor countries are especially at risk since farmers do not have the financial resources needed to adapt. Fishery production is in decline almost everywhere, mostly because of overfishing, but also as a result of oceanic warming.

5. Other effects. All the above are effects that can be classed under the "climate change" label, in turn an effect of the warming caused by greenhouse forcing. However, the ongoing changes in the ecosystem are much more complex and extensive. For instance, oceanic acidification is taking place as an effect of dissolved CO2 to a level of some 0.1 pH units and that may already have negative effects on corals. We would need to consider eutrophication, soil erosion, heavy metal dispersal, land coverage by permanent structures, multiple extinctions, deforestation, and much more.


Even though short, this list shows how gigantic and mostly irreversible changes are taking place. The earth changing, it is being transformed into a different planet, an environment that our ancestors never experienced, but that we cannot avoid facing. In this situation, a certain degree of adaptation is certainly possible for humans. Air conditioning can help against heat waves, agriculture can adapt to droughts by irrigation or by switching to different varieties of plants, engineering works can help against flooding, and fires can be suppressed by various methods. But there are limits to adaptation and the problems tend to come not gradually, but all of a sudden. For instance, when New York suffered a disastrous flood, in 2012, the sea level rise was certainly a factor that worsened the problem.

In many cases, we are seeing a situation in which major climate-related emergencies could occur at any moment. There are various possibilities; such as a new heat waves comparable, or worse, than the one in 2003 that claimed some 70,000 victims in Europe. We may see the collapse of major chunks of ice from Antarctica or from Greenland, that would lead to a disastrous sea level rise. Or changes in the weather patterns badly affecting agriculture and hence food production. Or something else; in any case, as the greenhouse forcing continues to increase, these possibilities become more and more likely.

Capping all this, there is the ominous possibility of the "climate tipping point", the fact that after reaching a certain degree of warming, the whole ecosystem will start releasing methane stored in the permafrost, pushing itself to a new temperature state. This new state could be so hot to make most of the planet uninhabitable for human beings. Obviously, there is no way to adapt to such an event.

Against all this, the efforts of the conference of Paris appear unlikely to have a large effect, to say the least. The conference is not supposed to reach any binding agreement and there is little chance that it will arrive to an agreement sufficiently strong to ensure that temperatures will remain within the "2 C" warming limits, even assuming that such a level could be considered "safe."

Yet, it would not be impossible to stabilize climate by switching to an economy fully powered by renewable energy before it will be too late. But that requires sacrifices that, at present, nobody is willing to make. So, we keep walking along a mountain path with our eyes closed, just hoping that the cliff is still far away.....

You too can fight terrorism!

and

INVEST IN

RENEWABLE ENERGY