tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20679594.post4425903304837489666..comments2023-09-23T07:59:36.248-07:00Comments on The Central Ganglion: Hope in Strange PlacesJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04784243328798635180noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20679594.post-69686739106037279972009-07-16T15:28:59.430-07:002009-07-16T15:28:59.430-07:00Oh, I see I haven't made myself clear. I'm...Oh, I see I haven't made myself clear. I'm not in anyway disagreeing with you that an 80% die-off of the human race would be a horrible and unmitigated disaster, and an entirely preventable one.<br />I'm saying that this is the first time in four decades that I've been able to hope that there will be as many as 20% of our current population living in 2100.<br />I've been working on the assumption that 5% to 10% survival was about the best that could be expected, with the climate change initiated by humans causing a planet-wide extinction event. Until now, the most likely scenario for survival has been much worse than even that... perhaps two or three bunkers of people and some twenty to fifty thousand wretched people on the surface, living miserable lives that are nasty, brutish and short. <br />I believe an all-out nuclear war is probable, and that it's very likely we'll see several limited nuclear wars. Even without extreme climate change or nuclear war, we're overdue for a planet-wide pandemic of one or more diseases that could eliminate nine out of every ten people... read Outbreak by Robert Preston.<br />Maybe that puts my little sips of hope in perspective. I'm twenty years older than I ever thought I'd get to be.<br />So if you see me singing a little ditty of hope for the future while I make raspberry jam, this is me not worrying about the pack of rascals in Ottawa who haven't got the guts to stand up in the House of Parliament and say "Just drive less. That's half of our emissions problem there."paula johansonhttp://kayakyak.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20679594.post-42008614230215860942009-07-16T12:44:44.455-07:002009-07-16T12:44:44.455-07:00John has the podcasts for Gwynne Dyers "Ideas...John has the podcasts for Gwynne Dyers "Ideas" episodes (and you can find them here: http://www.gwynnedyer.com/ ), and there is nothing wry about my grin. :)<br />I don't consider an 80% die-off of the human race due to climate change to be anything but a horrible and unmitigated disaster. Especially if it's from something that is (or was, at any rate) entirely preventable.<br />Would a large human die-off do wonders for the state of the planet? Yes, absolutely, but it's still a tragic way to initiate change. <br />What scares me most is the notion in Dyer's book, backed now by many leading climatologists, is that many previous extinctions resulted from a rise in carbon in the atmosphere, which raised the temperature of the oceans, which made them unable to absorb as much C02, which resulted in the oceans being anoxic, which resulted in more hyrdogen sulphates being released into the oceans, which eventually overwhelmed the oxygen in the atmosphere. That's a near 100% human (and plant and animal) extinction event. <br />And many climate scientists see this happening by 2100. <br />But don't worry -- our current Environment Minister Jim Prentice says achieving the 80%lower emissions by 2050 is only an aspirational goal of the developed countries and that Canada will not need to change its policies to achieve that goal.<br />So we're in good hands.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784243328798635180noreply@blogger.com