But Can We "Choose Joy"

But Can We “Choose Joy”? Alton C. Thompson On August 21, 2024, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Oprah Winfrey quoted the late, great Congressman John Lewis — “no matter what ship our ancestors arrived on, we are all in the same boat now.” And she hammered that point home by connecting our power to vote our values, that “democracy and respect are the ballot.” The article goes on: Democrats, Never Trumpers and experts on authoritarianism have tried for the entire Trump era to warn the American people that the entire American experiment is at stake. While polls show Americans are broadly worried about threats to our democracy, democracy as an issue barely appears on lists of voter priorities this election. And her message to the crowd was “simple: The choice in November is to choose loyalty to the Constitution, rather than loyalty to any individual. There is no going back to a time of division and darkness — it is time to choose joy.” What Winfrey failed to convey to the audience, however, is illustrated below (a bus going over a cliff): We are not quite in this situation yet—but we are headed there! Headed for disaster, that is! What I’m alluding to here is the fact that global warming is not only occurring now, but is accelerating! That fact is illustrated by the graph below: As that graph shows, over the past 2,000 years there has been variation in global temperature over time, but since about 1850 there’s been a clear upward trend! A steep upward trend, in fact! The reasons for that rather abrupt change? In brief: The Industrial Revolution, that began around 1760. And the reason why that “event” had importance is that two developments began to occur: 1. Our burning of fossil fuels—first coal, then petroleum—which adds “greenhouse gases” to the atmosphere. 2. Deforestation activities—which reduce the “carbon sink” capability of forests. The addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere causes warming; and a decrease in the carbon sink capability of forests adds to that warming. At present, however, there’s an additional reason for warming—and the likely the reason for the acceleration is the current thawing of permafrost. Permafrost is: soil or underwater sediment which continuously remains below 0 °C (32 °F) for two years or more: the oldest permafrost had been continuously frozen for around 700,000 years.[1] Whilst the shallowest permafrost has a vertical extent of below a meter (3 ft), the deepest is greater than 1,500 m (4,900 ft).[2] Similarly, the area of individual permafrost zones may be limited to narrow mountain summits or extend across vast Arctic regions.[3] The ground beneath glaciers and ice sheets is not usually defined as permafrost, so on land, permafrost is generally located beneath a so-called active layer of soil which freezes and thaws depending on the season.[4] This image shows permafrost areas in the northern hemisphere: The thawing of permafrost releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the problem with that release is that among the gases released is methane, which is: a chemical compound with the chemical formula CH4 (one carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms). It is a group-14 hydride, the simplest alkane, and the main constituent of natural gas. The abundance of methane on Earth makes it an economically attractive fuel, although capturing and storing it is hard because it is a gas at standard temperature and pressure. As a greenhouse gas: Methane has a much shorter atmospheric lifetime than CO2 (around 12 years compared with centuries for CO2), but it is a much more potent greenhouse gas, absorbing much more energy while it exists in the atmosphere. There are various ways to combine these factors to estimate the effect on global warming; the most common is the global warming potential (GWP). This can be used to express a tonne of a greenhouse-gas emitted in CO2 equivalent terms, in order to provide a single measure of total greenhouse-gas emissions (in CO2-eq). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated a GWP for methane between 84-87 when considering its impact over a 20-year timeframe (GWP20) and between 2836 when considering its impact over a 100-year timeframe (GWP100). This means that one tonne of methane can considered to be equivalent to 28 to 36 tonnes of CO2 if looking at its impact over 100 years. Thus, methane is a potent greenhouse gas! Because permafrost exists in vast areas of the Northern Hemisphere, the thawing of permafrost will be having huge implications for global warming! As the warming now occurring—largely caused so far by our burning of fossil fuels and deforestation activities—continues, that warming, in causing permafrost to thaw (with greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere in consequence), causes further warming. That means that warming is itself now causing warming! Which likely means that warming is now “feeding on itself” to an important degree, at least! (Which is not “good news”!!) Dr. Philip B. Duffy, a climate scientist and president of the nonprofit Woodwell Climate Research Center has said: As the world warms, organic matter — plants and dead animals frozen for tens of thousands of years — starts to decompose. “Those decomposition processes emit greenhouse gases,” . . . . Scientists estimate that there's twice as much carbon locked up in permafrost as is already in the atmosphere, . . . . "The potential to amplify warming is huge.” In short, then, the occurrence today of global warming is a matter of extreme importance, because:  Scientists Warn Drastic Climate Impacts Coming Much Sooner Than Expected (from 2016)  Climate change will be sudden and cataclysmic (from 2021)  Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change (from 2019)  Humans may be extinct in 2026 (2023)  Etc. And the media are failing to educate the public about global warming and the threats that it poses for us humans (as well as other species: 1,000,000 species are now at risk of going extinct during this “sixth extinction” period!). Here in Milwaukee, for example (I live in a suburb), several years ago I sent an email to the lead meteorologist at one of the local television stations, asking why I never heard “global warming” mentioned; I received this reply: Our management forbids us to do so. (!) That’s not only criminal, it’s genocidal!! Yet it may be a universal policy with the media! Last night (August 22, 2024) I listened to many of the speeches delivered at the Democratic National Convention (including the speech of Vice-President Kamala Harris). I heard “climate change” mentioned twice, and that caused me to cringe! Here’s why: 1. “Climate change” is not an equivalent of “global warming”; global warming is a cause of climate change, but more immediately is a cause of: a) Heavy rainfall—and consequent flooding. b) Drought—and consequent wildfires. c) A rise in sea level. d) Etc. 2. Use of the term “climate change” reminds me of an infamous memo by “political and communications consultant and pollster” Frank Luntz in 2002: The Republicans, as the memorandum advised them, have softened their language to appeal to suburban voters, speaking out for protecting national parks and forests, advocating investment in environment technologies and shifting emphasis to the future rather than the present. In interviews, Republican politicians and their aides said they agreed with the strategist, Frank Luntz, that it was important to pay attention to what his memorandum, written before the November elections, called ''the environmental communications battle.'' In his memorandum, Mr. Luntz urges that the term ''climate change'' be used instead of ''global warming,'' because ''while global warming has catastrophic communications attached to it, climate change sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge.'' That “climate change sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge” (than global warming)—and so should be used by Republican politicians—may be good political strategy, but is by no means a good survival strategy!! It’s understandable that “the fossil fuel industry polluted the information landscape” about global warming (as this publication notes): Fossil fuel executives are short-sighted, interested in profits and not the continuation of our species. (Even though they will go extinct when the rest of us do!) Politicians, however, should be expected to have a longer-run interest and, therefore, to have concern about the threats posed by global warming. That the speakers last night failed to treat global warming with the seriousness that it warrants was disappointing—to say the least!! It’s at least conceivable, then, that our species will go extinct during the next presidential term (by 2026, for example?!)—regardless of who wins the election in November!