Despite COVID, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise. Does increasing complexity in societies explain the collapse of civilisations? Western Australia is failing to adequately protect sharks and Australia is taking risks with imported flowers. China has an each-way bet on energy: big on renewables; big on coal.
The World Meteorological Association has issued an update on the levels of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. The important point is that although daily greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by about 17% at the peak (or trough) of the global lockdown in April, the reduction in total emissions over the whole of 2020 is expected to be around 5%. The consequence, of course, is that the concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (principally methane and nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere continue to rise. Indeed, although the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations during 2020 will be slightly less than it would have been without COVID, the difference will be within the normal year to year fluctuations caused by natural variability in carbon sinks such as vegetation. So, responses to COVID have affected economies far more than the environment.
The figure below requires a little study … but it’s worth it. The blue line shows the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere between 1700 (when the concentration was approximately 270 parts per million) and 2019 (approximately 410ppm), an increase of 48%. The black line is the concentration of all greenhouse gases expressed as CO2 equivalents (like totalling US$100 + AUS$100 + £100 as if they were all US dollars). Here the concentration increased from about 270ppm in 1700 to about 500ppm in 2019, an increase of 85%. The red line shows the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI), a measure of the actual global warming influence of greenhouse gases released between 1700 and 2019. The index was set at zero in 1750 and at 1 in 1990. It’s obvious that most of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere have been released since 1950 and that the index of warming has increased by almost 50% in the just the last 30 years; CO2 has been responsible for 80% of this increase. The hyperlink to the figure provides more information about the AGGI and also a detailed graph of the changes of each of the greenhouse gases between 1979 and 2019. The bottom line is that the situation continues to get worse; the rate of worsening is accelerating; and COVID really hasn’t changed anything at all.
‘The last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3-5 million years ago, when the temperature was 2-3°C warmer and sea level was 10-20 meters higher than now. But there weren’t 7.7 billion inhabitants,’ said WMO Secretary-General Professor Taalas.
If you go around telling people that climate change will precipitate an environmental and human catastrophe that may reduce the human population to one billion or even destroy humanity completely, it’s inevitable that you will be asked 1) why do civilisations collapse?, 2) how will we know when society is beginning to fall apart?, and 3) what will actually cause the population to decline? Joseph Tainter posits that as civilisations develop they introduce increasing complexity – specialised roles, institutional structures and hierarchies of control to coordinate activities and solve the problems that inevitably arise. However, the increasing complexity also inevitably leads to diminishing marginal returns and challenges that were previously successfully handled (disasters, pandemics, insurrections, invasions) become unmanageable. Government begins to disintegrate, infrastructure (education, transport, power, waste) is inadequately maintained and begins to falter, internal conflicts arise, external threats become more threatening, trade and supply chains collapse, food supplies diminish, literacy declines, technological knowledge is lost, those with resources migrate and deaths increase. The crucial difference in the 21st century, of course, is that civilisations and the challenges they face are no longer ‘regional’ and ‘isolated’. It’s not the Minoan, Roman or Maya civilisation that will collapse and open a space for others to occupy. A collapse now will be global and affect all of humanity. The fourth question is the crucial one: what should we be doing about it?
Many Australians are strongly opposed to the export of live farm animals because of the inhumane treatment the animals can receive during transit or slaughter overseas. Less well known is that live sharks are having their fins cut off in Australian waters so that the fins can be brought back to an Australian port for export. The disabled sharks are often left to die at sea. This can be prevented by requiring fishing boats to bring intact sharks back to port. Queensland has recently introduced ‘fins naturally attached (FNA)’ legislation. Western Australia is now the only Australian state or territory that allows shark fins to be removed at sea.
Importers and Australian government officials are on one side (‘Australia has strict biosecurity controls and there isn’t a problem’). Australian flower growers and invasive species experts are on the other (‘imported flowers often conceal very dangerous insects that can attack many of our home grown vegetables and fruits and controls are inadequate’). But a rectangle is a better metaphor than a dividing line. Australians love their cut flowers and customers are on the third side, looking for cheap, high quality flowers throughout the year. And the World Trade Organisation constitutes the fourth side with its strict rules for keeping restrictions on international trade to a minimum. With wage rates at around $2 a day (repeat ‘day’) in many developing nations, imports have pushed many local growers out of business (I believe the technical term for the transfer of work to countries with cheaper labour is ‘global labour arbitrage’) and the only way that demand, in terms of both price and volume, can be met is with imports. Following up on a recent 10-minute segment on Landline, Tim Low explains the risks in more detail.
The two figures below tell an interesting tale. In 2019 China had 27% of the solar power and 43% of the wind power installations in the world – impressive. On the other hand, in 2020 it had by a long chalk most of the world’s currently operating coal fired power stations and most of those under construction.
Peter Sainsbury is a retired public health worker with a long interest in social policy, particularly social justice, and now focusing on climate change and environmental sustainability. He is extremely pessimistic about the world avoiding catastrophic global warming.
Comments
6 responses to “Sunday environmental round up, 29 November 2020”
I haven’t read Tainter, but “declining marginal returns” [cited below] sounds to me like a marginalist economist. Peter’s question on how/why civilisations collapse at the least needs a team of political sociologists, and NO, Mr Morrison, we are not a bunch of socialists (not all). The Military hired one who reported very distressing SAS activities (to her in a later interview). It is a big question, Peter, but must be asked, and looked into carefully.
Dear Peter,
Thanks again for your remarkable weekly updates on the environment and climate.
Tainter’s book on complexity looks to be most interesting. We see the same negative trade-offs in health care and public health. Increasing specialisation and focussed institutional responses leading to more complexity and fragmented treatment and public health responses. UK and US responses to the pandemic show how the lack of a comprehensive framework/picture and a response disconnected from the day-to-day lives of their citizens can overwhelm ostensibly advanced societies.
Any policy or regulatory action in favour of the environment and renewables in Australia is stymied on cost and/or blamed on an existential factor e.g. (undefined) immigration leading to (inflated) population growth and (blamed for) a degraded environment; the latter is enough for too many Australians in abrogating their responsibilities…. political media caters to this inertia.
Meanwhile carbon emissions trading sabotaged, some of the lowest fuel standards in the world, infrastructure for motor vehicles always a higher priority than public transport (and many tax perks for work white collar manager vehicles in salary packages), no high speed rail, over sized low density housing (highest private debt levels globally), governments and related agencies informed/nudged by IPA (Koch Atlas Network), key church leaders denying climate science and ‘owned’ by mining, resources and related corporate interests through donations or embedding fossil fuels in the grid.
Any or most attempts at good environmental policy in Australia are blocked by media and think tank narratives, plus Australian citizens voting for the status quo…..
Too easy… when one hears not just Sustainable Population Australia (whose muses at ZPG US were funded by fossil fuel and related), but Liberal Party proposing an unsubstantiated ‘breather for (undefined) immigration to allow infrastructure to catch up’, One Nation also complaining about immigrants and climate science (and suppporting mining etc.), former Greens leader St. Bob Brown (and members I know) now obsess about ‘population growth’ etc. but none propose concrete environmental actions by Australia for Australians and others?
Result on environmental measures by those following eugenics, nativist or old colonial view of conservation-population-resources? Zero. Maybe that has always been the plan following US blocking tactics?
While only the US, UK and Australian alt right and/or nativists fret about (mostly imagined) immigration and/or population growth, our political narratives and policies have been pushed further to the right and more nativist, yet still in the mainstream (helped by our mostly right wing pale and male media).
Many look at our ‘Anglosphere’ world with both amusement at Trump, Brexit, Oz (the nasty nation on refugee arrivals) etc. and also bemusement when credible international research on population and environment (Perce, Rosling, Bricker & Ibbitson et al.) is ignored by environment, media and political elites. Shows how out of touch Australia is (or does not care?)
We are approaching peak global population mid century to be followed by (possibly precipitous) decline, including (on the way up then down), the ‘great replacement theory’ or ‘tipping point’, of brown people outnumbering white people, and old people outnumbering young people…. through manipulating ageing monocultural electorates, there will be more conservative government for the forseeable future.
In Australia we cannot rely upon ourseleves to vote for good policies on environment, nor media to support, but will simply be compelled to follow the standards set by others including trading partners e.g. EU, PRC/Asian agreements etc. and e.g. offshore manufacture of IC vehicles changes to electricity.
I don’t know why you’d go and publish factual stats and graphs, Peter. Can’t you just stick to the SMH-Guardian bedtime story, that even China and Japan are galloping to net zero, and Australia is a pariah.
I consider Joseph Tainter’s book ‘The Collapse of Complex Societies’ to be a must read for anyone interested in the future of our society/civilisation.
Declining marginal returns on investments in complexity have been at the root of previous civilisational collapses. Unfortunately our civilisations approach to deal with the ever mounting problems/predicaments that we face is predicated on ever increasing levels of technological complexity. If history serves as a lesson it is hard to avoid the conclusion that our civilisation will follow/is following a similar path to that of the Romans, Mayans etc.
I suspect that what is at the bottom of the collapse of these complex societies are peoples’ deep misgivings about politicians, parties and parliaments. Where once, in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, representative politics was popular for self-government, we are now seeing the rise of independents in some places going against rising autocracies. We are in for a bumpy ride.