War on Climate: Haven’t we already done this?
The exploration of war is known to us, everyone of our generations has been touched by war and its trauma! It has significant impact on the earth, humans, flora and fauna.
Is it war the ‘WE’ want?
After many wars, industry has continued to take control of earths resources to conqueror and acquire other land throughout history. Lets simplify for 2021 and generalise that the past 200 years of wars clearly indicate a pattern. Anchored in technological development, the purpose of war is securing more resources for the King, Queen or Power of the time. Regardless of the human cost and certainly no consideration for the impact on earth, its nature and living creatives, it must be done for a king, a country and a god.
Just invite any historian you have in your network for a coffee, talk about the Seven Years Wars, Gulf War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, WW1 and/or WW2 (https://archive.is/mCp9Y). Ask them about how these wars began, the use of information, power imbalance, technological innovation and the impact on humans and earth. Is there a pattern? So is it war WE want?
Wars continued advancement of industrialisation is deeply entangled with the technological advances across all sectors servicing humans today. Our most successful organisations over time are those with a history of making products and materials for war. Food, energy, transportation and production systems have increased and optimized resource use to improve their impact between wars. Think nuclear energy, canned foods, pesticides and Volkswagen beetles (VWs war on climate was revealed in 2015: https://archive.is/5HbAi). However our history tells us once war is on, its on. There are no rules, only business and the winner gets to write the story taught to our future generations.
There is a part of me, which thinks ‘war’ would be a interesting example for sustainable impact over time. The application of technology, mobilization of populations in service of saving ourselves and economic depressions, then recessions are a pattern. Many countries, kings, clans and nations have initiated and responded to wars with war, the impact on humans and earth is the same. The technology continued to be become more efficient at cleaning the pathway of opposition to get the other sides king in check mate! Death of populations, displacement, scorched earth, animal extinction, historical infrastructure obliterated, books burned (things just get deleted now, here is a solution: https://archive.is/5X9by) and our humanity lost. Again and again!
Have you thought about this pattern? So is it a War on Climate we need? Or are we already experiencing one?
Make Sense of Climate
War on Climate, in what sense?
The complex materials based modelling and forecasting tools developed to make decisions by science. Used to inform nations on how to control the temperature increases, through 1 molecule called carbon dioxide and its equivalencies. This idea of carbon trading for holding major energy consumers across the globe, accountable for their impact on the climate is a prominent leader in impact investments. Technology such as; software, sensors, data capture, management systems and machine learning, have been implemented by corporations, institutions and governments throughout IR-3 and IR-4. Bringing performance and productivity gains to business, this technology has not improved transparency of data and reporting. The argument of complexity has not improved and continues to drive public discourse, Climate is Complex.
The major challenge is never the data of the technology (assuming data quality is tested), it is the applied frameworks and methodologies developed by science or business (you know humans). We are influenced by our environments! The places where we think, breath, eat, experience, observe and survive. They influence not only the way we approach developing frameworks for making sense of the world, we are informed by those around us as to what is considered good and useful for executing predetermined strategies.
Application of climate models are no different, the major reason why the Shell — Atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature model over time, never got traction internally was because it was off strategy. The science was good, based on information available at the time and they were onto something society would have benefited from knowing at the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings (https://archive.ph/A4gMR)
In Shell’s study, the firm argued that the “main burden” of addressing climate change rests not with the energy industry, but with governments and consumers.
Society did keep something in mind here. The transfer of negative environmental impact, regardless of which institutions release toxic pollutants, from industry to governments and consumers, seemed to stick. As the 1990s matured consumers of the world, we were united around save energy, reuse and recycle. However the messaging was always economic combined with environmental. Very much driven by academia and social organizations, these initiatives set the foundation for human activity being the primary problem and it is only the individual who is accountable.
The 2000s brought carbon cap and trade, which exists still today. The best answer to measurement and accountability, this market driven initiative aims to make consumers pay for the carbon dioxide they produce. Removing the the obligation of accountability away from the direct pollutant producers (energy organisations and institutions) to consumers, who have to pay for the negative impact of technologies they have no control over. In this war on climate are ‘consumers’ the soldiers or peasants paying taxes to kings?
Is this war on Climate the same as the Drugs and/or Terrorism ?
The IPCC talks about climate being measured by carbon dioxide. This can be the carbon-equivalency or the carbon dioxide in the air humans produce needing to be sucked out of the atmosphere. That simple right. The climate models are built out for forecasting and carbon equivalency. Often including all industrially produced pollutants in air, not just carbon variants. These materials are input into models based on whatever the institution’s or nation’s have defined as its carbon frameworks.
So is the war on Climate, a war on Carbon? If so how is a war on climate, not a war on ourselves, humans are basically made of carbon. Or a war on carbon dioxide? or carbon dioxide-equivalency? What nation of institution gets to decide the object of this war?
The negative environmental and social impact of war in 2021 and of the past outcomes is known. Beyond the need to define what we mean by climate and if this is already happening. What do you think?
Based on what WE know is it war WE want or need more of?
