PERSONAL ACTIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND POLLUTION

 My FACEBOOK site includes many entries about the current knowledge of climate change and controversies related to it.  Some of the information is depressing including  many predictions.  Is there anything we can do NOW to alter the course?  There are three separate problems that  come together and the solution to each one is different.  At least some of the climate effect is related to human activity,  so at least some of the solution must be changes in human behavior.

The climate problem is dramatic warming of the earth that is the result of the changes in atmosphere.  There is evidence that some of these changes are the result of the dramatic increase in use of fossil fuels that release CO2, methane and other substances into the atmosphere.  The solution to this includes: 1) finding and utilizing alternative energy sources to replace current human fossil fuel demands for energy. 2) Arresting and/or reversing atmospheric changes and their associated temperature effects.  and 3) Human adjustment to the changes already occurring that are not reversible.

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-08-27/worried-about-climate-change-you-can-make-a-difference-heres-how

The things I can do for climate change right now are reducing my "carbon footprint" including using less energy, and sourcing my energy from renewable sources.  A typical example might be using more energy at low usage times of others.   For example, the New Yorker talks about "moving slower" (not typical for New Yorkers) since the rate of speed of all transportation uses more energy.  

( https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/to-save-the-planet-should-we-really-be-moving-slower

This also includes modes of public transportation when many people are moved together at a reduced use of energy. 

( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/climate/buses-trains-ridership-climate-change.html

The idea of lowering your "carbon footprint" is not so clear.  An interactive checklist shows that the data for various personal changes is not always that significant.  It turns out that being "car free" and a diet without meat are more effective than lowering your thermostat, or car pooling.

( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/15/opinion/how-reduce-carbon-footprint-climate-change.html

Installing roof top solar panels on your home will certainly lower your electricity bill,  but it will not, by itself, in aggregate over many homes,  replace other sources of electricity.  Large solar, wind, and other projects must be funded to effectively replace demand,  and deal with storage issues.

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-06-29/can-rooftop-solar-alone-solve-climate-change-heres-the-answer-boiling-point    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/07/realestate/microgrid-solar-power-energy.html

 Climate changes do not impact all regions of the country equally.  Insurers now are able to rate houses and regions by their climate risk, and either give up writing insurance on risky homes,  or greatly increasing the cost.  This raises the question of why people choose to live in locations with high climate risk.  Some moved there without knowing.  Some cannot afford to move elsewhere.  But the long term consequences will not apply equally.

( https://firststreet.org/

 The following LA Times series addresses many of these and other issues.  Most important it keeps the issue in mind so that people can't use denial and avoidance to not deal with the unpleasant reality.  (People have been ignoring this since the 50s!)

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-08-15/climate-change-challenge

There are changes that must be done by large groups,  and this involves politics and political action.  A group of young people in Montana have sued the state about failing to protect their environment for future generations.

( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/12/young-activists-held-v-montana-climate-change-first-constitutional-trial 

But at the federal level, many groups are in competition with each other for support,  rather than developing a unified voice.  

One of the effects of warming is a rise in sea level,  something that has already begun with the melting of arctic and antarctic ice.  There are two options:  spend impossible amounts of money to enclose shorelines over large areas (as in the Netherlands)  or move back away from the flooding regions.  Here again,  humans must decide what the best solutions are AS A GROUP.

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-09-21/does-california-have-what-it-takes-to-adapt-to-sea-level-rise-new-book-offers-hope-boiling-point

( https://bookshop.org/p/books/california-against-the-sea-visions-for-our-changing-coastline/19407155

 Fire in drying forests is another result.  Here the option is really only to get out of the way,  though some choose to rebuild in fire ravaged places (like Paradise CA).

Climate changes  also figure in increasing drought in sensitive areas, reducing the available water supply as a result.  

( https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03517-0

To complicate things, one scientist points out that the targets and goals set for reducing carbon levels are not realistic and that more gradual changes are all that are possible,  with ongoing problems in climate.  He does not say we should abandon efforts,  but that the magnitude of what is needed is not doable in the current time frames.  The climate will continue to change.

( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/25/magazine/vaclav-smil-interview.html

 The problem of pollution is a separate but related issue.  Human daily activities create extensive waste, both biological,  unused foods,  materials,  and the wastes of industrial production.  These pose problems of 1) magnitude/amount the amounts so great that disposing of them without other disruption is difficult. 2) Persistence: some current waste elements do not degrade back to component natural elements in fractions of human lifetimes,  so there is an untenable accumulation over time. and 3) Toxicity: many substances have long term toxic effects from which humans must be protected.

The simplest answer is don't use things that pollute.  The less you use,  the less goes into landfills or is burned.  Fashionable clothing that is discarded after it goes out of style,  intentionally, to sell more fashion,  is a great example and landfills in Africa no longer accept this waste from developed countries.  Some of the problem is persistence: the manufacture of clothing with fabrics made of artificial fibers does not degrade back to natural substances rapidly, or at all.  So "recycling" is a misnomer for some substances and plastics.  They must be burned or continue to interfere in the soil.

( https://learn.eartheasy.com/guides/the-best-eco-friendly-alternatives-for-the-plastic-in-your-life/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/21/climate/plastics-recycling-trash-environment.html

PFAs are toxic long lasting substances involved in production of plastics and other materials that are distributed all over the earth at this point, are toxic to humans, and will not degrade for centuries.  They are slowly being eliminated legally but not yet everywhere.

Oddly, in a world with a high level of food production,  many are starving everyday,  and not just in under developed countries.  The effective and adequate distribution of food to avoid hunger does not occur in the US, the country with the highest GDP and collection of wealthiest persons.   And vast amounts of food are discarded every day both before sale as less desirable,  or after partial consumption.  This is a dramatic offense against nature, farming, and those who are starving everywhere.  And it contributes to pollution!!!

Ocean creatures are increasingly suffering from illnesses and disabilities because humans allow coastal waste to drain into the oceans with poor processing or none.  Making the seas our human toilets is just another form of pollution, with consequences on sea life,  and eventually back on humans.

Hiding behind these two problems is the issue of population: The human population of the earth is expanding at a rate that is not realistic for long term occupancy of the planet.  This problem impacts on the others.  The demand for energy is directly related to the  human activities that require energy input.   The production of pollution is directly related to the number of polluting humans and the types of pollution they create.  But the problem of population has two other features that are unique. The "demographic profile" of numbers against age in different groups is not the same.  Humans have finite productive lives,  so, as the profile ages, the local region of productivity is reduced.  The population becomes, in effect, non-productive and consuming.  The other issue of population is the apparent inability of human populations to adjust their birth-rate to accomodate space for other animals and plants.  The increasing numbers take over more and more earth-space for human needs and leave less for other species.  From the human economic viewpoint,  this is simply "survival of the fittest",  but from an evolutionary perspective,  other species are part of a broad ecologic evolutionary pattern,  and the excessive dominance of humans threatens to distort or damage this pattern.

( https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2019-4-july-august/mixed-media/human-race-sleepwalking-oblivion-nick-brandt

THE SHORT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION POSED AT THE START IS THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL CAN DO A LOT TO MODIFY CLIMATE CHANGE,  BUT UNLESS ALMOST EVERYONE MAKES THESE CHANGES THE EFFECTS WILL BE NEGLIGIBLE.  AND THE COST OF MAKING THE CHANGES IN ECONOMIC TERMS, AND IN PERSONAL COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE ARE VAST.  IT DOES NOT SEEM POSSIBLE FOR ADULT HUMANS IN DEVELOPED NATIONS TO ACCEPT THE DRASTIC ECONOMIC AND LIFESTYLE CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED. (The illusion of solving the problem by buying an electric car ignores how the car gets charged!)

ENVIRONMENT: PARTICIPATING IN THE CHALLENGE

Reality is always distorted by politics,  and the discussion of solutions to the changes in earth's climate are a good example.

The climate is changing.  The overall temperature of the earth is getting warmer,  and rapidly.  This is not happening in a year,  but over decades.  The measurements are statistical but the trend seems clear and dramatic.  

Why is this happening? In the 1970s,  an ozone depletion theory was the proposed answer,  still considered by some  https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/why-warming-stopped/  https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/15/is-the-ozone-hole-causing-climate-change/   This theory has generally been replaced by the proposal that fossil fuel changes in the atmosphere create a "greenhouse effect".    https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/    https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fuels-dirty-facts    https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports   It is important to understand that this is a theory, an explanation of the changes based on observations, correlations, and assumptions.  Are properties of the earth a factor?  Does climate shift in this way due to variations in solar energy,  or cycles of ice formation,  etc?  Opponents can find indications and data that do not support this theory.  That is inevitable in scientific discovery. 

But this is not just about proving a scientific theory.  The changes in the earth's temperature and related changes in climate are altering the distribution of plants and animals,  the location of arable land suitable for growing food,  and the distribution of water supplies.  These are measurable changes in the earth, whether or not they are the consequence of the use of fossil fuels.  The test of the importance of the role of fossil fuels would be the dramatic reduction in atmospheric changes and an associated change in climate.  This is unlikely to be possible.  Use of fossil fuels is directly related to economic development,  and sustained economic advantage.  It does not appear that any country with significant fossil fuel resources will forego use for the sake of the survival of the earth.  Statements by oil companies, etc.  to the contrary are marketing distractions to confuse consumers.  And it may not work!  The climate changes may have progressed too far,  and cyclical shifts are already occurring.  Or the reversals may occur but be much slower to reset the climate.  Human experience is generational roughly 20-40 years,  and so is political thinking.  So these climate changes are too slow for normal human thought processes.  COMMITTING TO THE  CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERE BASED ON FOSSIL FUEL AND OTHER POLLUTION IS A TRANS-GENERATIONAL COMMITMENT.  This is very difficult to accomplish in political terms.

Instead the focus in reporting and promoting is on natural disasters and animal extinction. Problems in the distribution of food and water have already given rise to migrations toward regions with more opportunity (though not always with regard to future climate issues).  Natural disasters are another source of confusion.  Tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and fires are recurring natural events that may be exaggerated by changes in climate. (The data to assert this is incomplete.)  But the reality is always the same:  When humans build dwellings in regions of high risk for natural disasters the dwellings are damaged or destroyed and the lives are altered.  The location of the disasters is statistically predictable,  yet humans return to the same sites to rebuild despite knowing the damage will return.  The fantasy of owning a piece of the earth interferes with the reality of recurring destruction from natural disasters.  The emphasis on animal extinctions is another example, to be considered in another blog.

Humans have relatively little political or personal control over climate change and natural disasters. By contrast we have a significant ability to manage the pollution of the earth and sea with toxic substances,  avoid living in disaster prone areas, and set aside regions of territory for maintaining some persistence of the previous environmental patterns (i.e. "wilderness" whatever that means).

To participate effectively in the future of the earth,  more thoughtful reflection is needed,  and less poorly thought out, and stupidly motivated political action.  No amount of Tesla production, or other electric vehicle use will offset fossil fuel and the need to generate power to reverse climate change.  It is an example of false marketing of climate change for economic purposes.