In 1947 the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists set up a clock telling us how close we were to global calamity. It was initially set at seven minutes to midnight; then its hands shifted back to 17 minutes to midnight following the signing of the US–Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction treaty. In January this year, the hands were pointed at five minutes to midnight, the closest to doomsday yet.
The Bulletin announced:
Two years ago, it appeared that world leaders might address the truly global threats that we face. In many cases, that trend has not continued or been reversed.
In fact, the global community may be near a point of no return in efforts to prevent catastrophe from changes in Earth’s atmosphere. The International Energy Agency projects that, unless societies begin building alternatives to carbon-emitting energy technologies over the next five years, the world is doomed to a warmer climate, harsher weather, droughts, famine, water scarcity, rising sea levels, loss of island nations, and increasing ocean acidification.
Since fossil-fuel burning power plants and infrastructure built in 2012-2020 will produce energy — and emissions — for 40 to 50 years, the actions taken in the next few years will set us on a path that will be impossible to redirect. Even if policy leaders decide in the future to reduce reliance on carbon-emitting technologies, it will be too late.
Homo sapiens: where to now?
In October, researchers, academics and commentators gathered at the Australian National Library to discuss the prospects for our species, at a conference held by Manning Clarke House and called “The future of Homo sapiens”.
Discussion covered climate change, biology, anthropology, medicine, human evolution, the role of fire, ethics, politics, and cultural, spiritual and philosophical perspectives.
Keynote speaker Philip Adams – in whose honour the conference was held – spoke of the existential threat to humanity and nature that is climate change. He had earlier expressed his increasing pessimism and particular concern that: “Western democracies may be unable to effectively tackle the problem. Politicians are not the most courageous people. In so far as they think at all they tend to think in the short time frames of the election cycle."
The 2009 Copenhagen conference agreed to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. It is only thanks to industrially emitted sulphur aerosols that mean global temperatures have not as yet exceeded 2 degrees Celsius. But as Michael Raupach from CSIRO pointed out to the conference, it may already be too late.
How did we get into this situation?
Beginning with the mastery of fire, our creative and destructive powers culminated in the industrial age. The combustion of carbon stored in sediments over periods longer than 400 million years are transforming the atmospheric conditions from those which allowed the onset of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.
Colin Groves explained how Homo sapiens developed as stone tool-making emerged, and gradually became more sophisticated. Brains were enlarged, the body changed shape and we interbred with other archaic human species.
Much of our development is based on our relationship with microbes; but that relationship could also be our downfall. Tony McMichael reminded us that the majority of cells in our bodies are bacteria, and that “the contemporary struggle between microbes and humans in this era of ‘emerging infectious diseases’ is one facet of a much broader spectrum of microbe-and-human co-evolution”.
But it is the use of fire which uniquely distinguishes Homo from other members of the animal kingdom. Evolved on the surface of a flammable, carbon-rich biosphere exposed to an oxygen-rich atmosphere, the skill humans acquired in igniting fire and combustion has become their blueprint. And it has affected the rest of nature.
We can’t un-become who we are, or un-create the world we’ve made. The question now is what we can do to repair the damage done.
Decisions of godly proportions
As Clive Hamilton said: “We must ask ourselves a far-reaching question: are we capable of managing the earth? We can expect the world to divide into two camps — the Prometheans, after the Greek god who gave humans the tools of technological mastery, and those who might be called Soterians, after the Greek goddess of safety, caution and deliverance.”
Tom Faunce would perhaps fall on the Promethean side. He explained how new technologies for carbon sequestration and artificial photosynthesis hold out hope in our struggle to stabilise CO2 levels at between 350 and 375 parts per million (ppm) by 2050.
But what hope such technologies unless societies choose to implement them? Governments certainly have the legal tools to turn things around and control carbon emissions, according to former High Court judge Ken Crispin.
“The few measures taken or even proposed to carbon emissions have been tentative, tokenistic and hopelessly inadequate,“ he said. "Some, like the Australian carbon tax, may even have been counterproductive. Yet Australian governments and their international counterparts have long had adequate legal powers for controlling undesirable emissions”.
What about the future?
Of course, it would be easier and quicker for Homo sapiens to save ourselves from a climate-changed future if we were all on the same path. But we are not. Robert Manne reminded us of the denialists' victory: “With America’s withdrawal from the international struggle to combat global warming, it is certain in the near-term at least, that nothing serious can be achieved.”
George Brownings and Bob Douglas provided some solace and hope. The former cited Jurgen Moltmann: “Because we cannot know whether humanity will survive, we must act today as though the future of all humankind depended on us and at the same time trust wholly that God will remain true to his creation and not let it fall.” Or as Bob Douglas said, “Our children can help to lead the way."
At the conclusion of the conference, a statement was endorsed by Manning Clark House and by a show of hands by the attendees.
John Newton
Author Journalist
I think Clive Hamilton's question 'are we capable of managing the earth?' is the key to the problem.
Why should we capable of managing the earth? Is it a question any other animal would ask?
And what is our place, our purpose on this earth? Every single living thing it appears to me, except human beings has a part to play in this extraordinarily complicated pattern of life on earth.
Yet we stand above that pattern, adding nothing practical to it, with on part to play, for all our genius…
Read morePhil Dolan
Viticulturist
I don't think humans will be wiped out, but there will be mass starvation if there is a major hiccup in oil production and there are many reasons that could happen. We're pretty good at wars and such so an oil crisis is entirely possible.
Industrial agriculture could not survive an oil crisis. It takes a barrel of oil to produce a steer in the US. We're more fortunate here as most are free range but wheat and vegetable production would collapse.
How many days worth of food does a supermarket carry?
But doom and gloom. We'll just get on with it 'til it does collapse and then maybe a leader will emerge. Hopefully they won't be like Hitler or Stalin.
Jenn Dunkley
Residential Youth Worker
The very idea that we are able to 'manage' the earth is an illusion of control. We can manage only our own behaviours (given the political will to do so!) and even then, our behaviours would be about self-preservation. But why not? we would not have survived as a species if we did not behave to protect our own interests. Ce las vie.
Anthony Muscio
logged in via Facebook
I think perhaps this question of if we can manage this earth is tied closely to those who wish to deny anthropogenic change.
For if we accept we have changed the world then we have to accept we can change it in the future. The conservative world view resists change and thus seem to deny we have or can influence the environment by our actions.
If we take a few simple measurements such as "life expectancy", total population and the reduced percentage of humans dieing prematurely from disease…
Read moreJohn Coochey
Mr
Well the misandryst gloom predominates but at last someone is saying what I have challenged them to, we have passed the typing point all is lost. So why bother. By the way is Phillip Adams a Climate Scientist or has he been given honorary status?
John Newton
Author Journalist
John i think you mean misanthropist - misandry being the dislike of men and boys. But that is not what I intended. Merely to point out our pointlessness in the planetary scheme of things- please prove me wrong - and that if we are headed for the horrors of climate change predicted by the vast majority of the world's scientists, then it is humanity that will be wiped out, not the planet.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
John, you passed 'the typing point' long ago.
Anthony Muscio
logged in via Facebook
Prediction is our predilection. We spend inordinate amounts of time trying to predict the future, yet as far as we know there is only one, and it will unveil itself in good time. I am all for understanding the potential outcomes of our actions trends and extrapolation form part of a rational world view but making decisions based on the emotions generated by predictions is an irrational way to think. Giving up in despair at what may happen is making a false assumption that out projection is accurate…
Read moreJenn Dunkley
Residential Youth Worker
Is there only one future that would reveal itself in good time? I'm not so sure. Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead until we open the box; the future is both good and bad until we're in it, but then it's not the future, it's now. What we do now, can only be about information we have now now - totally agree with you on that.
Lennert Veerman
Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland
Thanks for this thought-provoking article, Andrew. The thoughts it provoked in me are the following.
Whether we have already passed the point of no return is a scientific question that I am ill-equipped to answer. From climate scientists and thinkers I respect, I get the impression that if we haven't passed that point yet, the current political inertia means that we almost certainly will soon have.
However, even if that is so, we must act as if we can still avert that calamity (and, at the…
Read moreElizabeth Hart
Independent Vaccine Investigator
Lennert, re your comment: “Our planet can probably feed 10 billion if we behave well.”
Read moreThis quote from from wise old John Stuart Mill is pertinent:
Nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature; with every rood of land brought into cultivation, which is capable of growing food for human beings; every flowery waste or natural pasture ploughed up, all quadrupeds or birds which are not domesticated for man's use exterminated as…
Lennert Veerman
Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland
Elizabeth, I don't look forward to a world with 10 billion people in it, either. And I agree that it would be nice to limit population numbers to less than that; we should certainly provide assistance to couples who want to regulate their fertility.
But given our current population structure, substantial population growth is almost inevitable. Total fertility rate now is about 2.36 child. Even if fertility were to suddenly drop to 1.6 child per couple on average (the current EU figure), the world population will continue to grow for some time before going down ('population-lag effect'). In the most optimistic UN scenarios population still reaches 8 billion around 2045 before going down. Since it would be unwise to count on a major disaster that wipes that scenario off the map, I am afraid we will have to plan for population increases and try to minimise the damage. (That is, we can make things worse by not behaving well.)
Lennert Veerman
Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland
As it happens, the World bank has just presented a report on this issue. Their conclusion: "Lack of ambitious action on climate change threatens to put prosperity out of reach of millions and roll back decades of development."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-19/world-bank-issues-global-warming-warning/4379634
Dale Bloom
Analyst
After all the hoopla, it appears the conference on ‘The Future of Homo Sapiens’ was simply an anti-mining propaganda event, possibly staged.
“The “bright future” of coal is irreconcilable with the future of the atmosphere/ocean system. Politicians cannot argue with the laws of atmospheric physics and chemistry.
Answers to the climate crisis hinge on fast track introduction of clean alternative energy, reduction in carbon emission and CO2 sequestration.”
http://manningclark.org.au/papers…
Read moreFelix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Dale, I attended this conference and, not to put too fine a point on things, you're simply talking out your arse about what was and wasn't considered - a wide range of issues were addressed, not merely coal mining.
Mark Harrigan
Dr
The problem with AGW is that it is a global problem
Mankinds influence on the plant has grown to a scale and scope well in excess of the scope and scale of the institutions we have developed to manage them
I expect human kind to survive the increasingly warmer planet that we seem detremined as a species to produce. But it is going to look VERY different in 2100. It will make the difference between 1900 and 2000 look like next door neighbours - and I don't just mean technology. And along the way the disruption misery and even loss of life will make any of the crises of teh 20th century look like village sideshows.
It's up to us of course. I wonder what the current crop of pseudo-skeptics will offer as an excuse?
Perhaps they should consider that, unlike any time in the past, there is a record of their approach. Alas that won;t really help anyone :(
Garry Baker
resarcher
These discussions on where we are heading are a bit late really, indeed quite late, since Professor James Lovelock explained most of the broad brush chapters many years ago.
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
A timely article and sobering comments follow.
Clive Hamilton's question is a good one ~ "are we capable of managing the earth?"
In their 2008 book ~ 'Fixing Climate' ~ Robert Kunzig and Wallace Broecker write ~ "we can no longer expect Mother Earth to take care of us - the planet is ours to run, and we can't retreat from the responsibility to run it wisely." (p.269).
If it is possible to step back from the Earth and take an overview, we see a fundamental driving force of Nature is expansion…
Read moreAnthony Muscio
logged in via Facebook
Whilst Expansion is a fundamental quality of life it is not a necessary one. Replicating organisms need to expand in number to increase their chance of survival, that is sure. Most find their expansion limited by environmental constraints, eventually if not from the "get go". Humans have overcome a number of environmental constraints and can not overcome others. This freedom to expand certainly exists and I expect we can expand to consume the resources available and like most organisms in a similar situation overshoot and as a result suffer a collapse or near extinction. The humans most threatening competitor is other humans because they desire the same resources. The Question is can we use the recent adaption - science, to overcome this almost inevitable cycle of expansion and collapse ? I believe we can and I am not sure we will.
Jeremy Dawson
academic
Ken Crispin is not (and has not been) a High Court judge (as you would guess by simply reading the biography of him that you link to)
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Yup, he was actually only a Supreme Court Judge - obvious proof that the whole of climate science is wrong and everything Glickson says should be ignored.
Thank goodness we have noble souls like Jeremy Dawson to save us from this wicked disinformation.
Geoffrey Henley
Research Associate
More alarmist claptrap. Given that the Earth hasn't warmed in the last 15 years or so as much as the the much heralded IPCC models predicted it would, a good scientist would have asked themselves whether there was something wrong with the models. However, in the world of climate alarmism, the properly established scientific method is abandoned and replaced by unproven theories (such as aerosols) which are proffered up in an attempt to explain the lack of warming. "Don't worry", they proclaim, "predicted warming will resume at some stage. Trust us." The fact that the lack of warming may be due to some form of natural process is too horrible for the alarmist brigadiers to contemplate.
BTW, Philip Adams, Clive Hamilton and Robert Manne have previously demonstrated that their understanding of climate science is extremely limited. They resort to the usual demonising of sceptics while presenting little valid evidence to sustantiate their claims.
Alice Kelly
sole parent
Hello Geoffrey, Thank-you, but which studies would you refer to in regard to a proven "lack of warming"? and what are you talking about in regard to aerosols? I have no intention of demonising you, or calling you names, but don't understand the point of your letter. Do you really have a genuine interest in the science of climate change?
Anthony Muscio
logged in via Facebook
You seem to be deliberately miss representing the facts, providing an off topic bid to promote your idealist view point, and Troll this subject.
Simply starting with "More alarmist claptrap" is such a broad, emotional and dismissive line that shows he will not appreciate even a subtle argument or remain open minded.
I urge anyone reading to either disregard Geoffrey Henley comments from this point forward or research any claim of his by googling his claims with the word rebuttal eg; "hasn…
Read moreFelix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Wow - Henley, Coochey and Gibson all in a row - pretty much the full set of trolls - but, while you included the customary attack on Paul Erlich, you forgot to have a go at Flannery of the Limits to Growth - that's the normal set that is repeated robotically in these instances.
You're slipping guys - people will start to wonder how serious you really are!
Neil Gibson
Retired Electronics Engineer
In earlier days Andrew would be walking down the street with a beard and a sandwich board saying "The End is Nigh". Now our doomsayers are mostly funded by the taxpayer and use the internet (in this case taxpayer funded)
Read moreinstead of the sandwich board. Chief prophet of doom Paul Ehrlich is now 80 years old in comfortable retirement in the world he said could not exist but is still spouting Malthusian rubbish. The doomsday clock is a favorite among catastrophists but somehow we are still here after…
Anthony Muscio
logged in via Facebook
I suppose you would also call the Y2K bug a catastrophists bandwagon proven false in hindsight - without acknowledging the millions of hours of work put in to avoiding it, and identification of real problems in the process that would have caused problems if not addressed (Proof that the prediction was correct). It seems that those that understand "do" and those that don't accuse.
The prediction of something does not mean it will come to pass, in fact in many cases the wise act to falsify the prediction through an action to avoid the outcomes so predicted, especially when they are undesirable.
What makes "The enhanced Greenhouse effect" and a range of related problems so wicked is, it's cause is neglect and ignorance.
An unpleasant side effect is that the opposition to action to reduce the "Enhanced Greenhouse effect" is from the ignorant (I mean that in the dictionary use of the word Ignorant, and do not mean it as an insult).
John Coochey
Mr
Well said Neil. He also lost all the bets he made to an economist twenty odd years ago but he paid up. I wonder if the current generation will pay up?
Peter Kinnon
Writer
Unfortunately this article does not allow for the very natural anthropocentric bias which is the legacy of our genetic and cultural heritage.
View more objectively we must take into account the evolutionary patterns provided by the sciences and which paint quite a different picture.
The reality, usually completely overlooked by proponents of transhumanist fantasies, is that the evolution of the next predominant cognitive life-form on this planet is well under way. Its gestation taking…
Read morewilma western
logged in via email @bigpond.com
The first doomsday clock was set by nuclear scientists during the cold war. I'm old enough to remember the recurring fears of the outbreak of nuclear war either by accident or design as the US and USSR followed the bankrupting strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD for short). I agree with Lennert - the essential thing is to be well informed by the experts and follow the proven policies to reduce GHG emissions. We need to keep on advocating for these without getting too hung up on rebutting those who are in furious disagreement with the climate experts or deciding what the hell , live and carouse because tomorrow we die - a very selfish attitude. Humankind is better than that if we get the chance. Sounds like an interesting talk-fest as reported.