Author: Neville

  • Falling Apart MONBIOT

    here to enable desktop notifications for Gmail.   Learn more  Hide
    1 of 2
    AdAward Winning Home Loanwww.loans.com.au – From 4.54% (4.56% Comparison Rate) Offer Ends Soon! Apply Online Now.

    Falling Apart – monbiot.com

    Inbox
    x

    George Monbiot news@monbiot.com via google.com 

    6:03 PM (0 minutes ago)

    to me

    Falling Apart – monbiot.com


    Falling Apart

    Posted: 14 Oct 2014 12:20 PM PDT

    Competition and individualism are forcing us into a devastating Age of Loneliness

    By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 15th October 2014

    What do we call this time? It’s not the information age: the collapse of popular education movements left a void now filled by marketing and conspiracy theories(1). Like the stone age, iron age and space age, the digital age says plenty about our artefacts but little about society. The anthropocene, in which humans exert a major impact on the biosphere, fails to distinguish this century from the previous twenty. What clear social change marks out our time from those that precede it? To me it’s obvious. This is the Age of Loneliness.

    When Thomas Hobbes claimed that in the state of nature, before authority arose to keep us in check, we were engaged in a war “of every man against every man”(2), he could not have been more wrong. We were social creatures from the start, mammalian bees, who depended entirely on each other. The hominims of East Africa could not have survived one night alone. We are shaped, to a greater extent than almost any other species, by contact with others. The age we are entering, in which we exist apart, is unlike any that has gone before.

    Three months ago we read that loneliness has become an epidemic among young adults(3). Now we learn that it is just as great an affliction of older people. A study by Independent Age shows that severe loneliness in England blights the lives of 700,000 men and 1.1m women over 50(4), and is rising with astonishing speed.

    Ebola is unlikely ever to kill as many people as this disease strikes down. Social isolation is as potent a cause of early death as smoking 15 cigarettes a day(5); loneliness, research suggests, is twice as deadly as obesity(6). Dementia, high blood pressure, alcoholism and accidents – all these, like depression, paranoia, anxiety and suicide, become more prevalent when connections are cut(7,8). We cannot cope alone.

    Yes, factories have closed, people travel by car instead of buses, use YouTube rather than the cinema. But these shifts alone fail to explain the speed of our social collapse. These structural changes have been accompanied by a life-denying ideology, which enforces and celebrates our social isolation. The war of every man against every man – competition and individualism in other words – is the religion of our time, justified by a mythology of lone rangers, sole traders, self-starters, self-made men and women, going it alone. For the most social of creatures, who cannot prosper without love, there is now no such thing as society, only heroic individualism. What counts is to win. The rest is collateral damage.

    British children no longer aspire to be train drivers or nurses, more than a fifth now say they “just want to be rich”: wealth and fame are the sole ambitions of 40% of those surveyed(9). A government study in June revealed that Britain is the loneliness capital of Europe(10). We are less likely than other Europeans to have close friends or to know our neighbours. Who can be surprised, when everywhere we are urged to fight like stray dogs over a dustbin?

    We have changed our language to reflect this shift. Our most cutting insult is loser. We no longer talk about people. Now we call them individuals. So pervasive has this alienating, atomising term become that even the charities fighting loneliness use it to describe the bipedal entities formerly known as human beings(11). We can scarcely complete a sentence without getting personal. Personally speaking (to distinguish myself from a ventriloquist’s dummy), I prefer personal friends to the impersonal variety and personal belongings to the kind that don’t belong to me. Though that’s just my personal preference, otherwise known as my preference.

    One of the tragic outcomes of loneliness is that people turn to their televisions for consolation: two-fifths of older people now report that the one-eyed god is their principal company(12). This self-medication enhances the disease. Research by economists at the University of Milan suggests that television helps to drive competitive aspiration(13). It strongly reinforces the income-happiness paradox: the fact that, as national incomes rise, happiness does not rise with them.

    Aspiration, which increases with income, ensures that the point of arrival, of sustained satisfaction, retreats before us. The researchers found that those who watch a lot of television derive less satisfaction from a given level of income than those who watch only a little. Television speeds up the hedonic treadmill, forcing us to strive even harder to sustain the same level of satisfaction. You have only to think of the wall-to-wall auctions on daytime TV, Dragon’s Den, the Apprentice and the myriad forms of career-making competition the medium celebrates, the generalised obsession with fame and wealth, the pervasive sense, in watching it, that life is somewhere other than where you are, to see why this might be.

    So what’s the point? What do we gain from this war of all against all? Competition drives growth, but growth no longer makes us wealthier. Figures published this week show that while the income of company directors has risen by more than a fifth, wages for the workforce as a whole have fallen in real terms over the past year (14). The bosses now earn – sorry, I mean take – 120 times more than the average full-time worker. (In 2000, it was 47 times). And even if competition did make us richer, it would make us no happier, as the satisfaction derived from a rise in income would be undermined by the aspirational impacts of competition.

    The top 1% now own 48% of global wealth(15), but even they aren’t happy. A survey by Boston College of people with an average net worth of $78m found that they too are assailed by anxiety, dissatisfaction and loneliness(16). Many of them reported feeling financially insecure: to reach safe ground, they believed, they would need, on average, about 25% more money. (And if they got it? They’d doubtless need another 25%). One respondent said he wouldn’t get there until he had $1 billion in the bank.

    For this we have ripped the natural world apart, degraded our conditions of life, surrendered our freedoms and prospects of contentment to a compulsive, atomising, joyless hedonism, in which, having consumed all else, we start to prey upon ourselves. For this we have destroyed the essence of humanity: our connectedness.

    Yes, there are palliatives, clever and delightful schemes like Men in Sheds and Walking Football developed by charities for isolated older people(17). But if we are to break this cycle and come together once more, we must confront the world-eating, flesh-eating system into which we have been forced.

    Hobbes’s pre-social condition was a myth. But we are now entering a post-social condition our ancestors would have believed impossible. Our lives are becoming nasty, brutish and long.

    www.monbiot.com

    References:

    1. http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/hj1.html

    2. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html

    3. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/20/loneliness-britains-silent-plague-hurts-young-people-most

    4. http://www.independentage.org/isolation-a-growing-issue-among-older-men/

    5. http://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/threat-to-health/

    6. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/16/loneliness-twice-as-unhealthy-as-obesity-older-people

    7. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/20/loneliness-britains-silent-plague-hurts-young-people-most

    8. http://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/threat-to-health/

    9. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11014591/One-in-five-children-just-want-to-be-rich-when-they-grow-up.html

    10. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10909524/Britain-the-loneliness-capital-of-Europe.html

    11. http://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/05/FINAL-Age-UK-PR-response-02.05.14.pdf

    12. http://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/loneliness-research/

    13. http://boa.unimib.it/bitstream/10281/23044/2/Income_Aspirations_Television_and_Happiness.pdf

    14. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4234843.ece

    15. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/14/richest-1percent-half-global-wealth-credit-suisse-report

    16. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/308419/

    17. http://www.independentage.org/isolation-a-growing-issue-among-older-men/

  • Daily update: The guerilla tactics allowing solar to beat utilities

    1 of 1
    AdHome Loan Pre Approvalwww.loans.com.au – 3 Month Home Loan Pre Approval. Takes Just 2 Minutes! Apply Now.

    Daily update: The guerilla tactics allowing solar to beat utilities

    Inbox
    x

    Renew Economy editor@reneweconomy.com.au via mail69.atl51.rsgsv.net 

    4:51 PM (1 hour ago)

    to me
    The Guerrilla tactics allowing solar to beat utilities; Ergon looks to take some customers off grid; Another abbreviated newsletter caused by our “technical difficulties”. We hope to resume normal service tomorrow.
    Is this email not displaying correctly?
    View it in your browser.
    RenewEconomy Daily News
    The Parkinson Report
    Attempts by some utilities to erect barriers around their business models is inspiration some innovative work-arounds from the solar and battery storage industry. Welcome to the “guerrilla” war between solar and the old energy models.
    Ergon Energy looks to take remote customers off-grid rather than paying for grid upgrades. It wants “visibility” on costs to encourage alternative technologies.
    Survey finds 90% of Australian households considering installing rooftop solar to address one of life’s major stressors – unaffordable power bills.
  • Standing up to the fossil fuel industry with our Pacific neighbours;

    1 of 6
    AdI want to retire abroadwww.escapologist.com.au – Now you can live in luxury for less These 3 countries are safe & cheap

    A turning point?

    Inbox
    x

    Charlie Wood – 350.org Australia <charlie@350.org>

    5:03 PM (46 minutes ago)

    to me

    Dear Sydney friend,

    This week, I’ve seen two confronting sides of the coin that is climate change.

    Last Friday, as thirty young Pacific Islanders arrived on our shores to stand up to the fossil fuel industry driving the destruction of their homes, I received an email from the President of The Marshall Islands College, asking for assistance in divesting his university from fossil fuels. Attached were thirteen photos of the frightening floods that have just hit the Islands and are evermore frequently scourging his home.

    I sat, speechless. Here was a people suffering the worst impacts of climate change yet who had done nothing to cause the problem – offering to help, not just their country, but all countries, by standing up to the fossil fuel industry and divesting from climate disruption. This fighting, hopeful spirit of the Pacific brought tears to my eyes.

    Meanwhile, back home, an announcement from Australia’s National University that they will divest* from two fossil fuel companies has prompted our Federal Treasurer to lambast ANU’s Vice Chancellor and our Financial Press to wage a condemnatory campaign, now into its eleventh day. It has even compelled our Prime Minister to exclaim, in his wisdom, that “Coal is Good for Humanity.” The contrast couldn’t be more stark.

    But, albeit confronting, these events, I believe, are a major turning point for Australia.

    They are laying bare the degree to which our politicians and our press are wedded to an industry whose activities will tank the planet. But more importantly, they’re highlighting the inexorable courage of our Pacific neighbours to tackle the heart of this problem and inspire all Australians to do the same.

    And this gives me great hope as we move into times that will be more difficult and confronting than humanity has ever faced.

    With the world’s largest coal port to blockade and millions more dollars to shift out of fossil fuels, the next fortnight will be 350.org Australia’s biggest and most challenging yet. We hope you will join us where and when you can by:

    Because, to change everything, we need everyone.

    Yours, with hope for the massive times ahead,

    Charlie

  • Climate change: Models ‘underplay plant CO2 absorption’

    Climate change: Models ‘underplay plant CO2 absorption’

    leavesLeaves absorb significantly more CO2 that climate models have estimated

    Related Stories

    Global climate models have underestimated the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plants, according to new research.

    Scientists say that between 1901 and 2010, living things absorbed 16% more of the gas than previously thought.

    The authors say it explains why models consistently overestimated the growth rate of carbon in the atmosphere.

    But experts believe the new calculation is unlikely to make a difference to global warming predictions.

    The research has been published in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Working out the amount of carbon dioxide that lingers in the atmosphere is critical to estimating the future impacts of global warming on temperatures.

    About half the CO2 that’s produced ends up in the oceans or is absorbed by living things.

    But modelling the exact impacts on a global scale is a fiendishly complicated business.

    In this new study, a team of scientists looked again at the way trees and plants absorb carbon.

    By analysing how CO2 spreads slowly inside leaves, a process called mesophyll diffusion, the authors conclude that more of the gas is absorbed than previously thought.

    Between 1901 and 2100 the researchers believe that their new work increases the amount of carbon taken up through fertilisation from 915 billion tonnes to 1,057 billion, a 16% increase.

    “There is a time lag between scientists who study fundamental processes and modellers who model those processes in large scale model,” explained one of the authors, Dr Lianhong Gu at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US.

    “It takes time for the the two groups to understand each other.”

    leavesScientists monitor carbon dioxide levels near trees to work out how much is absorbed

    The researchers believe that Earth systems models have over estimated the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by about 17%, and think their new evaluation of plant absorption explains the gap.

    “The atmospheric CO2 concentration only started to accelerate rapidly after 1950,” said Dr Gu.

    “So the 17% bias was achieved during a period of about 50 years. If we are going to predict future CO2 concentration increases for hundreds of years, how big would that bias be?”

    Model revampOther researchers believe the new work could help clarify our models but it may not mean any great delay in global warming as a result of increased concentrations of the gas.

    “The paper provides great new insights into how the very intricacies of leaf structure and function can have a planetary scale impact,” said Dr Pep Canadell from the Global Carbon Project at CSIRO Australia.

    “It provides a potential explanation for why global earth system models cannot fully reproduce the observed atmospheric CO2 growth over the past 100 years and suggests that vegetation might be able to uptake more carbon dioxide in the future than is currently modelled.

    “Having more carbon taken up by plants would slow down climate change but there are many other processes which lay in between this work and the ultimate capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to remove carbon dioxide and store it for long enough to make a difference to atmospheric CO2 trends.”

    Many experts agree that the effect is interesting and may require a recalibration of models – but it doesn’t change the need for long-term emissions cuts to limit the impact of carbon dioxide.

    “This new research implies it will be slightly easier to fulfil the target of keeping global warming below two degrees – but with a big emphasis on ‘slightly’,” said Dr Chris Huntingford, a climate modeller at the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

    “Overall, the cuts in CO2 emissions over the next few decades will still have to be very large if we want to keep warming below two degrees.”

    Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmcgrathbbc.

  • Rising sea levels of 1.8 meters in worst-case scenario

    News > All news > 2014 > 2014.10 > Rising sea levels of 1…

    13 October 2014

    Rising sea levels of 1.8 meters in worst-case scenario

    Sea level:

    The climate is getting warmer, the ice sheets are melting and sea levels are rising – but how much? The report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 was based on the best available estimates of future sea levels, but the panel was not able to come up with an upper limit for sea level rise within this century. Now researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute and their colleagues have calculated the risk for a worst-case scenario. The results indicate that at worst, the sea level would rise a maximum of 1.8 meters. The results are published in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters.

    The storm surge of Hurricane Sandy reached 2.8 m above mean high tide in New York. In the future less severe storms will cause comparable surge levels due rising sea level. The unlikely worst case scenario for sea level rise this century is estimated to be 1.8 m, which would translate into approximately 20 times more frequent Sandy level surges. (Photo credit: David Shankbone, CC-BY-3.0)

    What causes the sea to rise is when all the water that is now frozen as ice and lies on land melts and flows into the sea. It is first and foremost about the two large, kilometer-thick ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica, but also mountain glaciers.

    In addition, large amounts of groundwater is pumped for both drinking water and agricultural use in many parts of the world and more groundwater is pumped than seeps back down into the ground, so this water also ends up in the oceans.

    Finally, what happens is that when the climate gets warmer, the oceans also get warmer and hot water expands and takes up more space. But how much do the experts expect the sea levels to rise during this century at the maximum?

    Melting of the ice sheets

    “We wanted to try to calculate an upper limit for the rise in sea level and the biggest question is the melting of the ice sheets and how quickly this will happen. The IPCC restricted their projektions to only using results based on models of each process that contributes to sea level. But the greatest uncertainty in assessing the evolution of sea levels is that ice sheet models have only a limited ability to capture the key driving forces in the dynamics of the ice sheets in relation to climatic impact,” Aslak Grinsted, Associate Professor at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen

    The worst-case sea level projections is shown in red. There is 95% certainty that sea level will not rise faster than this upper-limit. Purple shows the likely range of sea level rise as projected in the IPCC fifth assessment report under a scenario with rising emissions throughout the 21st century (RCP8.5). (Credit: Aslak Grinsted, NBI)

    Aslak Grinsted has therefore, in collaboration with researchers from England and China, worked out new calculations. The researchers have combined the IPCC numbers with published data about the expectations within the ice-sheet expert community for the evolution, including the risk for the collapse of parts of Antarctica and how quickly such a collapse would take place.

    “We have created a picture of the propable limits for how much global sea levels will rise in this century. Our calculations show that the seas will likely rise around 80 cm. An increase of more than 180 cm has a likelihood of less than 5 percent. We find that a rise in sea levels of more than 2 meters is improbable,” Aslak Grinsted, but points that the results only concern this century and the sea levels will continue to rise for centuries to come

  • Divestment Leak Fast Becoming a Flood