Some processes set in motion are unstoppable.
Until three centuries ago, human destructiveness was primarily limited to each other. Apart from deforestation, overuse and local exploitation, the relatively few Homo Sapiens could do little harm to nature and they killed each other without directly harming the planet. Not that one could attach a value to human life, but the difference to nature is that the damage isn´t forever. After devastating wars, the survivors repopulated the ruins, but if there is no animal or plant left to repopulate the badlands, they will stay dead. Unless they are anyway so poisoned and contaminated that life for pioneers is only possible for a short, painful time and the only residents sterile, cancer-eaten mutants.
At the beginning of industrialization, the argument that there were no alternatives was partly correct. Exploitation was a necessary evil and formed the foundation of current prosperity and there was no more sustainable alternative at these times. However, the TINA argument has become obsolete and continues to be used in the context of climate change and fossil fuels as if we were still living at the beginning of the 20th century and there were no new technologies.
The justifications for postponing necessary innovations are contradictory. Technologies such as nuclear power and natural gas would continue to be needed for a healthy, balanced energy mix. A transformation of the electricity grid to integrate decentralized, renewable forms of energy would take decades.
First, innovative technologies have been suppressed for decades or nearly a century. Now they are being delayed by restrictions, bureaucratic harassment and subsidies for established corporations. To maintain the costly, obsolete and destructive old system, money that is otherwise desperately needed is wasted. Therefore, change can only be initiated by the civilian population and innovative companies. Corrupt politics and corporations would delay a nuclear phase-out and effective climate protection measures into the 22nd century.
It is particularly perfidious that NGOs such as climate and environmental protection organizations are often instrumentalized and the entire highlight is focused on a not too explosive aspect of the topic. If possible, with as few connecting points to the real problems as possible. To pet the panda instead of keeping the bamboo forest. To swim with the dolphin instead of protecting the sea. This discredits the credibility of many charitable organizations. It's a similar dilemma to Wikipedia, because to be free and independent, you need donations and that makes you dependent on the donors and patrons.
Media coverage prefers topics about climate change instead of environmental degradation and pollution. An annual inventory maybe and news like "So and so many on the leaderboard of threatened species slipped up or down." With ten parameters including signal light with dots. From green for "everything is fine" to black for "everyone is dead." Even this label has two spongy definitions if the data is insufficient or a species has not been assessed. Convenient when species are eradicated accidentally or as collateral damage.
On the other hand, the climate is so wonderfully vague, sophisticated and comprehensive that it can produce endless debates and reports. Practically without having to commit to concrete facts and above all action approaches. It is in the unpredictable nature of the thing. It is as if people are talking more about the weather, with fewer and fewer animal sounds in the background and monocultures overgrowing everything.
However, people do not talk about concrete phenomena that affect the weather. For example, about the thawing of permafrost, subsidence of the ocean currents, defrosting the polar ice caps, acidification of the oceans, desertification, rising sea levels, rainforest deforestation, microplastics, fracking, etc. But about the manipulable macro themes.
It is better to use nice vague parameters such as global annual temperature, CO2 emissions, and statistics with the probability of century events.
Or one leaves the planet at all and relies on the fluctuating solar activity. A potential collapse of the food and drinking water supply outside the developing countries is also preferably less mentioned, unless it causes too much refugee flow if no actual war makes people flee. But then, rather the immigrants, not the reasons for their escape, are the scapegoats. So one builds more and better border fortifications, maybe with one or the other autonomous border guard robot. Walls have always worked flawlessly in the past. It is cheaper to draw a clear dividing line than helping the country behind in development.
As a cynical bonus gift, developing countries may still be compelled to set climate targets. To leave the monopoly on global warming "science" in the industrialized nations. The quest for an acceptable standard of living will be harder to suppress and this is parallel to an increase in the climate and environmental impact.
Ironically, the West benefits in part from climate change in the form of prolonged growing seasons and shorter winter and meanwhile, drastic consequences remain limited to emerging countries.
So far, climate changes have been continuous processes over long periods with anomalies like volcanic eruptions or solar storms. There have never been so many drastic changes at all levels in such a short time. Climate certificates and emissions trading are a drop in the ocean, they have more loopholes and legal mishaps than proven results.
US military and container ships, for example, were not included in the calculation. Especially with the military, too many unpleasant questions would be raised. For instance assistance in the upgrading of dictatorships in oil-rich countries and the bombing of their enemies, worldwide protection of oil wells and pipelines by military presence and bases, etc. In short, the petro-military complex. Climate wars for resources could already be on the agenda. First, all resources of the earth are consumed and with the resulting, superior military power the remains violently claimed.
The amount of issued certificates is arbitrarily raised like on a stock exchange, which modifies limits and minimums and causes inflation. The licenses should have been expensive and difficult to obtain, instead, energy-intensive industries are earmarked for selling large quota surplus certificates. Another, indirect subsidy. If you go after that, one would have to assume that there is much less pollution than certificates. Maybe there will be hyperinflation with those documents, on which a few billion emissions per piece are printed.
This fits in with the negligent casino mentality. Bipolar that this, pragmatically and technocratically, quantifies animals and natural spaces as resources to be used. Everything in nature is carefully calculated with perverted financial mathematics and statistics to precisely find each exploitation possibility. The rescue measures, however, ridiculed with the same instruments. On the stock exchanges, such a business transaction would result in severe penalties. Here, on the other hand, it's all just about nature. Sanctions are for instance possible against countries that issue protectionist subsidies for renewable energies what is against free trade agreements.
Peak Oil is not mentioned but deserves attention. As with diamond cartels or Fort Knox, you do not know what is on with it. How many tons of diamonds are stashed in Antwerp and with how much usury are they selling Are real gold bars, gold-plated lead ingots or even no bars in Fort Knox And will the oil reserves last 50 or 200 years In the first case, one heads towards another significant problem. Not primarily because of the fuels that can be made differently. Or the financial crisis, when oil companies and petrochemical industry collapse. And with them, the vast majority of trading companies fall like a house of cards. But because of the many other substances for which there are no alternative primary materials, without which, however, industry and commerce can not be sustained.
In addition to the known alternatives, there are quite a few new processes, machines, and ideas. Many have not yet been tapped or invented because money has never been invested in research and economic use. Or the patents were bought and thrown into a safe and the involved scientists made silent. Solar energy and geothermal energy can be used in different ways. Or take the imitation of the photosynthesis of a plant with new variants of photovoltaic systems. Direct use of energy from water, wind and tides offers the perfect supplement for cloudy days. The use of chemical energy from fermentation processes could be switched on and off at will or stored.
The result is self-sufficient energy production in plus energy houses. The heat under the house from the earth's core as well as the sun's rays, the temperature in the air and all organic waste are used optimally. Maybe still in a post-capitalist sharing economy. A more than a red rag for the established monopolists.
One thing is ambiguous. The fact that we would be heading for a new ice age. It would be natural for the poles to push themselves over half the continents for tens of thousands of years and bury everything under a hundred-meter-thick ice sheet. Humans would merely position themselves around the equator and sit out the ice age, but it would cause immense, natural species extinction. Possibly not as massive as the current one in the course of the Anthropocene. Although the humans, with so many, also fled animals on a narrow strip around the belt zone of the planet, would probably proceed the same way as today. Ironically, climate change still protects us from this scenario.
It is to be hoped that civic movements such as the mentioned Blockadia, new political movements and a very slow rethinking in established parties will not be too late. Because the greenhouse effect is similar to that on the planet Venus. Superstorms, extreme temperature fluctuations and ever greater uninhabitability are possible future variants. So extreme, that it is deadly to go outside. To get an idea of the reversibility, one can build a snowman in a desert, grow ice in the garden in the spring, stick broken pieces of glaciers back to the Antarctic, activate air currents through fans, accelerate ocean currents through paddles or filter certain elements from the air. Everything is not so easy. The process is irreversible. An environment is so heavily built and so quickly destroyed.
A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this completely overrated real-life outside books: