I’ve been thinking a lot about the future of the planet. I’m a Millennial, you see, and there’s a reason we (and the generation after us now coming of voting age) tend to care more about this issue than our elders: not to put too fine a point on it, but we’re going to have to live with this mess being bequeathed to us as it reaches its apex. Obviously, if you’re reading this on Daily Kos, it doesn’t matter if you’re 19 or 90, you likely agree on the idea that it’s a critical problem that needs addressing as well, but you still might not worry as much as I do. It’s hard to get up some mornings thinking that you’re just counting down the days until you inevitably face mass starvation or a resource war for water, it kind of makes you question the point of living when you feel you’re being handed a doomed planet on which to live out your life.
It’s been heartbreaking, reading about the loss of rainforests and glaciers, snowcaps on mountains, and the near-inevitable loss of coral reefs. I’ve never seen many of the world’s natural wonders, and I never will in many cases. We have just 12 years to reverse it, 12 short years to completely stop everything being done to poison the planet and ruin the global biosphere, if we’re to have any hope of avoiding the worst case scenarios.
I’m going to be blunt: that’s not going to happen. There’s still no urgency among the majority of voters. The vast majority of emissions are caused by a handful of industries and companies, none of which are going to willingly end themselves and their profitable existence so the rest of us can live. No one is seriously pushing hard enough: Colorado, for instance, has committed to go 100% green by 2040. That is ambitious, commendable...and 10 years too late to matter. It’s not good enough, and it’s still the best we can hope for. Even if we complete a total Democratic trifecta in 2020, that would leave just 10 years to make the entire country 100% green and begin a massive project to reverse existing carbon damage done, and that’s assuming the rest of the world does its all as well (did I mention that Brazil has elected a far-right President who wants to raze the Amazon? Sounds like we'll have an even bigger mess to clean up than the one we already can't handle). Alarm bells have been sounding on this for the better part of a century, and they started ringing in earnest decades ago, and our forefathers decided to ignore them. Well, now it is literally the last minute, the last possible chance we have, and collectively we still are dragging our feet, whining that it’s just too much work to do or insisting everything will be fine if we continue to heroically ignore the problem.
We’re not going to stop this disaster. Of course we should try, but long-term problems require long-term solutions and its high time we accept that we cannot undo the damage done in time, so we must instead use what little time we have to begin damage mitigation, to prepare for the inevitable ruin of the world we know so those who are left to live in it can have a prayer of surviving the world to come. This isn’t an excuse for doomsaying or rending of garments, though: I’m not having this conversation to mope, weep, and put on sackcloth and ash as I wait for the grim specter of death to claim us all. I say this because I want to fight back, to act, and to prevail in some way. We’re going to be stuck living here, and it’s time for pragmatic talk: the past failed, the present is dragging its feet, how do we save the future?
I’d like to discuss a radical idea: deliberately begin altering our biomes in anticipation of those changes now, while we still have resources to spare, people who are not warring over food and water, and relative global peace to act with unity.
Already, some patterns are emerging for those paying attention to how the climate is changing as a result: California is drier and hotter than ever, with rampant wildfires. Texas, where I live, is experiencing brutal summer droughts and heat waves followed by massive, rainy winters that rarely dip below freezing anymore and flood us. Huge, wet storms are dropping unprecedented gallons of water after hitting our coastlines, slowly moving across the land and drenching the countryside as they go. These are disasters of epic proportion, aren’t they?
Well, sure...if that’s not something you’re supposed to experience in your biome. The savannahs of Africa already undergo yearly summer droughts with heat, low rain, and wildfires roaring across the landscape. Texas’ conditions closely mirror the coasts of Southeast Asia, where hot summers are followed up by monsoons , where flooding and weeks of rain are the seasons rather than the temperate spring-summer-fall-winter cycle. Now, obviously the comparisons aren’t perfect in terms of temperature, rainfall, and seasonal variance, but nature is marvelous at adaption: even if we cannot handle these changes, or the flora and fauna currently in place cannot, somewhere on the planet is wildlife that CAN.
What I am proposing is we basically become an army of Molais: we work to plant new trees, grasses, flowers, shrubs, vines, and more; we introduce new animal species to thrive there, and we jump-start nature’s adaption to those climes. We look at what sorts of agricultural crops thrive in those biomes with similar weather conditions and begin a conscious shift to grow those crops, in our gardens and ideally on a larger scale, in response. We take matters into our own hands and do what we have always done best as a species: sculpt the world to better suit our needs, only this time we do it with an eye towards helping other species thrive, not just our own.
For the scientifically minded, I understand this proposal sounds insane: deliberate introduction of invasive species on a massive scale is unethical, possibly illegal, and could have disastrous and unexpected long-term consequences, not to mention it guarantees the destruction of many local species. It is certain to result in extinctions of threatened or unprepared local species, and on a global scale would eradicate thousands of species and deal a massive blow to biodiversity.
All true. All of which are also on the table if we stay the course, but much worse. There is no “if” on those questions: thousands of species will be destroyed, entire biomes eradicated, and billions of humans will die if we do not act and prepare. We will not reach the carbon and green energy goals needed by the deadline of 2030; we should fight tooth and nail to try, but it would be irresponsible in the extreme to be Pollyannas about our ability to do so: the entire species may be at stake, along with tens of thousand others who do not deserve extinction because of our recklessness (so you cynics and misanthropes who might argue we deserve this should bear in mind we are not killing ourselves via gunshot to the head, we are crashing a jet airliner with hundreds of unwilling and unwitting passengers along for the ride).
I would argue that, ethically, the right thing to do is act in a manner which will best blunt the damage coming, best preserve as much biodiversity as possible, and best mitigate resource shortages and thus prevent wars that will devastate human and non-human life the world over. We have a difficult decision ahead of us, and those of us cognizant of the problem must decide what the right course of action is. I understand the truly extreme nature of this idea, but again, we are facing a global ecological disaster that is relentlessly bearing down upon us, and we are already deep inside a mass extinction event in which we ourselves are the architects. The gravity of the situation means we must honestly, brutally, and unflinchingly consider all remedies, we simply no longer have time for a lesser commitment. The time to do this gradually passed decades ago, the time to do it aggressively but with numerous restraints is passing rapidly and will slip through our fingers given our behavior.
It would be difficult to say goodbye to the sights we know for different ones (savannahs instead of majestic redwood forests? Texas a jungle rather than a prairie?), but again: these changes are coming one way or another. We must plan for how to save as much as we can, and we may even move some of our domestic species elsewhere to thrive. Like parents reluctantly sending children away during the London Blitz, we may have to tearfully say goodbye to the things we love and cherish to ensure they survive and thrive, because the danger in staying put is far too great to risk.
Of course, I don’t claim to be an expert, nor even a scientist. This isn’t a call to action, it’s a proposal. I want to hear from anyone else who wants to weigh in, but most especially from scientists and experts in relevant fields. Pros and cons? Changes to propose? Better ideas? I am young enough that there is a lot of time to make a difference before that grim death I fear is waiting for me, and I intend to use it to fight back, to fix this mess come hell or high water (and based on the rainfall levels and summer temperatures here in Texas, both are on the way).
Friday, Nov 9, 2018 · 10:55:52 PM +00:00
·
Toro Blanco
Community Spotlight?? I’m honored! Looking forward to hearing from (and replying to) as many of you as possible, especially any resident Kossacks who work in the sciences. Let’s discuss what we can do to make some real changes and keep up the fight!