• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

New World: Climate Change

And she documents the inspiring movements that have already begun this process: communities that are not just refusing to be sites of further fossil fuel extraction but are building the next, regeneration-based economies right now.
No doubt I have confidence humans can adapt quickly, and we have basic technologies now to transfer off most dirty fuels. Heck, even Texas has a lot of wind generation for an oil-centered state. Coal plants have been rejected and shutdown. Change can happen.

If OBAMA just went with T. Boone Picken's plan... a fricken oil man himself, then we would be a decade ahead now!

It's politics man. No one is held accountable. There is no real leadership anymore. It's smoke and mirrors and EVERYONE knows it! Crisis management is our only hope unless there is some kind of political revolution. I don't see that happening. We're pacified.

We're boiling frogs since the 1980's. Some catastrophic event is needed. 911 allowed the MIC to "take over" our government thanks to Bush and his gang. Obama is a loser too! We needed real leadership, because peace could have been pursued -not war! The terrorists were just an excuse to make war. It could have been done by BlackOps/CIA without ever doing one single ground invasion in Iraq or Afghanistan.

911 was TOTALLY PREVENTABLE, so it's ALL BS.

Do you see how pointless this is without good leadership? Our political systems is rigged. There is no choice. Obama is THE PERFECT example! Worthless! I worked my ass off for his campaign too! It's ALL Lies and deception.

Maybe things could change from the ground-up? The local areas do it despite the shit ass leadership in DC. Now, that is possible...

This is the end of my rant. Just want to express my dissatisfaction with "the system" as is. Sorry for the foul nature of this post. I've lost faith and pride in my nation.
 
Last edited:
These compilations are always fun to watch.......

'CLIMATE CHAOS' IN 2015: Strange Events/Apocalyptic Sounds Increasing Around The World (2014-15)

TEXT: "Published on Dec 14, 2014 - Warning: Strange weather events increasing around the world 2015 something is going on extreme weather tornado strange boom mystery dust storm weather thunderstorms hail wind rain fire climate chaos floods waves uk storm of the century freeze lava snow blizzard sinkhole december 2014 end of earth 2014 earth changes world events mass animal deaths."
 
No doubt I have confidence humans can adapt quickly, and we have basic technologies now to transfer off most dirty fuels. Heck, even Texas has a lot of wind generation for an oil-centered state. Coal plants have been rejected and shutdown. Change can happen.

Change can happen. It is happening. Thing is, there is so much smoke being blown that it's hard to see. But make no mistake, the push-back is intense because the monied interests are in power. Not only in power, but have our Supreme Court bought-and-sold.

It's politics man. No one is held accountable. There is no real leadership anymore. It's smoke and mirrors and EVERYONE knows it! Crisis management is our only hope unless there is some kind of political revolution. I don't see that happening. We're pacified.

There is lots going on - but it's not on the mainstream media. Alternative media is where the real story is being told.

Senator Elizabeth Warren on the Keystone XL Pipeline
TEXT: "Published on Jan 8, 2015: Senator Elizabeth Warren speaks at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources markup of Keystone XL pipeline legislation, on January 8, 2015."


Bernie Sanders Rails Against Keystone XL

TEXT: "Published on Nov 18, 2014"


Likely speaking to a very sparse chamber - hence his final mention of there being no quorum.

Fools!
TEXT: "Published on Jan 7, 2015"
 
Obama was a Senator and mixed African American and White. An insider nonetheless. We're dead in the water!

The Senators jabber on for CSPAN and media attention sound bites. No one cares enmass.

Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat. She's more conservative than Bill. A Hawk. She's no peacemaker. The Middle East is a disaster area. We made it much worse!!!

I'm just too frustrated with politics. Americans are far too jaded and do not believe in the DC system anymore!

Having a positive attitude is a good thing though, and hope is a necessity to get to change. In that spirit I apologize for my negativity.
 
Last edited:
Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein on Need for New Economic Model to Address Ecological Crisis
TEXT: Published on Sep 18, 2014: As the United Nations prepares to hold one-day global summit on climate change, we speak to award-winning author Naomi Klein about her new book, "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.” In the book, Klein details how our neoliberal economic system and our planetary system are now at war. With global emissions at an all-time high, Klein says radical action is needed. “We have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism, the reigning ideology for the entire period we have been struggling to find a way out of this crisis,” Klein writes. “We are stuck because the actions that would give us the best chance of averting catastrophe — and would benefit the vast majority — are extremely threatening to an elite minority that has a stranglehold over our economy, our political process, and most of our major media outlets.”



In Decmeber 2012, a Complex Systems Scientist walked up to the podium at the American Geophyisics Union to present a paper. It was titled: Is Earth Fu***ked? His answer was: Yeah. Pretty much, that's where the road we're on is taking us but that has less to do with carbon than with capitalism. Our economic model is at war with life on earth. We can't change the laws of nature but we can change our broken economy and that's why climate change isn't just a disaster it's also our best chance to demand and build a better world. Change or be changed, but make no mistake - this changes everything. - Naomi Klein

Naomi Klein begins to speak her message at 27:27 in the following video -

Climate Action Week: This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein | Capitalism vs The Climate
TEXT: "
Published on Sep 20, 2014: Sponsored by The Nation Institute, The Nation Magazine, and The New School for Public Engagement as a part of the 10th Anniversary partnership celebration and Climate Action Week at The New School in association with The Working World and 350.org.

"In This Changes Everything, her first new book in seven years, Naomi Klein, author of the global #1 bestsellers The Shock Doctrine and No Logo, tackles the most profound threat humanity has ever faced: the war our economic model is waging against life on earth. Climate change, Klein argues, is a civilizational wake-up call, a powerful message delivered in the language of fires, floods, storms, and droughts. Confronting it is no longer about changing the light bulbs. It’s about changing the world. We have been told that humanity is too greedy and selfish to rise to this challenge. In fact, all around the world, the fight for the next economy and against reckless extraction is already succeeding in ways both surprising and inspiring.

"Klein will speak about the book followed by a discussion with special guests about the call to engage fundamentally with the issue of climate change. A booksigning will follow the event.
Special Guests:
Bill McKibben, activist and co-founder, 350.org
Clayton Thomas-Muller, organizer, facilitator, public speaker and writer on environmental justice and indigenous rights
Estela Vasquez, Executive Vice President SEIU Local 1199
Michael Leon Guerrero, Climate Justice Alliance
Esperanza Martinez, Acción Ecológica
Performance by singer/songwriter/actress Antonique Smith
Music by DJ Reborn

"The New School demonstrates our commitment to climate action and our solidarity with people converging on New York City for the historic People’s Climate March on September 21 with a week-long series of events focused on climate change. As a leader and official endorser of the March, The New School’s Climate Action Week includes a diverse set of programming directed towards the university and wider community for enriched learning and engagement opportunities, scholarship, innovation and creativity, solidarity and collective action, and highlighting New School’s values around climate justice and action."
 
Last edited:
It was titled: Is Earth Fu***ked?'His answer was: Yeah. Pretty much, that's where the road we're on is taking us but that has less to do with carbon than with capitalism. Our economic model is at war with life on earth. We can't change the laws of nature but we can change our broken economy and that's why climate change isn't just a disaster it's also our best chance to demand and build a better world. Change or be changed, but make no mistake - this changes everything.
I agree. Corporations need a "transformative sentence" -not the death sentence. Chairmen of the Board and all Directors should be able to be fired and replaced, when the company commits serious crimes. Think how different America could be if all those bankers were fired and replaced after 2008. Same thing for BP.

Anyway, I'll be checking out the climate issues over time. I honestly believe it is real, but I just don't know when or how. I don't think anyone knows exactly, and that's why I'm so interested in the countdown check list. People need a simple check list that can match-up with some predictions too. Then people can grab onto it, because the white noise is cut out.

Otherwise, we need a catastrophic event to shock the system.
 
I agree. Corporations need a "transformative sentence" -not the death sentence. Chairmen of the Board and all Directors should be able to be fired and replaced, when the company commits serious crimes. Think how different America could be if all those bankers were fired and replaced after 2008. Same thing for BP.
Accountability. Yes. Check out Naomi Klein in the second linked video in post#205. It's a long one, but as she starts to speak her message at 27:27 she gets into the prognostication pretty quick.

The view she reports is that we are locked into a certain amount of warming at this point. There is nothing we can do. We are looking at a changed world no matter what. But the catastrophic warming that will occur by this century's end can be avoided if we pull back from 'business as usual'. She lays a lot at the door of extreme capitalism. (The Chicago School, economists like Milton Friedman and the 'thinker' Ayn Rand have a lot to answer for). She calls it a 'war' being waged against life on earth, a war being waged upon the earth systems, a war with the earth itself. It's a war we cannot win. In the end, as the earth does it's massive roll to readjust - to be rid of the 'infection' - humanity winks out.

Here's where my view kicks in, because I do not think the earth 'wants' to lose humanity, or that it's the best scenario for the earth. For that bit the 'spiritual' has to be brought in, the idea of consciousness of a kind, of a depth and breath and scope, that (certain) current thinking cannot allow for. (It may require a new thread or the resurrection of one of my currently idle threads). Why the modern human is disallowed from thinking in that certain vein is nested in the history of thinking, back to the 1500's and 1700's, going back farther still to the Moors and the division between Arithmetic and Geometry, farther still to the split between Plato and Aristotle and the split between Egyptian and Sumerian, and even further as modeled by the archetypal story of Cain and Abel (a fundamentally Sumerian story).
Anyway, I'll be checking out the climate issues over time. I honestly believe it is real, but I just don't know when or how. I don't think anyone knows exactly,
You'll find as you do the reading, that there are some who posit 'exactly how'. In my view it cannot be crisply predicted because of the unknowns: which system will implode that then leads to the next cascade effect? It's hard to predict though it's clear the systems are 'on the verge'. How it will cascade is not entirely an unknown, but it's hard to predict what will come first and when.

I have one friend who studies the weather. He is a scientist as well as being an esotericist, and I find his insights compelling because of that dual aspect. He does have one precise prognostication: that either in 2015 (or 2016 - I think 2016) there will be a reversal of the California drought. There will be so much rain that people will be sick of it. He says it will be a deluge. What does one do with that? Firstly, knowing California (I live here) I know that landslides will be epidemic under those conditions. (No big tree root systems to hold the soil). It's not a simple matter of looking for high ground, but a certain kind of high ground. High ground can as easily collapse under water-logged conditions as keep one above the water line. The ability of the street sewer systems to handle sustained rains even now is hit-or-miss. Under sustained rain for days, weeks, months - how will the streets look? Cars with low clearance will not survive is the first thought that comes to me. What will the coastline look like - the beaches - as water starts to flow 'both ways' from streets to ocean. How will the sewage systems stand up and the waste treatment plants stand up to deluge-like rain sustained over time? In LA we are prepared for earthquakes - has anyone thought of being prepared for excessive rain? Doubt it. The city planners are preparing for sustained drought.

It will be the unexpected that will do us in. While my friend has his reasons for thinking 2016 will be a year of out-of-control rain for California, he is not shouting his views from the roof-tops for obvious reasons (weather forecasting is an uncertain science at best). The system has too many unknowns, though he is certain enough of his analysis at this point to be talking openly about it now.
that's why I'm so interested in the countdown check list. People need a simple check list that can match-up with some predictions too. Then people can grab onto it, because the white noise is cut out.
There has to be some taking hold of the experiences people are having across the globe. The fact that the sea-level is rising in Florida is an everyday experience. Streets are awash with water at midday under bone dry skies - not because of a water main break. The water is coming in from the ocean.
Otherwise, we need a catastrophic event to shock the system.
We'll get them. They'll come. They will be a shock because we couldn't have imagined how the earth system would adjust. The scientists have long told us that global warming will mean wild, unpredictable, and extreme, weather events.

But the proofs are more close to home: watching the bird migrations, watching the insects, observing the planting season shift, finding the emergence of warm weather blights where before there were none. These observations are in fact more critical because having to do with our food supply.
 
Last edited:
In the following interview with Bill Moyers, Klein makes it clear that this climate change issue is divided along conservative/liberal lines. Beliefs concerning abortion/birth control/religion are predictive factors in how AGW is accepted or viewed. In the US it's a deep division, that has shifted since 2007. Such a conservative view sees the issue not scientifically but as an issue of values and the status quo. In the film An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore concludes that the climate crisis is a moral crisis. To quote a friend of mine: "How does morality - generally considered a soul or spiritual value - relate to the science of climate change?"

Bill Moyers & Naomi Klein: How Climate Change Is an Historic Opportunity for Progressives

INTERVIEW
: Bill Moyers & Naomi Klein: How Climate Change Is an Historic Opportunity for Progressives - YouTube
TEXT: "Published on Nov 17, 2012: Naomi Klein, author of the international bestseller The Shock Doctrine, says the tragic destruction of Hurricane Sandy can also be the catalyst for the transformation of politics and our economy. She's been in New York visiting the devastated areas — including those where "Occupy Sandy" volunteers are unfolding new models of relief — as part of her reporting for a new book and film on climate change and the future, and joins Bill Moyers to discuss hurricanes, climate change, and democracy. "Let's rebuild by actually getting at the root causes. Let's respond by aiming for an economy that responds to the crisis both [through] inequality and climate change," Klein tells Bill. "You know, dream big." "


"The time of 'privatized profits and socialized gains' must come to an end. "
Interesting talk where she critiques the environmental movement's solutions and the contradictions. That science will save us is the sedative that makes people pass on by - or the escape fantasy: Noah's Ark.

Naomi Klein - This Changes Everything | Bioneers

TEXT: "Published on Nov 5, 2014: The award-winning Canadian journalist, international activist and best-selling author (The Shock Doctrine, No Logo) depicts climate change as more than an “issue.” It’s a civilizational wake-up call delivered in the language of fires, floods, storms and droughts. It demands that we challenge the dominant economic policies of deregulated capitalism and endless resource extraction. Climate change is also the most powerful weapon in the fight for equality and social justice, and real solutions are emerging from the rubble of our failing systems.

"This speech was given at the 2014 Bioneers Annual Conference. Since 1990, Bioneers has acted as a fertile hub of social and scientific innovators with practical and visionary solutions for the world's most pressing environmental and social challenges. To experience talks like this, please join us at the Bioneers National Conference each October, and regional Bioneers Resilient Community Network gatherings held nationwide throughout the year."
 
Last edited:
You'll find as you do the reading, that there are some who posit 'exactly how'. In my view it cannot be crisply predicted because of the unknowns: which system will implode that then leads to the next cascade effect? It's hard to predict though it's clear the systems are 'on the verge'. How it will cascade is not entirely an unknown, but it's hard to predict what will come first and when.
A list of the potential cascade events with a flow chart of the interactions would be interesting. Then as the time nears and the data becomes crisp enough one could have a check list and/or less flow charting.

Thanks for all the info. This is going to take some time for me to do this, so I can't address all of this anytime soon. But I will get back to this thread along the way.
 
A list of the potential cascade events with a flow chart of the interactions would be interesting. Then as the time nears and the data becomes crisp enough one could have a check list and/or less flow charting.
It's a plan. I am intrigued. I'm not sure you'll find the kind of precision you are aiming for, but this could be fun even so. Consider the methane release, for example. While it's a serious matter when it happens, its impact won't manifest for some while. The question is: has the Clathrate gun been triggered? Views vary. Very untidy. However, whenever I come across the kind of precise predictions you are looking for I'll give the link here. :)
Thanks for all the info. This is going to take some time for me to do this, so I can't address all of this anytime soon. But I will get back to this thread along the way.
Same as what I do. I generally cannot post during the week. I look forward to your analysis when it comes. :)
 
Here is an article (linked and quoted below) that gives some predictions (note the proviso's or caveats). These are the relevant sentences that give the 'precise' predictions:
"The IPCC concluded it was likely that
the Arctic would be reliably ice-free in September by 2050,
assuming high future greenhouse gas emissions (where “reliably ice-free” means five consecutive years with less than 1 million km2 of sea ice). [...]

Individual years will be ice-free sometime in the 2020s, 2030s or 2040s,
depending on both future greenhouse gas emissions and these natural fluctuations. Even when it reaches the bottom of the hill the ball will continue to bounce. Similarly, not every future year will be ice-free in summer. But if global temperatures continue to increase the bounces will become smaller and
the ice-free periods will spread from late summer into autumn and early summer.
Commercial Arctic shipping is already increasing to exploit shorter journey times from Europe to Asia."



Why Arctic Melting Will Be Erratic In The Short Term

January 29, 2015 | by Ed Hawkins
LINK: Why Arctic melting will be erratic in the short term
TEXT: "Arctic sea ice melts each summer, reaching its minimum extent sometime in September, before refreezing through the winter. Over the past 35 years, the September sea ice extent has reduced by about 35% overall and this decline is projected to continue as global temperatures increase. In 2007 and 2012 the summer ice extent was dramatically lower, causing some some media speculation that we would soon see a summer which was “ice-free” (meaning a year with less than 1 million km2 of sea-ice). Most climate scientists were more cautious. The weather in 2007 and 2012 was warmer than usual and the winds were particularly favourable for melting sea ice. Although human influence on Arctic sea ice has been detected, there was no evidence that these weather patterns would continue each year.

"In contrast, 2013 and 2014 had more sea ice than 2012, causing other speculation that a recovery was underway. Is this claim warranted? The figure below shows Arctic sea ice extent (the black line) has undergone a long-term decrease, with the dashed line representing a linear trend. But there have also been shorter periods of rapid melt, no change, and apparent increases in extent during this decline – represented below by coloured trend lines for some deliberately chosen eight year periods.[see article for graphic] The most recent eight-year period, starting from the extreme low of 2007, shows an upward trend. This does not mean that the Arctic sea ice is recovering. As with global temperature, these erratic changes are what we expect to see.

"Bouncing Towards An Ice-Free Summer Imagine a ball bouncing down a bumpy hill. Gravity will ensure that the ball will move downwards. But if the ball hits a bump at a certain angle it might move horizontally or even upwards for a time, before resuming its inevitable downward trajectory. This bouncing ball is an analogy for the changing Arctic sea ice. The hill represents the long-term downward trend in Arctic sea ice due to increasing global temperatures and the bumps introduce changes from this smooth trajectory. These erratic bounces could be in either direction, causing an apparent acceleration or temporary reduction in melt rate. By only examining a small part of the trajectory you might conclude that the ball was moving against gravity. A longer term view would see it as a bounce.

"There is no expectation that sea ice, or any other aspect of the climate, will change smoothly over time. The climate system simply does not work that way. Previous studies have suggested that natural climate variations (or “bounces”) play a key role in how sea ice evolves, and suggested that some of the rapid melt in the early 2000s was a temporary acceleration.

"A new study I co-authored with a team of Canadian and American scientists, published in Nature Climate Change, highlights that the recent slower melt is a temporary, but not unexpected, deceleration. The complex climate models used to make projections of future climate also exhibit similar periods of little change and more rapid change in Arctic sea ice. The recent trends are well within the range of these expectations. We might even see a decade or more with little apparent change in sea ice. The causes of these fluctuations in melt rate are still being explored. One suggestion is that slow variations in Atlantic sea surface temperatures are involved. More observations of the Arctic ocean, atmosphere and sea ice would help answer this question.

"An Ice-Free Future? When will the Arctic be ice-free – or equivalently, when will the ball reach the bottom of the hill? The IPCC concluded it was likely that the Arctic would be reliably ice-free in September by 2050, assuming high future greenhouse gas emissions (where “reliably ice-free” means five consecutive years with less than 1 million km2 of sea ice). We expect the long-term decline in Arctic sea ice to continue as global temperatures rise. There will also be further bounces, both up and down. Individual years will be ice-free sometime in the 2020s, 2030s or 2040s, depending on both future greenhouse gas emissions and these natural fluctuations. Even when it reaches the bottom of the hill the ball will continue to bounce. Similarly, not every future year will be ice-free in summer. But if global temperatures continue to increase the bounces will become smaller and the ice-free periods will spread from late summer into autumn and early summer.

"Commercial Arctic shipping is already increasing to exploit shorter journey times from Europe to Asia, while oil, gas & mineral extraction possibilities are being explored and Arctic tourism is growing. Decisions about such activities need to assess both the risks and opportunities. The important role of natural sea ice fluctuations needs to be considered in such assessments."
 
Last edited:
The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – was 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050, said Ehrlich in an interview with the Guardian.
"How many you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage."


Cut world population and redistribute resources, expert urges | Environment | The Guardian
 
Here's where my view kicks in, because I do not think the earth 'wants' to lose humanity, or that it's the best scenario for the earth. For that bit the 'spiritual' has to be brought in, the idea of consciousness of a kind, of a depth and breath and scope, that (certain) current thinking cannot allow for. (It may require a new thread or the resurrection of one of my currently idle threads). Why the modern human is disallowed from thinking in that certain vein is nested in the history of thinking, back to the 1500's and 1700's, going back farther still to the Moors and the division between Arithmetic and Geometry, farther still to the split between Plato and Aristotle and the split between Egyptian and Sumerian, and even further as modeled by the archetypal story of Cain and Abel (a fundamentally Sumerian story).
Your ideas above is a very interesting starter for your upcoming Paracast show. I would love to see the flowchart on this too! :)
 
Your ideas above is a very interesting starter for your upcoming Paracast show. I would love to see the flowchart on this too! :)

Premature on the Paracast show. :cool: Unlikely I would go on to be interviewed. Like being anonymous too much.

BTW - I'm going to resurrect my Magic and Consciousness thread to address this aspect. The topic may be too 'woo' for this thread. ;)
 
Last edited:
How did Burlington achieve 100 percent renewable energy?
TEXT: "Published on Jan 31, 2015: Burlington, Vermont, the state's largest city, recently became the first in the country to use 100 percent renewable energy for its residents' electricity needs. In a state known for socially conscious policies, the feat represents a milestone in the growing green energy movement. NewsHour's William Brangham reports on the implications for the country's green movement."

LINK: Running on renewable energy, Burlington, Vermont powers green movement forward | PBS NewsHour

Comment: "In 10 years when batteries will get a lot cheaper, wind and especially solar will take off like crazy, not because of climate change, but because it will be cheaper then traditional utility electricity. Change is coming, faster then we can imagine. "
 
Fascinating analysis of John Brunner’s Stand on Zanzibar. I know I read it once long ago but cannot recall it's details. So I don't know if this analysis is accurate in all details. Interesting, though. "Stand on Zanzibar is a cross-section of a world overpopulated by the billions."

LINK: Stand on Zanzibar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TEXT: "The primary engine of the novel's story is over population and its projected consequences,[2] and the title refers to an early twentieth-century claim that the world's population could fit onto the Isle of Wight – which has an area of 381 square kilometres (147 sq mi) – if they were all standing upright. Brunner remarked that the growing world population now required a larger island; the 3.5 billion people living in 1968 could stand together on the Isle of Man (area 572 square kilometres (221 sq mi)), while the 7 billion people who he (correctly) projected would be alive in 2010 would need to stand on Zanzibar (area 1,554 square kilometres (600 sq mi)).[4] Throughout the book, the image of the entire human race standing shoulder-to-shoulder on a small island is a metaphor for a crowded world."



From Amazon, Plot: "Norman Niblock House is a rising executive at General Technics, one of a few all-powerful corporations. His work is leading General Technics to the forefront of global domination, both in the marketplace and politically---it's about to take over a country in Africa. Donald Hogan is his roommate, a seemingly sheepish bookworm. But Hogan is a spy, and he's about to discover a breakthrough in genetic engineering that will change the world...and kill him.

"These two men's lives weave through one of science fiction's most praised novels. Written in a way that echoes John Dos Passos' U.S.A. Trilogy, Stand on Zanzibar is a cross-section of a world overpopulated by the billions. Where society is squeezed into hive-living madness by god-like mega computers, mass-marketed psychedelic drugs, and mundane uses of genetic engineering. Though written in 1968, it speaks of 2010, and is frighteningly prescient and intensely powerful. "



No mention of Climate Change, though. :eek:


The 1969 Science Fiction Novel Which Eerily Predicted Today
by JacobSloan on April 13, 2013 in News
LINK: The 1969 Science Fiction Novel Which Eerily Predicted Today - disinformation

TEXT: "John Brunner’s Stand on Zanzibar, written more than forty years ago but set in an imagined year 2010 in which ever more power is concentrated in the hands of a few global corporations, is eerily accurate about so much current reality. Via the The Millions, Ted Gioia writes:

"Brunner’s vision of the year 2010 even includes a popular leader named President Obomi. Let me list some of the other correct predictions in Brunner’s book:

"Random acts of violence by crazy individuals, often taking place at schools, plague society in Stand on Zanzibar.

"The other major source of instability and violence comes from terrorists, who are now a major threat to U.S. interests, and even manage to attack buildings within the United States.

"Prices have increased sixfold between 1960 and 2010 because of inflation. (The actual increase in U.S. prices during that period was sevenfold, but Brunner was close.)

"The most powerful U.S. rival is no longer the Soviet Union, but China. However, much of the competition between the U.S. and Asia is played out in economics, trade, and technology instead of overt warfare.

"Europeans have formed a union of nations to improve their economic prospects and influence on world affairs. In international issues, Britain tends to side with the U.S., but other countries in Europe are often critical of U.S. initiatives.

"Africa still trails far behind the rest of the world in economic development, and Israel remains the epicenter of tensions in the Middle East.

"Although some people still get married, many in the younger generation now prefer short-term hookups without long-term commitment.

"Gay and bisexual lifestyles have gone mainstream, and pharmaceuticals to improve sexual performance are widely used (and even advertised in the media).

"Many decades of affirmative action have brought blacks into positions of power, but racial tensions still simmer throughout society.

"Motor vehicles increasingly run on electric fuel cells. Honda (primarily known as a motorcycle manufacturers when Brunner wrote his book) is a major supplier, along with General Motors.

"Yet Detroit has not prospered, and is almost a ghost town because of all the shuttered factories. However. a new kind of music — with an uncanny resemblance to the actual Detroit techno movement of the 1990s — has sprung up in the city.

"TV news channels have now gone global via satellite.

"TiVo-type systems allow people to view TV programs according to their own schedule.

"Inflight entertainment systems on planes now include video programs and news accessible on individual screens at each seat.

"People rely on avatars to represent themselves on video screens — Brunner calls these images, which either can look like you or take on another appearance you select — “Mr. and Mrs. Everywhere.”

"Computer documents are generated with laser printers.

"A social and political backlash has marginalized tobacco, but marijuana has been decriminalized."
 
World's biggest sovereign wealth fund dumps dozens of coal companies
Norway’s giant fund removes investments made risky by climate change and other environmental concerns, including coal, oil sands, cement and gold mining
LINK: World's biggest sovereign wealth fund dumps dozens of coal companies | Environment | The Guardian

TEXT: "The world’s richest sovereign wealth fund removed 32 coal mining companies from its portfolio in 2014, citing the risk they face from regulatory action on climate change. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), worth $850bn (£556bn) and founded on the nation’s oil and gas wealth, revealed a total of 114 companies had been dumped on environmental and climate grounds in its first report on responsible investing, released on Thursday. The companies divested also include tar sands producers, cement makers and gold miners.

"As part of a fast-growing campaign, over $50bn in fossil fuel company stocks have been divested by 180 organisations on the basis that their business models are incompatible with the pledge by the world’s governments to tackle global warming. But the GPFG is the highest profile institution to divest to date.

"A series of analyses have shown that only a quarter of known and exploitable fossil fuels can be burned if temperatures are to be kept below 2C, the internationally agreed danger limit. Bank of England governor Mark Carney,World Bank president Jim Yong Kim and others have warned investors that action on climate change would leave many current fossil fuel assets worthless. “Our risk-based approach means that we exit sectors and areas where we see elevated levels of risk to our investments in the long term,” said Marthe Skaar, spokeswoman for GPFG, which has $40bn invested in fossil fuel companies. “Companies with particularly high greenhouse gas emissions may be exposed to risk from regulatory or other changes leading to a fall in demand.”

"She said GPFG had divested from 22 companies because of their high carbon emissions: 14 coal miners, five tar sand producers, two cement companies and one coal-based electricity generator. In addition, 16 coal miners linked to deforestation in Indonesia and India were dumped, as were two US coal companies involved in mountain-top removal. The GPFG did not reveal the names of the companies or the value of the divestments. “One of the largest global investment institutions is winding down its coal interests, as it is clear the business model for coal no longer works with western markets already in a death spiral, and signs of Chinese demand peaking,” said James Leaton, research director at the Carbon Tracker Initiative, which analyses the risk of fossil fuel assets being stranded.

"A report by Goldman Sachs in January also called time on the use of coal for electricity generation: “Just as a worker celebrating their 65th birthday can settle into a more sedate lifestyle while they look back on past achievements, we argue that thermal coal has reached its retirement age.” Goldman Sachs downgraded its long term price forecast for coal by 18%. On Wednesday, a group of medical organisations called for the health sector to divest from fossil fuels as it had from tobacco. The £18bn Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s biggest funders of medical research , said “climate change is one of the greatest challenges to global health” but rejected the call to divest or reveal its total fossil fuel holdings.

"In January, Axa Investment Managers warned the reputation of fossil fuel companies were at immediate risk from the divestment campaign and Shell unexpectedly backed a shareholder demand to assess whether the company’s business model is compatible with global goals to tackle climate change.

"Note: The first line originally said 40 coal mining companies had been dropped, instead of the correct number of 32. A further eight companies were dropped due to their greenhouse gas emissions: five tar sand producers, two cement companies and one coal-based electricity generator."
 
The following is a long quoted post but an exceedingly important one imo, so I am supplying it whole here: "The owner of the most valuable fossil fuel reserve on Earth just started discounting for a future without fossil fuels."


Historic moment: Saudi Arabia sees End of Oil Age coming and opens valves on the carbon bubble

January 22, 2015 by Elias Hinckley
LINK: Historic moment: Saudi Arabia sees End of Oil Age coming and opens valves on the carbon bubble - EnergyPost.eu

TEXT: "Most analysts believe Saudi Arabia refuses to cut production because it wants to shake out its higher-cost competitors or because it wants to punish Iran and Russia. There may be some truth in those theories, writes Elias Hinckley, strategic advisor and head of the energy practice with international law firm Sullivan and Worcester, but they miss the deeper motivation of the Saudis. Saudi Arabia, he says, sees the end of the Oil Age on the horizon and understands that a great deal of global fossil fuel reserves will have to stay underground to avoid catastrophic global warming. “That’s why it has opened the valves on the carbon asset bubble.”

"Saudi Arabia’s decision not to cut oil production, despite crashing prices, marks the beginning of an incredibly important change. There are near-term and obvious implications for oil markets and global economies. More important is the acknowledgement, demonstrated by the action of world’s most important oil producer, of the beginning of the end of the most prosperous period in human history – the age of oil.

"In 2000, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, former oil minister of Saudi Arabia, gave an interview in which he said: "Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil – and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil.”

"Fourteen years later, while Americans were eating or sleeping off their Thanksgiving meals, the twelve members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) failed to reach an agreement to cut production below the 30 million barrel per day target that was set in 2011. This followed strenuous lobbying efforts by some of largest oil producing non-OPEC nations in the weeks leading up to the meeting. This group even went so far as to make the highly unusual offer of agreeing to their own production cuts.

"The ramifications of this decision across the globe, not just in energy markets, but politically, are already having consequences for the global landscape. Lost in the effort to understand the vast implications is an even more important signal sent by Saudi Arabia, the owner of more than 16% of the world’s proved oil reserves, about its view of the future of fossil fuels.

"Since its formal creation in 1960 the members of OPEC, and specifically Saudi Arabia (and in reality the Kingdom’s control over global oil markets is much larger than that 16% of reserves implies as its more than 260 billion barrels are among the easiest and cheapest to extract and before enhanced recovery techniques accounted for a much larger share of global reserves) have used excess oil production capacity to influence crude prices. The primary role of OPEC has been to support price stability. There are notable exceptions – like the 1973-1974 oil embargo and a period of excess supply that undermined prices and crippled the Soviet Union in the 1980s (though whether this was a defined strategy or serendipity remains in some question), but at its core the role of OPEC has been to control oil prices. As recent events show, OPEC’s role as the controller of crude oil pricing is coming to an abrupt end.

"But in a world where a producer sees the end of its market on the horizon, then every barrel sold at a profit is more valuable than a barrel that will never be sold."

"In acting as global swing producer, OPEC has relied heavily on Saudi Arabia, which can influence global prices by increasing or decreasing production to expand or reduce available global supply. Saudi Arabia can do this not only because it controls an enormous portion of global reserves and production capacity, but does so with crude oil that is stunningly inexpensive to produce compared to the current global market. A change, however, has occurred in Saudi Arabia’s fundamental strategic approach to the global oil market. And this new approach – to refuse to curtail production to support global prices – not only undermines OPECs pricing power, but also removes a vital subsidy for global oil producers provided by the Saudi’s longtime commitment to price support.

"Understanding Why
"The widely held conventional theory is that the Saudis want to shake the weak production out of the market. This strategy would undermine the economic viability of a meaningful amount of global production. The theory assumes that this can be done in some kind of orderly bring-down of prices where the Saudis can find an ideal price below the production cost of this marginal oil production but still high enough to maintain significant profits for the Kingdom while this market correction plays out. The assumption is that following the correction there will be a return to business as usual along with higher prices, but with Saudi Arabia commanding a relatively larger share of that market. An alternative rationale is that Saudi Arabia is fighting an economic war with oil; a strategy designed to economically and in turn politically cripple rival producers Iran and Russia because the governments of these countries that depend on oil exports cannot withstand sustained low prices and will be significantly weakened.

"While there may be some truth to both of these theories, the real motivation lies somewhere closer to Sheikh Yamani’s 2000 prediction. Saudi Arabia has embarked on an absolute quest for dominant market share in the global oil market. The near-term cost of grabbing that market share is immense, with the Saudis sacrificing potentially hundreds of billions of dollars if low prices persist. In a world of endless consumption, this risk would be hard to justify merely in exchange for a temporary expansion of global market share – the current lost revenue would take years to recover with a marginally higher share of global supply.

"But in a world where a producer sees the end of its market on the horizon, then every barrel sold at a profit is more valuable than a barrel that will never be sold. Current Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi had this to say about production cuts in late December: “it is not in the interest of OPEC to cut their production whatever the price is,” adding that even if prices fell to $20 “it is irrelevant.” Implied, if not explicitly stated, is that Saudi Arabia wants its oil out of the ground, regardless of how thin its profit margin per barrel becomes.

"Saudi Arabia is seeing a new and massively changing energy landscape. The U.S. and China have agreed to bilateral carbon reduction targets. 2014 is now officially the hottest year recorded in human history, a record set almost impossibly without the presence of El Nino. And on January 7 a report released in Nature lays bare the fossil fuel climate change equation by concluding that to achieve anything better than a 50/50 shot at keeping global warming under 2 degrees centigrade (the most widely accepted threshold for avoiding catastrophic climate change) 82% of fossil reserves must remain in the ground. That report puts hard numbers on the percentages of fossil fuels that must “stay in the ground” and calls for 38% of proven Mideast oil reserves to never to be pumped from the ground. That 38% represents some 260 billion barrels of oil – worth tens of trillions of dollars – much of that not held in Saudi reserves.


"Saudi Arabia no longer needs OPEC. Global action on carbon dioxide emissions is gaining global acceptance and technological advances are creating foreseeable and viable alternatives to the world’s oil dependence."


"All of these threats to oil use are occurring against a backdrop where the acceleration of costs-effective alternative technologies expands the potential of viable alternatives to our current fossil fuel-based energy economy. Yamani’s prediction no longer seems a fantasy where no one outside of science fiction writers could envision an alternative to the age of oil, but rather a stunningly prescient analysis of the future risk to the value the largest oil reserve on the planet by a man who once managed that reserve.

"Saudi Arabia no longer needs OPEC. Global action on carbon dioxide emissions is gaining global acceptance and technological advances are creating foreseeable and viable alternatives to the world’s oil dependence. Saudi Arabia has come to the stark realization, as Yamani foretold, that it is a race to produce, regardless of price, so that it will not be leaving its oil in the ground. The Kingdom has effectively open the valve on the carbon asset bubble and jumped to be the first to start the race to the end of the age of hydrocarbons by playing its one great advantage – a cost of production so low that it can sell its crude faster and hoping not to find itself at the end of the age of oil holding vast worthless unburnable reserves.

"The end of the age of oil, of course, remains many years off (and almost certainly well beyond Yamani’s timeline of 2030), but to Saudi Arabia, that end is clearly not so far away that the owner of the largest, most accessible crude resource is willing to continue to subsidize higher prices for other producers at the risk of leaving its own oil untapped one day in the future.

"Collateral Fallout
"Much has been made of the catastrophic economic consequences to Russia, Iran, Venezuela and other oil exporting nations caused by these low oil prices, as well as, the profound damage to their economies and impending political turmoil. Meanwhile in the U.S., there has been endless analysis of the impact (or lack of impact) on the nation’s resurgent oil production and speculation about the price at which U.S. production will begin to decline.

"Less well documented is the impact on access to capital for drilling operations (and given the disastrous economics of North American coal, perhaps fossil fuel extraction broadly). Drilling for oil requires huge amounts of capital with a significant appetite for risk, as both production uncertainty and market volatility can undermine the value of investments. In the current production boom, market volatility was wildly underpriced. When combined with pent up appetite for yield due to persistently low interest rates, capital, including tremendous amounts of high-yield debt, has flooded into oil companies. As low crude prices persist there will be substantial losses by investors. This will cause volatility in crude oil markets to be re-priced, and access to low cost capital will disappear for all but a select group of oil production investments.

"There is a much much bigger story unfolding: the carbon asset bubble is deflating."

"OPEC will continue to meet and hold itself out as a cartel that can control the oil markets, but that time has passed. The cartel was dependent upon Saudi Arabia to use its outsized swing position to control spare capacity in the market. With the Saudis no longer interested in that role, the influence of the cartel is gone. It would be no surprise at all to see Saudi Arabia actually increase production (though how much additional output is readily available is unclear) as prices stabilize and begin to climb later this year because excess capacity will be shed from the market and global economic growth will accelerate.

"The direct oil markets impact and the geopolitical fallout will likely be the defining headlines of 2015, but there is a much much bigger story unfolding: the carbon asset bubble is deflating. The value of effectively every asset class on Earth is influenced by the assumption that a fossil fuel-based economy will persist for so long that any potential for future change to asset values can be ignored. That assumption is wrong. The global industrial economy operates on an assumption of available and relatively inexpensive energy, either in the form of electricity or liquid fuels. If the form, availability of, or cost of, those energy sources changes it will fundamentally change the cost to use and produce virtually every other asset on Earth. And that will necessarily change the value of every one of those assets. There will be both positive and negative impacts, and understanding this change, in both scope and speed, will provide insight on one of the largest wealth shifts ever experienced.

"The owner of the most valuable fossil fuel reserve on Earth just started discounting for a future without fossil fuels. While they would never state this reasoning publicly, their actions speak on their behalf. And that changes everything."
 
Back
Top