Transcript Climate Change 2015 overview, upshot, and meanings

Green is the New Left
How climate change challenges the political economy and
what this may ultimately mean for philosophy
Martin Schönfeld, Ph.D.
USF Philosophy FAO-226
[email protected]
Presentation to the USF Philosophy Organization February 2015
Abstract 2/45
Civilization has crossed planetary boundaries into a zone of ecological overshoot. The
first worldwide symptom of overshoot is climate change. The failure to rein in climate
change spells biodiversity collapse, social instability, and food insecurity.
Abstract 3/45
Civilization has crossed planetary boundaries into a zone of ecological overshoot. The
first worldwide symptom of overshoot is climate change. The failure to rein in climate
change spells biodiversity collapse, social instability, and food insecurity.
Being in overshoot means humankind needs to return to a safe operating space. But
this is not happening; market forces have consistently thwarted legislative attempts at
reducing emissions and shrinking footprints, a phenomenon of failing governance
called “regulatory capture”.
Abstract 4/45
Civilization has crossed planetary boundaries into a zone of ecological overshoot. The
first worldwide symptom of overshoot is climate change. The failure to rein in climate
change spells biodiversity collapse, social instability, and food insecurity.
Being in overshoot means humankind needs to return to a safe operating space. But
this is not happening; market forces have consistently thwarted legislative attempts at
reducing emissions and shrinking footprints, a phenomenon of failing governance
called “regulatory capture”.
What does this crisis mean for civilization at this juncture in history? What does it
mean for the design of our economic systems? And what does it imply, ultimately, for
the methods and topics of western philosophy?
Format 5/45
Examining how climate change challenges the political economy, and what this
ultimately may mean for philosophy, requires us to “connect the dots”; specifically, to
link information in climatology and economics to philosophy.
Format 6/45
Examining how climate change challenges the political economy, and what this
ultimately may mean for philosophy, requires us to “connect the dots”; specifically, to
link information in climatology and economics to philosophy.
Information on climate change, its planetary effects, and its economic causes, is
empirical and quantitative. Clarifying the structure of these facts and relations can
probably best be done with a not-very-philosophical tool, a powerpoint.
Format 7/45
Examining how climate change challenges the political economy, and what this
ultimately may mean for philosophy, requires us to “connect the dots”; specifically, to
link information in climatology and economics to philosophy.
Information on climate change, its planetary effects, and its economic causes, is
empirical and quantitative. Clarifying the structure of these facts and relations can
probably best be done with a not-very-philosophical tool, a powerpoint.
Most slides here are background info about what’s known, in 2015, of climate
change; its causes and effects; and of what stopping it would entail for civilization.
Format 8/45
Examining how climate change challenges the political economy, and what this
ultimately may mean for philosophy, requires us to “connect the dots”; specifically, to
link information in climatology and economics to philosophy.
Information on climate change, its planetary effects, and its economic causes, is
empirical and quantitative. Clarifying the structure of these facts and relations can
probably best be done with a not-very-philosophical tool, a powerpoint.
Most slides here are background info about what’s known, in 2015, of climate
change; its causes and effects; and of what stopping it would entail for civilization.
At the end there are a few slides on the critique of the political economy and on what
the concept of “political left” means, historically, and globally.
Outline 9/45
1. climate change: consensus
2. The climatological venues
3. The evolutionary fork in the road
4. The 2° C guardrail of the Earth system
5. The economic upshot
6. The multiple meanings of being left
1. Consensus 10/45
1. Climate change is happening.
2. It’s extremely bad news.
3. It’s entirely our fault.
4. We have all the tools we need to fix it.
5. But we don’t use them.
6. Using them would effectively require turning US society upside down.
1. Consensus 11/45
The scientific consensus is that climate change is happening; it is caused by humans;
and it has an overwhelmingly negative impact on civilization and on the biosphere.
1. Consensus 12/45
The consensus is endorsed by the following professional organizations:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Source: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
1. Consensus 13/45
President Obama 16 May 2013 tweet:
“97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, dangerous, & man-made”
1. Consensus 14/45
… but what about the 3% of scientists who deny this consensus?
The skeptics fall into three groups:
A. Experts associated with “research institutes” funded by the fossil fuel industry
B. Economic geologists who study natural formations that can be commercially
exploited by the extractive industries (in a 2013 poll, 57% are deniers)
C. Academics with an advanced degree in some other field (e.g. Engineering) and who
still go on record with denying the reality or the impact of climate change. In the
statistics they still count as “scientists”.
1. Consensus 15/45
… but what about the 3% of scientists who deny this consensus?
The skeptics fall into three groups:
A. Experts associated with “research institutes” funded by the fossil fuel industry
B. Economic geologists who study natural formations that can be commercially
exploited by the extractive industries (in a 2013 poll, 57% are deniers)
C. Academics with an advanced degree in some other field (e.g. Engineering) and who
still go on record with denying the reality or the impact of climate change. In the
statistics they still count as “scientists”.
So:
Group A is corrupt
Group B has vested interests to reject info that clashes with their paychecks
Group C is incompetent.
2. Venues 16/45
Let’s return to the honest 97% and their work.
There are central international institutions that funnel the information.
They don’t do research but they collect and coordinate the information.
WMO: World Meteorological Organization
UNEP: United Nations Environmental Program
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
2. Venues 17/45
The information is summarized in so-called assessment reports.
They are online and are printed by Cambridge University Press.
IPCC AR: Assessment Reports
FAR: First Assessment Report 1990
SAR: Second Assessment Report 1995
TAR: Third Assessment Report 2001
AR-4: Fourth Assessment Report 2007
2. Venues 18/45
The most recent report is the AR 5.
IPCC AR 5 2013-2014
vol 1 The Physical Science Basis
vol 2 Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
vol 3 Mitigation of Climate Change
vol 1-3 Synthesis Report
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
3. Fork in the Road 19/45
These are the two most important
Pictures I want to show you.
This is the first one.
From ICPP AR 4 2007
Emissions scenarios:
Blue path (B1): best-case future
Red path (A2): worst-case future
3. Fork in the Road 20/45
This is the second picture.
From ICPP AR 4 2007
Heating scenarios:
Blue path (B1): best-case future
Red path (A2): worst-case future
3. Fork in the Road 21/45
The paths on the graphs are modeled according to various scenarios.
Blue path (B1): best-case scenario: convergent, post-consumerist, social equity.
From AR4 2007 WG1 Physical Science Basis “Summary for Policymakers”
3. Fork in the Road 22/45
Red path (A2): worst-case scenario: individualistic, hierarchical, conservative.
From AR4 2007 WG1 Physical Science Basis “Summary for Policymakers”
3. Fork in the Road 23/45
The COP meetings
The scenarios were created in 2000.
Actual emissions from 2000 to the present have been on the red path.
The world community has tried repeatedly to curb emissions.
The meetings for these efforts are the annual summits of the so-called Conference of
the Parties (COP). The COP is the governing body of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). 154 nations signed the FCCC in 1992.
3. Fork in the Road 24/45
The COP-meetings
The annual meetings started in Berlin 1995. COP-1 articulated the mandate.
COP-3 at Kyoto 1997 produced the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. The Kyoto
Protocol was an encouraging first step but was insufficient to stop global warming.
COP-15 at Copenhagen 2009 was expected to yield the first real binding climate law.
This effort failed.
Every single annual COP-summit since then has failed.
3. Fork in the Road 25/45
The COP-meetings
At the eve of COP-20 in Lima this past December, the NYT reported this:
“After more than two decades of trying but failing to forge a global pact to halt climate
change, UN negotiators gathering in South America this week are expressing optimism
that they may finally achieve the elusive deal. Even with a deal to stop the current rate
of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists warn, the world will become increasingly
unpleasant. Without a deal, they say, the world could eventually become uninhabitable
for humans.”
New York Times 30.11.2014 “Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks”
4. The 2 C Guardrail 26/45
The fork in the road represented by the two pathways is also a fork in the road
between a world we can live in and a world we cannot.
Things get worse as temperatures go up. We are now 0.8 °C above the baseline.
4. The 2 C Guardrail 27/45
global impact warming scale
Amount of global warming in °C increase over 1980-1999 levels
+1 °C: decreases in water availability; more frequent droughts and wildfires; more
flood and storm damage; more malnutrition, more diarrhoeal, cardiorespiratory, and infectious diseases.
+2 °C: human mortality increases as a result of heat waves, floods, and droughts;
9%-31% of species extinct; widespread extinction of amphibians underway.
+3 °C: natural systems suffer widespread change; profoundly negative effects on
biodiversity, water, and food supplies; loss of rainforests
+4 °C: substantial burden on health services; reduced global food production;
30% of coastal wetlands lost; 40%-70% of species extinct; corals extinct
From: M. E. Mann/L. R. Kump Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming (London: DK 2008), 109
4. The 2 C Guardrail 28/45
But the changes are not only step-by-step. If global mean surface temperatures rise 2
°C (3.6 °F) or more above the pre-industrial baseline, a tipping point will be reached.
Beyond this threshold, the 2 °C guardrail, non-linear changes are likely.
Non-linear changes are planetary changes that are sudden, fast, and chaotic.
These are runaway events, where the effect is not proportional to the cause anymore,
with cascading consequences.
4. The 2 C Guardrail 29/45
Here’s how the future (up to 2100) looked like in 2006/2007.
best case B1 scenario 2007: + 1.8 °C
=====2 degree threshold====
worst case A2 scenario 2007: + 3.4 °C
(2 F)
(3.6 F)
(6.1 F)
AR4 2007 Synthesis Report, p. 45
4. The 2 C Guardrail 30/45
In the 2013/2014 update, they use new words.
AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers 27 Sep 2013
2013/2014 best case: RCP 2.6 (= 2007 B1 updated)
2013/2014 worst case: RCP 8.5 (= 2007 A2 updated)
“R. C. P.” = representative concentration pathways
“2.6” and “8.5” =
quantity of total radiative forcing in 2100 relative to 1750, in
watts per meter2 (w/m2)
Radiative forcing =
difference of energy received and energy radiated back into
space; or the net energy gain of the Earth’s atmosphere
4. The 2 C Guardrail 31/45
AR 5 WG 1 2013/14
Blue vs. red, updated …
RCP 2.6
RCP 8.5
4. The 2 C Guardrail 32/45
AR 5 WG 1 2013/14
Blue vs. red, updated …
RCP 2.6
RCP 8.5
4. The 2 C Guardrail 33/45
This is how the future (up to 2100) looks like now.
AR4 scenarios B1 & A2, updated via AR5 pathways RCP2.6 & RCP8.5
2007 B1 scenario
+ 1.8 °C
2013, RCP 2.6 pathway
+ 1.0 ° C (range 0.3-1.7 ° C)
=====2 degree threshold================================================
2007 A2 scenario
+ 3.4 °C
2013, RCP 8.5 pathway
+ 3.7 ° C (range 2.7 - 4.8 °C)*
*) Unencumbered peer-reviewed studies suggest a range of 3.0-8.0 ° C.
4. The 2 C Guardrail 34/45
From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 1/19/2014 (“Three Minutes and Counting”)
“3 to 8 degrees Celsius (about 5.5 to 14.5 degrees Fahrenheit) … may seem like a
modest rise in the average global temperature. After all, people at a given location
often experience much greater temperature swings in the course of a single day. But
that is a local variation, not a change in the average temperature of the surface of the
entire planet. A similarly “modest” global average warming of 3 to 8 degrees Celsius
brought Earth out of the frigid depths of the last ice age, utterly transforming the
surface of the planet and in the process making it hospitable to the development of
human civilization. To risk a further warming of this same magnitude is to risk the
possibility of an equally profound transformation of Earth’s surface—only this time
the planet’s hospitality to humanity can by no means be taken for granted.
Source: http://thebulletin.org/three-minutes-and-counting7938
5. Economic Upshot 35/45
The environmental facts
• All and any attempts to date to create realistic climate legislation have failed.
• Present emission levels put the world on the RED trajectory.
5. Upshot 36/45
The environmental facts
• All and any attempts to date to create realistic climate legislation have failed.
• Present emission levels put the world on the RED trajectory.
• Climate change is a threat amplifier; most of all it will cause food insecurity.
• The “safe operating space” for humanity is inside the 2 C guardrail.
• The window of opportunity to avoid crashing through the guardrail closes in 2017.
5. Upshot 37/45
The environmental facts
• All and any attempts to date to create realistic climate legislation have failed.
• Present emission levels put the world on the RED trajectory.
• Climate change is a threat amplifier; most of all it will cause food insecurity.
• The “safe operating space” for humanity is inside the 2 C guardrail.
• The window of opportunity to avoid crashing through the guardrail closes in 2017.
• By 2017, civilization must reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 10% every year.
• Global CO2 emissions rose by 1-2% annually in the 1990s. From 2000 on, they’ve
risen 3-4% every year. Annual emissions 2013 are 61% higher than in 1990.
• Global CO2 emissions must completely stop if we want to have a chance.
5. Upshot 38/45
The economic facts
There are three economic reason for this complete policy failure.
One reason is regulatory capture.
The energy companies (whose main revenue stream comes from fossil fuels) are the
most powerful corporations on Earth and increasingly steer government policy.
The result is failing governance. Governments become too weak and too small to
oppose corporate interests.
The solution to this problem is to get money out of politics.
5. Upshot 39/45
The economic facts
Another reason is ideological: the triumph of market fundamentalism
Market fundamentalism or neoliberal economics pushes for:
• Privatization of the public sphere
• Deregulation of the corporate sector
• Lowering of income & corporate taxes, paid for with cuts in public spending
The pursuit of these goals has blocked a serious response to climate change for decades.
Cf. Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate (2014), p. 72-3
5. Upshot 40/45
The economic facts
A third reason is structural.
The stability of market economies depends on continuous growth.
Climate change signals that economic growth has crossed planetary boundaries (such
as that of the carbon cycle).
Stopping climate change requires shifting from the growth-based economic model to
a steady-state economic model (in which prosperity does not depend on growth).
5. Upshot 41/45
There are two positive feedback loops between climate and capitalism.
Growth-based market economies drive climate change …
… just as climate change (1) feeds into ‘disaster capitalism’ because it works as a
threat amplifier.
… just as climate change (2) erodes social security and feeds into the concentration of
capital, by making the rich richer, the middle poorer, and the poor destitute, because
climate change works as an economic stratifier.
5. Upshot 42/45
There are also profoundly interesting correlations derivative of regulatory capture:
(A) The freer the market, the weaker the government, and the fewer sustainable policies.
(B) The stronger the government, the more regulated and restricted the market, and the
more effective and systematic the sustainable policies of the nation.
5. Upshot 43/45
This leaves but one conclusion:
Green is the new left.
5. Upshot 44/45
The only question is of where on the left spectrum the new ecological left will play out …
Extremists:
Progressives:
Moderates:
Colorless:
Communism
Socialism
Social Democracy
“Liberals”
Stalinism
(R 1930s-’50s)
Leninism
(R 1920s)
Maoism
(C 1950s-’70s)
State Capitalism
(C 1980s-now)
Socialism
(YUG ‘50s-80s)
Social Democracy
(SW, DK, GER, F)
Democrats
(US)
5. Upshot 45/45
Concluding questions:
What will the climate crisis mean for philosophy?
What will it mean …
… for the future set of values?
… for the status of naturalism?
… for the assessment of certainty and truth?
… for the conventions of reasoning?
… for the parameters of cognition?
… for the notion of being human?
Thank you!