"Before I draw nearer to that stone to which you point," said Scrooge, "answer me one question. Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of things that May be, only?" Still the Ghost pointed downward to the grave by which it stood. "Men's courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead," said Scrooge. "But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change. Say it is thus with what you show me."
Most everyone is familiar with the Dickens classic, A Christmas Carol. The above is a quote from the fourth Stave, where Scrooge stands before his own grave. As with many great social novelists, there are many layers of meaning in these immortal words, if one would but take the time to listen. Often, humanity is offered portents of its future, but all too often, we fail to head the words and warnings. With barely only two years left to 2012, let’s look at the stone to which the Ghost points.
We are all familiar with the prophecies of Nostradamus, the Mayan Calendar, the End Times scenario, the sage words of the Hopi, the I Ching, and warnings by other great seers and cultures regarding December 21st, 2012. Critics claim that this is all hype and that such prophecies are but myths that sell books, but which have no veracity. They point to the many doomsday predictions prior to the dawn of each millennium and the fact that each such event, was a non-event. So, is the 2012 phenomenon just hype? Is there anything different now which would warrant closer inspection?
Let’s create a little 2012 report card and see. The focus here is not on numbers and statistics, those can be found on thousands internet sites. Let’s just create an overview and determine if there is anything to worry about. Since the economy has been dominating the news for the past year, it would be a good starting point. There is little doubt the world economy is in recession. Even after spending trillions of dollars, governments have been unable to totally stabilize downward economic trends. Yes, Wall Street has had a few rebounds, but Wall Street is not the entire economy. There are still more layoffs and foreclosures, and consumer spending and confidence are down. This is not just in the U.S., but globally. Of importance is the fact that the apparent goal of government efforts is to try to return the economy to the old model of business. Companies produce, you spend, you throw away, and buy again. This is no longer a sustainable economic model. While there has been a lot of talk regarding "green" products, and there are fringe economists promoting more sustainable economic theories, the impact of this movement is so far, negligible. On a pass/fail basis, I give us a fail with respect to the economy.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roger nowosielski
Great piece, Philip. Your point about operating with, and keeping on returning to a no longer sustainable business model is especially well taken. The "produce, spend, throw away, and buy again" vicious circle is an economic dead-end. There's no future in it.
It's time to revisit Robert L. Heilbroner's visionary classic, An Inquiry into the Human Prospect.
Heillbronner's follow-up of twenty some years later was more optimistic, but I think he was getting senile by then. The original rendition hasn't lost any of its potency and still rings as true as ever.
2 - Baronius
Philip, I think you could just as easily argue the opposite case on most of these issues. There are no major wars; research into clean fuels is unprecedentedly high; the planet is cooling; science continues to expand. I wouldn't buy into perfect optimism, but to treat everything as an unqualified failure seems a bit grandiose.
3 - Philip Harris
Thanks Roger. You might also enjoy this History Of The "Entrepreneurial Revolution".
Baronius-tell the glaciers the planet is cooling. However, your point is well taken. However, in each area mentioned, while you might find some bright spots, my concern is that the confluence of all of these events occurring at once does not bode well. Just because there is not one big war, does not negate all of the many wars that are being waged. Yes, I said that science is expanding, but, time is not on our side-we need to get out of this notion that we can wait forever to address these issues. Cooling-well, sorry, just does not stack up. Arctic melt and glacial melt say otherwise-it is warming where it hurts the most. We can no longer support anything but complete success in dealing with these issues. Getting it almost right does not stop desertification, growing droughts, loss of water supplies for millions, crop destroying heat waves, wildfires, and the loss of millions of lives. Close only counts in, well, you know, nuclear war. The very foundation of western and modern society is crunbling.
4 - Baronius
Some glaciers are getting bigger; some are getting smaller. Antarctica seems to be holding steady.
5 - Philip Harris
the following info is somewhat out of date-the situation is many time worse.
The largest implication of this loss of glaciers is not the change in scenery, but the fact that the seasonal meltwater from glaciers, especially in Asia and South America, is the life support for billions of people.
The disintegrating face of the Mller Ice Shelf, Lallemand Fjord, Antarctic Peninsula
Alaska permafrost temperature has increased 0.5 to 1.5 C since 1980
Glaciers everywhere in the world (with a very few exceptions) have been shrinking throughout the 20th Century
Perhaps the most dramatic glacier withdrawal has been in the Alps, where it has occured in full view of residents, tourists and scientists
Glaciers in the Northwest United States have also been shrinking. Studies by the Climate Impacts Group at University of Washington show regional temperature has been 1.5 F warmer in the 20th century
Greenland's huge icecap, second only to Antarctica, is also showing signs of change
Around the globe, sea level is more than 6 inches higher than it was 100 years ago, due primarily to warmer sea water and runoff from melting glaciers
Source
6 - Philip Harris
Also
U.S. scientists monitoring shrinking glaciers in Washington and Alaska reported this week that a major meltdown is under way. A 50-year government study found that the world's glaciers are melting at a rapid and alarming rate. The ongoing study is the latest in a series of reports that found glaciers worldwide are melting faster than anyone had predicted they would just a few years ago. It offers a clear indication of an accelerating climate change and warming earth, according to the authors
7 - Baronius
Philip, theoretically let's take climate change off the table for a moment. That would probably ameliorate your concerns about science, energy, global cooperation, and sustainable economies as well. Would it be safe to say that confirmation of a stable ecology would be enough to put passing grades on your report card?
8 - Doug Hunter
"Around the globe, sea level is more than 6 inches higher than it was 100 years ago, due primarily to warmer sea water and runoff from melting glaciers"
It's also around 400ft higher than it was only 10,000 years ago. That's a 4'/100 year average as compared to the most recent 6"/100 year and the estimated 9" in the next hundred.
Global warming is another in the long series of boogeymen dreamed up by power hungry politician's and the bureacratic stooges (no offense) to further increase their power over the private citizen.
9 - Dr Dreadful
It's also around 400ft higher than it was only 10,000 years ago.
There also weren't four billion humans living within spitting distance of a sea-coast only 10,000 years ago.
10 - Clavos
There also weren't four billion humans living within spitting distance of a sea-coast only 10,000 years ago.
Not 4B, no, but then as now, most did live near the coasts, for food and transportation.
11 - RJ
ZOMG! Climate change!
The Earth hasn't gotten warmer in 11 years, and we are still technically in an Ice Age, but hey, let's engage is some more scare-mongering.
12 - RJ
"There are no major wars; research into clean fuels is unprecedentedly high; the planet is cooling; science continues to expand."
Bingo. Facts hurt the feelings of "progressive" alarmists, though. Better not bring that pesky "reality" up.
13 - RJ
The alarmist worst-case scenario is a 58 cm rise in sea level 91 years from now, in 2100.
58 cm is less than 2 feet.
Anyone ever heard of dikes? Or moving inland a few hundred feet?
I mean, we only have 91 years to accomplish it. We better get started right away!
Remember kids: The only thing predictable about the climate is that it is constantly changing. And we are still technically in an Ice Age.
14 - Jordan Richardson
hey, let's engage is some more scare-mongering.
Seems to be working for health care.
Why is it such a bad thing when it's actually based on fact and science? And nevermind that most of us in the world don't actually see "change" as frightening.
The alarmist worst-case scenario is a 58 cm rise in sea level 91 years from now, in 2100.
Yes, that's a problem. You say it's "less than 2 feet," but do you have any idea how many industries that impacts and how much of a difference two feet of water can actually make to ecological systems, etc.?
Of course you don't. It only matters what happens to you.
It's all well and good to retreat to an American right-wing condition every once and a while, but this is a larger issue than your lame politics and the continued denial of it is just flat-out silly.
Anyone ever heard of dikes? Or moving inland a few hundred feet?
Really? How are you going to move all of the coastal communities on the planet inland "a few hundred feet?" Next I bet you'll say something like "oh, it's not big deal...we still have 91 years."
Shall we also build a big moat around America?
I mean, we only have 91 years to accomplish it. We better get started right away!
There it is.
91 years to apparently build dikes around the entire planet and move the entire planet's coastal communities "inland a few hundred feet." Nevermind how ridiculous the plan sounds, nevermind the trillions of dollars it costs internationally and nevermind the job losses and the loss of entire coastal industries people have depended on for ages, but when does that end?
The 2 feet turns to 3 feet and to 4 feet...
Is the proposal then to just have us nicely pile up in the middle of our landmasses while we continue to say "oh well, we've got another 100 years?" Does that sound reasonable to you? Does it sound reasonable to you that the sea level rise (91 years from now?) takes place and that's all that happens? Everything's back to normal?
Why is it such a struggle to suggest we change our way of life on this planet, that we live sustainably and with respect to the ecosystems and the environment? Why is the alternative to "move everyone inland a few hundred feet and build dikes?"
Jesus Christ.
And who cares if we're "technically still in an Ice Age?" Do you even know what that means? We're melting out of it, RJ. That's not a good thing, that doesn't mean the world just renders itself back to "normal." That's not how this shit works, dude.
Honestly. This isn't political. It's real and we need to start doing something about it. Humanity made an error when it thought it could simply live on the planet with an infinite amount of resources. We have to adapt. We can't afford to say "we've still got 91 years and I'll be fucking dead by then anyway so who cares?" The time for being selfish, arrogant and foolish has to come to an end sooner or later, but I fear it's going to last longer than any Ice Age.
The fact is that we fucked it up. We won't be scared into protecting our planet because we're too "smart." We know it all, like RJ here, and we're too busy reclining and watching Hannity to do anything about it.
Such a shame.
15 - Jordan Richardson
Not 4B, no, but then as now, most did live near the coasts, for food and transportation.
How much polluting did they do on an hourly basis in contrast to the massive amounts of shit we pump into the sea now? And how much fishing did they do in contrast to the massive amounts done now?
C'mon. Do you really think there's a comparison?
16 - Cindy
Well, I for one am glad that RJ is here to give us the worst case scenario. I mean even the climate scientists don't know what all the implications are. So, I'm sure glad someone has made a careful evaluation. RJ, maybe you should write to them and tell them what the worst case scenario is. They will probably all be very relieved and grateful.
17 - Jordan Richardson
Global warming is another in the long series of boogeymen dreamed up by power hungry politician's and the bureacratic stooges (no offense) to further increase their power over the private citizen.
No, it isn't.
The politicians did not pay off the scientists researching this for years and the scientists, worldwide, did not cook up a global conspiracy just to remove the idiotic rights you think you have.
Do you really think that we can, as human beings, continue to live on the planet while we waste its LIMITED resources and dump chemicals into the air and sea?
18 - Cindy
Oh, come on now, Jordan. Why don't you be more reasonable. Forget the rising seas and things. Let's look on the bright side. Let's look at pictures of the glaciers that are getting bigger! You know I can tell you are a glass half empty sorta guy. Hey, the planet is always doing weird stuff. First it's all covered with water, then with ice...it's probably all just natural. We are in an ice age right now! See? That proves everything is fine.
And anyway, I'm sure that if anything really is wrong the invisible hand of the free market will take care of it just like it takes care of everything. So relax.
(Cue music from the Perfect Storm.)
19 - STM
I must admit, I am a climate-change sceptic in so much as we are having this stuff rammed down our throats by the climate-change obsessed, who are using emotive words like "heretics" and "deniers" to describe those who don't subscribe entirely (note that word) their point of view.
Because I live in the Pacific, and the other side of this continent borders the Indian Ocean, where island communities such as the Maldives are losing their homes and land (Maldivians are nopw talking about moving en masse to Australia at a certain point), I can categorically state that rising sea levels are no joke when you live a few feet above sea level.
However, I object to the those in this country who want to ram through emissions trading schemes without taking into account that Australia produces about 1 per cent of the world's harmful emissions and without the US, China, India and the Sth American countries all on board, what we do here has virtually no impact except on local jobs and grocery prices that are already among the highest in the world.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but going it alone is madness until we see what is happening in at the Copenhagen conference later this year.
I know the US is passing new legislation, but it's nowhere near as radical as that proposed here and to be honest, I wish the green movement hadn't turned it into a preachy, near religion.
Most of us know it's an issue but having the greenies rushing about like little bolsheviks isn't helping the cause in any way shape or form.
One example of the madness is currently happening in the heart of Sydney.
Sydney City Council, the local government authority for Australia's largest city, has recently introduced small worm farms for waste at Town Hall and banned consumption of the iconic Aussie chocolate biscuit (cookie), the Tim Tam, after its council meetings because they say the chocolate used - wait for it - isn't produced fairly or sustainably.
What's next: council expeditions/junkets to India and Ceylon to research sustaible tea to be served with sustainable biscuits.
There's a limit to how much of this nonsense the average Joe or Joanne can take. Let's focus on the real issues at hand: emissions, and not just here, but right across the globe, before we start going mad on the other stuff and turning everyone off completely.
20 - Ruvy
Wake me up on 1 Tishri 5773 (around Sept 2013).
If you guys are still whining about this garbage, you will have all passed the test....
I'm going back to sleep.
21 - Cindy
Stan,
Sydney City Council, the local government authority for Australia's largest city, has recently introduced small worm farms for waste at Town Hall and banned consumption of the iconic Aussie chocolate biscuit (cookie), the Tim Tam, after its council meetings because they say the chocolate used - wait for it - isn't produced fairly or sustainably.
The average Joe or whomever better start getting used to it. Since not being sustainable or fair means someone is working their life away as a slave so you can have a cookie!
Do you hear yourself? It's okay that some child is working at age 5 to help support a family because no adults are paid enough to keep the family alive and you don't want to be inconvenienced?
22 - STM
Cindy: Tim Tams are an innocuous choccy biscuit of iconic status. These are like the Aussie equivalent of Oreos. Their big crime in the council's eyes is the chocolate coating.
The biscuit company that produces them is adamant that it works on a fair-trade basis when it buys its cacao and does not buy from producers that use child labour.
The issue for the council is that there are child-labour problems in the Ivory Coast (generally, I'd assume), although Arnotts says its purchases are made on a fair-trade basis.
The council has gone completely mad and also banned eggs and red meat under its "cruelty-free food policy". Most products now eaten at council events have to be grown in the Sydney area and the fish can only be catch regarded as sustainable. Fair enough on the fish, as I'm a believer in sustainable fish stocks, but the rest of it's a crock.
There are plenty of free-range eggs available locally, and lots of organic red meat. I mean, this country even in the face of great climate adversity is one the world's largest producers of fresh food - meat especially - and there's very little grain feeding except in drought-affected areas ... they're all out there in the nice green paddock having fun until the time comes.
What I object to is the council making decisions most of us don't agree with and deciding that a large company must be lying even when it's adamant it's not.
It's just getting completely ridiculous here. It's almost become a quasi religion.
And like the story says, it's political correctness gone mad.
Plus, Cindy, I don't need lectures.
23 - Philip Harris
All very interesting comments.
I have discovered that to get at the heart of the matter, it is necessary to get past the headlines and the sensationalism. It is helpful to subscribe to many science sites and not just CNN. Having said that, my conclusions still stand.
With proper research, some very scary things are happening. The lessening of salt concentration in the ocean, massive loss of marine species, loss of plankton, proven migration changes, animals getting smaller due to heat, new invasive species, loss of bees, bat killing fungus, forest destroying bugs, and tons more. These types of things do not make major headlines--but when you look at the individual stories and put them all together-ouch!
WE do not have 91 years. Every time a new forecast comes out, they say things are happening faster than predicted. The rate of cgange is becoming exponential. Actually look at the climate stories, not just the headlines and you inevitably see-glacier melting faster that predicted, sea rising faster than previously thought, migrations changing quicker, sea life dying faster, etc. The 'we have plenty of time' is the myth. And you know what, if there was 91 years, when will these projects start? Who will pay for them? Should we have a coastal evacuation stimulus plan. Who will pay? With coal companies openly funding dis-information, people won't believe they need to act. As a matter of fact, polls show people are getting less concerned about climate because of economy. "How can we sleep while our beds are burning?" Because there are those who are making you look the other.
Yes, will need culture change. My God, our world runs on dead plants-only so many plants died. The sad thing is-and this is another reason for a failing grade-is that almost all that we have today can be produced in a sustainable manner. Companies and we have chosen not to care. We fail, we lose. My friends, you will see and experiences the changes in your lifetime-sooner than later.
24 - Clavos
How much polluting did they do on an hourly basis in contrast to the massive amounts of shit we pump into the sea now? And how much fishing did they do in contrast to the massive amounts done now?
Go back and read Doc's original comment. That wasn't his point and not the point of my response to him.
25 - Philip Harris
IN HOT WATER: Worldwide ocean surface temperatures in June were the warmest on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.