This news feature article in Nature this week concludes something that’s been clear for a while now — the IPCC is not even considering any plan of action that can keep global warming down to 2 degrees Celsius.
While its clear that 2 degrees is inadequate to mitigate what will effectively be permanent damage, it is now equally clear that the world’s leaders won’t consider any plan of action which keeps the earth below 2 degrees. In fact, it seems that they will not even commit to any binding agreement whatever to take any actions, instead making non-binding commitments.
There are a hundred ways to see that climate change is upon us. The change in polar ice is one such indicator.
The video here shows that there’s a been a dramatic falloff in t he amount and age of ice in the polar ice of the Arctic Sea. The chart says most of it, but the video allows you to see that the age and thickness of the ice is also deteriorating.
We are all free to our own opinions. And if we have the power, we are free to our own facts, apparently.
Its been clear for more than a decade that in order to stay below 2 degrees C, many assets on fossil fuel companies’ balance sheets must remain stranded, at huge costs to them and ultimately their shareholders–though they’ll reap those benefits too.
Now the UN Climate Chief agrees:
“If the 2C target is rigorously applied, then up to 80% of declared reserves owned by the world’s largest listed coal, oil and gas companies and their investors would be subject to impairment as these assets become stranded,” wrote the group in their report Unburnable Carbon.”
I think that the United States should promote Democracy, and our “elected” leaders say they also value it. Noe however that when it comes to actually paying respect to Democracies, its instructive to look at how Hugo Chavez and King Abdullah were greeted by the White House upon their deaths.
King Abdullah “had the courage of his convictions” while Hugo Chavez was mentioned only in so far as “the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principals and the rule of law”. Its too bad that we don’t value those things when it comes to Saudi Arabia.
This is of course driven by power and oil. Both are important oil producing countries, but one collaborates with the United States and the other does not.
This is a question that should have been resolved long ago. However, we still spend $480 billion in subsidies to oil, coal and natural gas companies.
There’s another $1.4 trillion in mis-pricing. It should be easy to at least get rid of the subsidies.
Washington Post article here.
I’ve seen several things recently that have argued that drug abuse is closely connected with bad environments, especially abuse as a child. This anecdote is a great summary of why that is:
In the 1970s, Vancouver psychology professor Bruce Alexander noticed something odd about this experiment. The rat is put in the cage all alone. It has nothing to do but take the drugs. What would happen, he wondered, if we tried this differently? So Alexander built Rat Park, a lush cage where the rats had colored balls and the best rat food and tunnels to scamper down and plenty of friends: everything a rat could want. What, Alexander wanted to know, would happen then?
In Rat Park, all the rats obviously tried both water bottles, because they didn’t know what was in them. But what happened next was startling.
The rats with good lives didn’t like the drugged water. They mostly shunned it, consuming less than a quarter of the drugs the isolated rats had used. None of them died. While all the rats who were alone and unhappy became heavy users, none of the rats who had a happy environment did.
This study has two parts. First, the study finds that while most Americans believe in one God, they don’t all believe in the same god. In fact, they believe in several different versions of God:
While most Americans say they believe in God, Americans really believe in four very different kinds of Gods. Some Americans (31.4 percent) believe in an “Authoritarian God” who is very angry with the sins of the world and regularly supernaturally intervenes in the affairs of the world. You might think of this as Pat Robertson’s God. Another group (23 percent) believes in a“Benevolent God” who also regularly supernaturally intervenes in the affairs of the world, but is less wrathful and more of a positive influence. You might think of this as Oprah’s God. Another group (16 percent) believes in a “Critical God” who is not happy about the affairs of the world, but doesn’t intervene, preferring to mete out rewards and punishments in the next life. You might think about this as the “Wait until your father gets home!” God. Finally, another group (16 percent) believes in a“Distant God.” Individuals who believe in this sort of God tend to think of God as a cosmic intelligence which set the law of nature in motion at the beginning of time, but neither intervenes in the affairs of the world nor cares about them. You might think of this as Thomas Jefferson’s God.
The second , seemingly separate point is that religion doesn’t go away by pointing out that its wrong or bad. Instead, it argues that making the world better will diminish religion.
If we’re truly concerned about some of religion’s negative effects in this world, let’s try to figure out to the best of our ability the root causes of these negative effects. It seems to be that the best evidence suggests they result from fear, from hopelessness, from despair, from need, and it doesn’t seem that simply labeling them as irrational or delusional is the best course of action.
I’ve seen several studies over the last few years on the how and when of canine divergence from wolves.
This study argues that cooperation and ritual feeding evolved in wolves, before they were domesticated by humans:
“Based on findings that in intraspecific contexts wolves are at least as socially attentive and tolerant as dogs, the Canine Cooperation Hypothesis postulates that dog-human cooperation evolved on the basis of wolf-wolf cooperation. In contrast to many domestication hypotheses, it suggests that dogs did not need to be selected for a general increase in their social attentiveness and tolerance. ” Continue reading