The IPCC has said that the planning to limit global temperatures rises to below 2C by 2100 is not now a goal that will be achieved, instead advising we must stop warming before it exceeds 1.5C by 2030. That is twelve years of accelerating and increasing decline in stability before we are well and truly cooked. Blame this directly on Donald Trump and his apocalyptic economics. This time he can not just bankrupt the enterprise as the economy adjusts to unsustainable tax cuts with an infrastructure that no longer looks after its people.
In the opening minutes of the Trump-Kim summit it will become very obvious that Trump will withdraw because Kim does not immediately lie down and offer his entire nuclear arsenal in exchange for reunification with South Korea.
Kim has already achieved what he wants – a meeting with the US President. He will offer an exchange of denuclearisation – he will give up his weapons when the remaining nuclear powers give up their and he will then demand a set on the Security Council.
Trump will then depart. Kim will have made his point.
Does North Korea pose a genuine threat to the USA with a handful of nuclear missiles pointed in its general direction?
Does the USA pose a genuine threat to North Korea?
Both bear the scars of a dreadful war in the early 1950s; a war that has not officially ended. In the intervening years, South Korea has emerged as a powerhouse exporting nation with advanced technology competing with Japan and China boasting companies such as Samsung. North Korea, in comparison, has locked itself into a military specialisation to the detriment of its own people who slavishly admire their leader or land up in a gulag, starved to death.
And now they are testing ICBM missiles and it is only a matter of time before they are able to use one against its enemy, the sponsor of South Korea, the USA. And now both countries have belligerent leaders who want to prove themselves with a “good war”.
The USA accuse Russia and China of responsibility here. Russia and China would rather not be at war with the USAA, so having a proxy threat is perhaps useful. All out nuclear war, of course, is in the interests of nobody.
What is the endgame for this terrible standoff? It seems unlikely that either party would not blink due to the nature of Nuclear weapons. If North Korea were to risk launching one, the retaliation could be complete and final. They will never have enough weapons to stop a systematic invasion let alone a nuclear response, but America would most likely have to live with the threat until it can justify action to China and Russia or better yet, engage with them to finally oust the military regime of North Korea.
Reunification turned Germany into a world leader. It is time for Korea to reconsider its path for mutual benefit between the North and the South. Is it in the interests of the West, Japan or anyone for North Koreans to suffer so and for the shroud of death to hang over the region? Does Trump style diplomacy help or is there a better way to help the Koreans to unify?
Have a look at some scenes from cities of the world, with 2 degrees of global warming compared with 4 degrees of warming.
Or use these diagrams against a world map to see maps of water damage to cities with unchecked pollution or a 2 degree or 4 degree temperature change.
Why is the UK government spending billions on the historic Houses of Parliament and Big Ben when they will be underwater with the planned 2 degrees of temperature.
And if the politicians are able to hold the very long term threat to 2 degrees and stop methane or other gases that cause accelerated warming from having any effect, or the odd storm or tsunami from destroying riverside buildings and other expensive soggy properties.
The WHO warns that air pollution is killing millions in cities. It is a growing problem – cities in China and India covered by thick smog. In the UK London has exceeded its NO2 levels for 2016 a few days into the year. Politicians are questioning the value of expansion at Heathrow if it increases the level of air pollution and makes millions more at risk.
Long ago Disturbing Trends identified air pollution as the primary problem facing human survival. It seems that via the alarm of the consequences of global warming which is now climate change or instability the idea that our cities can kill us now seems evident. The most frightening aspect of which is that for many, the damage is already being inflicted. On us. On all life in badly polluted cities. Live hard, die young. Almost guaranteed.
Now posh Delhi homes can get air filters which no doubt in a constant kind of way have a daily cost in energy multiplied by 3 million homes this may expand into therefore making the air of Delhi pollute another part of the country sigificantly whilst protecting the lives of these inhabitants. Or they could create stronger norms of industrial behaviour: e.g. using filters on chimneys by immediate legislation or your factory gets shut down. The government could help those in financial need. Remove the pollution because tolerating it is making your environment, i.e. all life forms at risk of extinction.
It is beyond comprehension why
The Guardian is putting Climate Change “front and centre”.
We are different to any other species in that we have evolved what we call economics, science of extending survival. Or is it a massive inter-generational war that the current political generation are guilty of, increasingly responsible for causing environmental collapse.
Why do we measure progress by growth? When we solve that one, and measure progress with an economics that includes compounding interest for any future consequence of our indulgence.
Only then we can call ourselves good Christians or good Muslims or good Jews. We remain greedy and primitive in our mutual interests. Why think like this?
Part of the lesson of certain matters remaining secular and out of the control of the driving faith or the possessors of property or the military – but that the ultimate control must remain honestly in the hands of the people. So we have countries for that. But faith is a personal matter and your path to your saviour or prophet is a relationship between your self and something all powerful. Therefore when you are praying together it is as though a casting of individual threads to your personal heaven is a revelation to the self, not to the army, not to the workforce, not to the merchants, the bankers or even the holy ones we listen to preach their secret messages in sermons to the initiated. In all religions there seems to be a strata that pulls people up – spirituality is a wonderful thing, don’t get me wrong.
Having to take sides for your whole life is the commitment of belief. But the essence of individuality is the thing. It is the most important and elusive thing. Your thread can vibrate within a group but it can also find its own pattern. It does not matter. If we align beliefs into destructive paths then as a group we start to consume that which we have no right to, we take that we have to leave alone. The first lesson in The Book of Genesis was not to take the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge or die. Not to take the irreplaceable fruit means we must consider requirements of future life in our consumption.
The ways in which competing religions have interpreted this basic tenet of their own belief is astounding. The destruction of species is wanton, selfish and will result on our own death.
These words or wisdom are drowned by the clash of battle as we fight for our set of beliefs. But this fundamental exists. If we sow extinction, then we will become extinct. I am just not sure if today’s political science really gives a damn about the future.