Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Climate Change: SOS for Humanity’s Survival

Climate change is a real danger for humanity’s future.

Gilbert Mercier

Published

on

651 Views

This article was first published by News Junkie Post

Unless one lives in the alternate reality of religious beliefs, it has become impossible to deny and ignore a simple fact: very soon, perhaps within only two decades, humans will join the crowded groups of endangered species. While polar bears, lions, and elephants are solely the victims of men’s cruel and reckless stupidity, humans are collectively both the perpetrators and the ultimate victims of a self-inflicted mass genocide. We, and that is all of us who consume, procreate, and function within the parameters of a capitalist system driven by permanent economic and population growth, have behaved since the mid-19th century industrial revolution like millions of termite colonies eating away our own house. In less than 200 years, humans have managed to put many thousands of years of fairly harmonious and acceptable impact on our host planet and other species in jeopardy.

The anthropocentric notions that humans can either save the planet or “make our planet great again,” as expressed by the demagogue and new French president Emmanuel Macron, are both arrogant and stupid. The planet will be fine when we are gone. It is the  survival of our own species, and thousands of other ones in the process of being decimated by human activities, that is at stake. In time, once the wounds inflicted have healed, perhaps after thousands of years, new species will emerge from the destruction of a man-made post-Apocalyptic world. For many scientists, 2100 seems to be the breaking point when the bite of climate change events might be so severe that it is conceivable that most of the earth’s surface will be uninhabitable.

Hell on Earth

Fires, floods, droughts, famines, mass migrations and lawlessness  are not mere worst case scenarios of doom and gloom in the forecast, they are already here and will only exponentially intensify as billions of people have to move from flooded coastal areas or the sun-scorched vast stretches of land which will make the 1930s United States Dust Bowl era landscape look like the Garden of Eden. As the social fabric disintegrates, people will fight for basic survival necessities: that is for food, water and shelter. If  for decades, extreme weather-related events have affected mainly the poor worldwide, this is about to change as climate negative events reach a critical mass and become the great equalizer between rich and poor, as well as prosperous industrialized nations and developing ones. By 2050, when the ice caps have melted at both Poles and the glaciers are gone, some of the priciest real estate in the world, such as New York City, Miami, London, and Hong Kong will be around six feet under water worthless ghost towns.

While reversing or stopping the auto-destruction process is not an option, urgently and collectively slowing it down should be the only absolute global priority, to delay a fraction of the horrendous collective pain to come. The recent exit of the Donald Trump administration from the so-called climate change Paris Agreement provoked  an uproar among the pseudo environmentally aware people in the international community. The truth of the matter is, the Paris Agreement consists of vague politically correct talk, but with no binding commitment to a vast array of  the draconian actions needed; as such, it is as effective as putting a bandage on the Titanic. As an example, both London and Paris are planning a ban on gasoline and diesel vehicles within the city parameters in 2040. This is, evidently, another case of too little too late ineffective measures. The technology of non polluting electrical cars has been available worldwide for decades, but was never pushed aggressively enough on consumers by lowering the manufacturing prices and through tax incentives, as well as prohibitive taxation on hydrocarbon-fueled vehicles.

2100: The year of living very dangerously

It is rather ironic that it took the election of some climate change deniers in the US to push the scientific community and the international mainstream media to become finally more honest and candid about the already dire consequences of climate change and the upcoming global environmental collapse which, let’s be blunt, cannot be avoided. Two scientific studies were recently published. Both are still a little bit too cautious in their language and fail to consider overpopulation as a major factor, but short of sounding alarmist like they rightly should, there is an unusual, not very scientific business-as-usual, sense of urgency. Both papers define 2100 as a breaking point benchmark and are meant to be wake-up calls for comatose policymakers and a generally dazed global public opinion. The scientific facts are sobering to say the least, but the idiotic giant will stay asleep and eventually die.

One study in Nature establishes that there is 95 percent chance that global warming will be higher than two degree Celsius (2 oC) by 2100. Further the paper shows that the likely range of global temperature increase is in fact between 2 and 4.9 degrees Celsius. As our colleague Dady Chery pointed out back in 2012 in “Climate Change: Dying by Two Degrees,” a surface temperature increase of two degree Celsius and above is the certitude of an imminent ecological system collapse on Earth. Another scientific paper in The Lancet was strictly focused on Europe, as it was financed by the European Commission. The key point of the extensive study is that weather-related disasters are likely to affect 2/3 of the European population annually by 2100. The study estimates that 152,000 deaths due to climate events could occur annually in Europe by 2100, as opposed to 3,000 for the reference time bracket of the paper, which were the years 1981 to 2010.

Desperate measures for precarious survival

The zero-growth hypothesis, or even better negative growth, both economically and in terms of population, should have been a global goal a few decades ago when the runaway train of our own annihilation could still have been derailed. In regard to population, the one-child policy introduced in 1979 by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping was the right idea and should have been emulated worldwide. Unfortunately, it was not pursued even in China, where the unpopular policy was phased out in 2015. In 2017, despite the unquestionable evidence of the catastrophic outcome for all, we are still largely completely oblivious and behaving like it is business-as-usual, by extracting resources, producing, consuming, and breeding ourselves to extinction.

This simply amounts to collective suicide as well as criminal neglect from people who still have the urge to procreate in a world on the verge of collapse. Why inflict the pain and sorrow of a bleak future on the unborn? According to UNICEF, each day more than 350,000 babies are born worldwide. Those born in 2017 will join the ranks of 7.5 billion populating this planet. Forty years from now, the landscapes and nightmarish conditions of existence could be similar to those depicted in post-Apocalyptic movies like Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, or Waterworld. But are there any possible contingency plans of survival for at least some of us when Earth becomes unlivable?

Some extremely wealthy people, such as the CEO of Tesla Motors, have mentioned space colonization as an option. This seems completely unrealistic, unless they consider putting a giant space station into orbit around the earth and strictly restrict its use to VIP. Food supplies could be provided by growing food in greenhouses and breeding livestock and fish. After a few decades, the station would start to fall apart, and the confinement would give the mega-rich the notion that they are living in a golden cage in orbit. More realistically, vast subterranean dwellings might be considered. The technology to dig very large and deep shelters is here. After all, French and English engineers were able to dig the Channel Tunnel. One can imagine a network of underground cities powered by solar panels on the surface as well as a systematic collection of rain water. Large greenhouses and plenty of livestock could accommodate the population’s needs. The cities could be connected by tunnels to share resources, information and some form of governance. Beside subterranean solutions, other options, made possible in principle by our technology, such as floating and subaquatic cities could be considered. By 2150, billions of humans will more than likely have died from our own follies and the criminal ineptitude of our so-called leaders, both in government instances and private corporations worldwide. If we quickly work collectively on some contingency plans, life for the survivors will be challenging, but perhaps a very small percentage of our number could courageously pursue the human adventure.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending