Decline of the Empire

No Joy In Mudville

Oh, somewhere in this favored land, the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout,
But there is no joy in Mudville—mighty Casey has struck out
   — Casey At The Bat by Ernest Lawrence Thayer

I don't go after "climate deniers" on DOTE because the psychological stuff I'm trying to describe is far more subtle than the example such people provide. There's nothing subtle about "climate truthers," which is Dave Roberts' preferred term in AP says to call climate deniers "climate doubters." Whatever. (Vox, September 24, 2015).  

[The Associated Press], in its Solomonic wisdom, has elected to eschew both terms. Instead it's going with "climate change doubter," or alternatively, "those who reject mainstream climate science," which trips right off the tongue.

Predictably, this pleased no one...

My hot take: It doesn't really matter. Nothing of particular consequence rests on what journalists choose to call these people. Certainly nothing that would justify the endless hours of debate that have been devoted to it.

Personally, I like the term "climate truthers," which better captures the flavor of the thing. It's not like "those who reject mainstream climate science" all have the same story about why they reject it. There are dozens of varieties of counter-theories, as many as there are theories about Kennedy's assassination. What unites them all is a conviction that the official story can't be right, that it's covering for a nefarious agenda, that the truth is out there.

So the AP whitewashed the labeling problem. (I prefer the term "fuckheads".)

Those who reject mainstream climate science (truthers, deniers, doubters) illustrate a highly generalized cognitive process which I called "bad news filtering" in the first Flatland essay. Climate science is nothing but bad news. A significant proportion of the population, at least in the weird world called the United States, filters such bad news in the crudest kind of way—simple denial. These "doubters" use all sorts of unconscious post-hoc strategies to rationalize their rejection of the science.

Environmentalists also filter bad news, but in a far more elaborate way, so I tend to concentrate on them in describing how Flatland works. Personally, I divide the human world into mammals and reptiles. I prefer to write about the mammals 

Climate Change For Adults

As I perused the Flatland landscape today—think of it abstractly as a huge 2-dimensional square—I felt the urge to add that dreaded third dimension, the one humans can not see. That 3rd dimension is called depth. And since I was reading Flatland climate discussions, adding depth in this context means we can have a climate change discussion for adults. Adults do not exist in Flatland.

Michael Mann and some of his colleagues have come up with a simple model of climate sensitivity which says humans will get 2 degrees centigrade (2°C) of warming by 2036 in a "business as usual" (BAU) scenario. That's not 2 more degrees over what we already have; that's 2 degrees total above the pre-industrial average. Flatlander Robert Scribbler is hysterical about Mann's model results, which is par-for-the-course for him. Here's the bottom line, with some clarifying interjections so you can understand the technical language.

Mann wraps coal and other human aerosol emissions into his equation and, under business as usual, finds that we hit 2°C of ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity] warming by 2036 as global CO2 levels approach 450 ppmv and global CO2e [CO2-equivalent] values approach 540 ppmv. At that point, were the aerosols [from coal burning] to fall out we end up with an actual short term warming (ECS) response of 2.5 to 3 C and a long term response (ESS) of about 5 to 6 C. (Don’t believe me? Plug in the numbers for yourself in Mann’s climate model here.)

Oh, I believe you, Robert. We don't need to repeat the exercise. And suppose all this is more or less correct. We will have 2°C by 2036. The Scribbler then goes on to describe all the horrific consequences of that scenario. If you were planning on living after 2036, you can forget about it!

Play It Straight?

When I first saw the WWF study which estimated that 49% of the remaining animal populations in the oceans had been wiped out since 1970, I said nothing. A couple weeks later I wrote the satirical post which appeared yesterday.

I mean, what the fuck I am supposed to do with such reports? These kinds of reports come out all the time and they never have any effect. Human behavior is human behavior. Flatland is Flatland. Every day is the pretty much the same as the day before. Really, what am I supposed to do with depressing shit like that?

Play it straight?

Playing it straight, I could post a graphic or two from the study with the relevant text, make a few bitter remarks, and that's all folks. Hell, I've done that maybe a hundred times in the past on DOTE. And who cares, in the end? Nobody really. Admit it, even you guys no longer have the ability to respond to those kinds of posts, at least not after you've seen a hundred of them. Been there, done that, what's next? 

You either take this human nonsense seriously, or you don't. There is no in-between. All the serious approach does is leave everybody (including me) feeling helpless and depressed. Might as well have some fun, right?

Look at the world. I mean, really take a good look at it. In the past 24 hours, the world's biggest capitalist asshole raised the price of a life-saving drug 5000%. Volkswagen got caught lying about their "clean diesel" but really (and deceptively) peppy Jettas and Passats. George Will became apoplectic writing about the heretical views of Pope Francis on sustainability and over-consumption.

I'm not going to provide links to this Flatland horseshit, but you will find it all in The Washington Post. And that's just the last 24 hours. You will find comparable nonsense in any other daily news cycle. Did the WWF study show up in the Washington Post?  My comprehensive searches came up empty.

So, no, I can't play it straight anymore. Even when I do, writing about the Federal Reserve for example, I am left more depressed after I'm done than when I began. Fuck that.

 

A Job Well Done (Though There's Still Work To Do)

In a stunning sign of humanity's triumphant subjugation of other animals and the planet at-large, the World Wildlife Fund brings us some very good news indeed.

Within a single generation, human activity has severely damaged almost every aspect of our global oceans.

That’s the finding of a new World Wildlife Fund study, which revealed that marine populations have declined 49 percent between 1970 and 2012. The WWF’s Living Planet Index database, maintained and analysed by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), tracked 5,829 populations of 1,234 species ranging from sea birds to sharks to leatherback turtles to coral reefs. This dataset was almost twice as large as last year’s and focused on the effects climate change, habitat degradation, and over-fishing has taken on marine biodiversity.

While a 49% decline in marine populations is good news, it is very disappointing to learn that this wholesale destruction took 42 years to achieve. Certainly it is appropriate to congratulate Homo sapiens for a job well done, but there is still much work to do.

Ignore this defeatist talk of "marine protected areas" by a few weak and cowardly conservationists who have never understood humanity's true purpose on this planet. There are always a few naysayers, a few rotten apples.

As Vince Lombardi once said, "when the going gets tough, the tough get going." Yes, marine populations have declined by 49%, and that's a landmark achievement, but it also means that 51% remain. 

As always, my money is on humanity. I know we can get the job done, but we need ambitious goals.

Let's wipe out all the remaining animals in the world's oceans by 2040, a mere 25 years from now! 

I am confident that Homo sapiens is up to the task. After all, it is our Destiny. Go team!

 

The Federal Reserve — A Question of Legitimacy

A subtle shift occurred over the weekend. What we might call "new normal" uncertainty gave way to genuine uncertainty after the Federal Reserve could not bring itself to raise its short-term rate even 1/4 of 1%.  Genuine uncertainty leads to fear. Fear leads to panic. Panic has all sorts of bad consequences. This does not bode well for global financial markets or the world economy.

You see, it is a question of legitimacy. Since 2008, the Federal Reserve has been perceived as more and more important to the functioning of the "real" economy. After the initial fiscal stimulus of 2009, which petered out by 2011, the Congress has does nothing to help the Main Street economy. But Congress has very little standing among Americans anymore, who perceive correctly that its decisions do not reflect their best interests.

On the other hand, in terms of system justification theory, the Federal Reserve has been seen as more and more legitimate and important to the public interest.

We argue that there is a general (but not insurmountable) system justification motive to defend and justify the status quo and to bolster the legitimacy of the existing social order.

Such a motive is not unique to members of dominant groups.

We see it as comparable—in terms of its strength and social significance—to widely documented motives to defend and justify the interests and esteem of the self-concept and the social group.

We expand previous theoretical notions and claim that people want to hold favorable attitudes about themselves and about their own groups, but they also want to hold favorable attitudes about social and political systems that affect them.

This "system justification motive" has been so strong in recent months that political liberals, who ostensibly speak for the public interest, not financial interests, have anointed the Fed (its ZIRP policy) as the People's Savior. The Fed has been credited with lowering the unemployment rate to 5.1%, despite weak (if any) evidence to support the role of monetary policy in reducing unemployment.

Please, Miss Janet — Take Pity On The Working Man!

Today the FOMC (the Fed) will decide whether to raise interest rates 1/4 of 1%. You would think from some of the coverage that the world will end if it does so. (It won't.) But the Fed probably won't raise rates because lots of pigs feed at the zero-rate trough, and even a teensy-weensy rate hike might disrupt that feeding frenzy.

The Fed's short-term rate lowers all sorts of other interest rates (mortgages, cars, corporate bonds, etc.) but it's been clear for many years now that interest rate "stimulus" has failed to revive the Main Street economy. On the other hand, the Big Banks and the wealthy are doing very well, thank you very much.

Writing at The Week, Jeff Spross takes note of the the missing factor from the great Federal Reserve debate: The 99 percent.

... all this drama [about a possible rate hike], for the most part, is occurring within the small slice of the population that understands monetary policy and keeps an eye on it — one that's hardly representative of America writ large.

Janitors, window washers, truck drivers, and most other everyday workers are not involved in the discussion. It's economists, think tanks, policymakers, financiers, top tier business leaders, and the related media outlets. And that can create a bias in how the issue gets discussed.

No kidding.

For example, The New York Times just ran a piece on the Fed's upcoming decision, and on the possibility that this exceedingly long stretch of unusually low interest rates has encouraged a massive bull run, introducing lots of instabilities to the financial markets. Even a small hike by the Fed, the Times says, could start things unraveling.

Massive bull run = pigs, trough. There's a lot of hand-wringing about "financial stability" nowadays.

What Does The World Run On?

You should know the answer by now — it runs on optimism.

Invest in a beautiful world 

 

Sierra Nevada Snowpack Lowest In 500 Years

The Nature Climate Change note starts like this:

To the Editor — California is currently experiencing a record-setting drought that began in 2012 and recently culminated in the first state-wide water restriction. The snowpack conditions in the Sierra Nevada present an ominous sign of the severity of this drought: the 1 April 2015 snow water equivalent (SWE) was at only 5% of its historical average. In the Mediterranean climate of California, with 80% of the precipitation occurring in the winter months, Sierra Nevada snowpack plays a critical role in replenishing the state's reservoirs and provides 30% of its water supply. As a result, a multi-year and severe snowpack decline can acutely impact human and natural systems, including urban and agricultural water supplies, hydroelectric power and wildfire risk.

The lowest in 500 years. Source

I talked about climate risk the other day, noting that Flatland humans do not (and can not) assess it properly. On that subject, here is Jerry Brown talking about California and future migrations (short, 50 seconds).

"And what we see in Europe now, mass migrations, that will happen in California. As Central America and Mexico warm, people are going to get on the move [to California]."

When we see that the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which provides about 30% of California's water, is at a 500-year low, we are entitled to ask what the risk is to the Golden State.

Suppose this drought continues more or less uninterrupted for another 5 or 10 years. That would not be unusual by historical standards. The biggest difference between the current situation and that in past "megadroughts" is that there are now 38,800,000 people living in California.

So when Governor Jerry Brown talks about mass migrations, it seems to me that he might consider the risk of a mass migration out of California to other states if this drought continues at the current severity level until 2020 or beyond. The odds of that happening, at least in the foreseeable future, seem to me to be a lot higher than the odds that California must be prepared to receive millions of Central Americans driven north by climate change. And why would Mexicans and others in Central America migrate to a place where there's no water?

But that bleak scenario doesn't seem to have occurred to Governor Brown. As always with humans, the "thinking" is 

It Can't Happen Here! It Can't Happen to Me!

Again I remind you that saying that there is a risk of something bad happening and predicting that it will occur are two different things. Even if this grim scenario does not come to pass, there is in 2015 a significant (non-trivial) risk that it could to come pass. It's a worst case scenario, for sure, but sometimes shit happens.

Notes On Climate Risk

Michael Mann's Ecowatch article Climate Shock talks about the "fat tail" risks of climate change if there is a doubling of CO2 to pre-industrial levels (~550 ppm, or 700 ppm CO2-equivalent, or CO2e).

From Climate Shock: The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet, by Environmental Defense Fund senior economist Gernot Wagner and Harvard economist Martin Weitzman. There is a >10% chance that we will get 6C of warming

The point all such articles is scare people enough to get them to do something about future climate risk. All such efforts have failed up to now. Why does Mann think his latest effort might work?

Damned if I know.

An interesting related question asks how does Mann himself assess climate risk?

We find the answer in Esquire's When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job, subtitled Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can't really talk about it.

A Despicable Invidious Comparison

There is a perhaps apocryphal story that stuck in my mind when I first heard it. When Ray Goulding of the great radio-era comedy team Bob And Ray was asked why they didn't do political humor, Ray responded with a question of his own: How do you make it funnier?

Exactly. I always hesitate to write about contemporary American politics because one quickly runs out of words — sham, circus, cluster-fuck, bogus, fraudulent, bamboozle, etc. These are all good words, but somehow none of them seems to capture what's really going on. 

I will depart from my usual stay-above-the-fray stance today because there are a couple Flatland lessons in it. My usual reluctance was shattered when I saw Nate Silver's Stop Comparing Donald Trump And Bernie Sanders (fivethirtyeight.com, hat tip Tim Iacono).

A lot of people are linking the candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump under headings like “populist” and “anti-establishment.” Most of these comparisons are too cute for their own good — not only because it’s too early to come to many conclusions about the campaign, but also because Trump and Sanders are fundamentally different breeds of candidates who are situated very differently in their respective nomination races.

I had no idea this was going on. JFC!