Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I know, I wasn't recommending showing global temperature in full-scale Kelvin, only showing how small this change is overall. It's obviously an extreme example.

PS: I don't think anywhere in Ireland has ever recorded 183 K (-90 °C) :pac:

Oops, my copy editor was away for easter. obviously I meant coldest temperature recorded on earth.

I note you conveniently only showed up to 2012, the lowest year on record. We've had 5 more years since, all significantly higher. That would scupper your downward curve somewhat. Here is the chart up to 2017, with the best polynomial fit, showing ice-free not that much earlier than 2070.



I don't know why sometimes charts are posted deliberately excluding the most up-to-date data.

you got it right the first time, it was convenient. I searched google images for a graph that showed the trend as a curve, or a polynomial fit and this was one of the first I found. I'm happy to take the latest data and the longest time trends. I hate cherrypicking.

It doesn't really matter if it's a few years out of date, I already said that extending a curve in this way is not scientific and not a good way of projecting future change. The way the dwindling arctic sea ice behaves in the future will be very unlikely to follow a smooth transition and all the studies I have seen emphasize how chaotic ice generation and melt is.

I personally think that the positive feedbacks associated with reducing ice cover will speed up ice loss rapidly, but that's just my gut feeling, it's also likely that warmer conditions will lead to more precipitation that could allow ice to grow faster in winter that will delay ice loss. Or that ocean and air conditions will become less favourable for breaking up the pack ice in summer. It's virtually certain however, that the arctic will ultimately be ice free in summer as a result of global warming. It's just a matter of how long it takes.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You said that I was overstating the uncertainty. I posted ample evidence to show that I wasn't.



The data on flood numbers from that paper are primarily from "news reports", not meteorological data.

You posted a paper that dealt with European floods, with data based primarily on insurance news reports and insurance figures. If you have papers on these other regions, based on meteorological data, please share them.[/quote]
A lot of the recent data comes from the Dartmouth Flood Observatory which I already said, and these data are available on request if you would like to email them for access to it. (which I already said too)
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~floods/Dataaccess.htm
http://floodobservatory.colorado.edu/

The AMO is a largescale driver throughout much of the North American and European Atlantic regions. Its effects are not only evident in precipitation patterns but also in tropical cyclone activity. It may not directly affect the other side of the world, but it does affect tropical patterns, which could have some indirect effect on monsoons, etc.

It's funny how you're happy to attribute these effects to the AMO, but when someone says global warming is probably causing x y or z you dismiss it in exchange for any other cause.

Adding one degree of warming to a planet that has an average temperature of 14 degrees is not a small change. Some places are experiencing less warming, but other places are experiencing substantially greater warming, and this all feeds directly into the all of the existing climate systems, so that it affects everything, including the AMO, the NAO, the jet stream, El Nino and La Nina, the PDO, the gulf stream etc etc etc.

piuswal

Just for information;

https://www.livescience.com/62203-antarctica-underwater-ice-loss.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20180403-ls

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

It doesn't really matter if it's a few years out of date, I already said that extending a curve in this way is not scientific and not a good way of projecting future change. The way the dwindling arctic sea ice behaves in the future will be very unlikely to follow a smooth transition and all the studies I have seen emphasize how chaotic ice generation and melt is.

I personally think that the positive feedbacks associated with reducing ice cover will speed up ice loss rapidly, but that's just my gut feeling, it's also likely that warmer conditions will lead to more precipitation that could allow ice to grow faster in winter that will delay ice loss. Or that ocean and air conditions will become less favourable for breaking up the pack ice in summer. It's virtually certain however, that the arctic will ultimately be ice free in summer as a result of global warming. It's just a matter of how long it takes.

You're not happy with that curve but you've no problem quoting the warming curves, especially the RCP8.5 one. The ice curve above, for what it's worth, is already showing accelerating loss, albeit not from model data. It's as good an indication as anything at this stage, given all those positive and negative feedbacks you outlined.

dense

piuswal wrote: »

Just for information;

https://www.livescience.com/62203-antarctica-underwater-ice-loss.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20180403-ls

They don't really know what's what.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

http://www.newsweek.com/antarctica-melting-below-mantle-plume-almost-hot-yellowstone-supervolcano-705086

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41972297

It's like those islands they said were sinking.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

A lot of the recent data comes from the Dartmouth Flood Observatory which I already said, and these data are available on request if you would like to email them for access to it. (which I already said too)
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~floods/Dataaccess.htm
http://floodobservatory.colorado.edu/

I've just checked and 95% of those entries since 1985 have "News" as their validation. I would have liked a more reliable meteorological metric than that.

It's funny how you're happy to attribute these effects to the AMO, but when someone says global warming is probably causing x y or z you dismiss it in exchange for any other cause.

Adding one degree of warming to a planet that has an average temperature of 14 degrees is not a small change. Some places are experiencing less warming, but other places are experiencing substantially greater warming, and this all feeds directly into the all of the existing climate systems, so that it affects everything, including the AMO, the NAO, the jet stream, El Nino and La Nina, the PDO, the gulf stream etc etc etc.

AMO (and many other teleconnections) are serious drivers of local climatological trends over periods of years to decades. That's a well-established fact based on detailed observational evidence. The most powerful of these is, of course, El Niño. Are you saying that someone who doesn't fully subscribe to the agw story should also then not subscribe to these drivers too? You're comparing apples and oranges.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You're not happy with that curve but you've no problem quoting the warming curves, especially the RCP8.5 one. The ice curve above, for what it's worth, is already showing accelerating loss, albeit not from model data. It's as good an indication as anything at this stage, given all those positive and negative feedbacks you outlined.

Its not that I'm not happy with the curve, it was that a straight line trend can't be simply extended into the future.

The RCP curves are representations of how much C02 concentrations increase under different scenarios. The curves that include temperature projections also have uncertainty bars based on the uncertainty of what equilibrium climate sensitivity will end up being. The consensus is between 1.5c and 4.5c with the most probable figure of 3c. Radiative forcing alone accounts for 1.2c with the rest attributed to feedbacks.

I see no issue with this approach. You would agree with them too except you accept a very fringe low climate sensitivity figure. The ridiculously low climate sensitivity as suggested by Ray Bates of 1c has almost been reached despite us only having increased C02 concentrations to about 400ppm. 160ppm below the doubling of atmospheric CO2 required. Bates seems to think that we can add 40% more C02 to the atmosphere and only cause a tenth of a degree of warming. He seems to think that the feedbacks will be net negative despite the fact that we've already measured more warming than the change in radiative forcing alone can account for.

And given the inertia of our climate system, the Equilibrium global average temperature of 400ppm CO2 is higher than the warming we've already experienced, it just takes time for the planet to reach that equilibrium, so its highly likely that Bates ECS figure has already been beaten with only 120ppm CO2 increase, rather than the 280ppm required for a doubling of C02 as defined in climate sensitivity

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I've just checked and 95% of those entries since 1985 have "News" as their validation. I would have liked a more reliable meteorological metric than that.



AMO (and many other teleconnections) are serious drivers of local climatological trends over periods of years to decades. That's a well-established fact based on detailed observational evidence. The most powerful of these is, of course, El Niño. Are you saying that someone who doesn't fully subscribe to the agw story should also then not subscribe to these drivers too? You're comparing apples and oranges.

No, I'm saying that agw also affects these other climate drivers. It affects how long they last, how often they occur what the internal variables of these events are and if they produce weather events, how extreme those events are.

Here's one paper that looks at where El Nino

By suppressing the SSTA growth of El Niño in the eastern equatorial Pacific, the CTM contributes to more frequent occurrence of CP‐El Niño under global warming.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013052

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Its not that I'm not happy with the curve, it was that a straight line trend can't be simply extended into the future.

But wait, you were one who vehemently defended the predictions of an ice-free arctic within the next decade or so. What were you basing that on? Why did you post that polynomial image if you don't believe in extrapolation (which gives nowhere near ice-free by then).

The RCP curves are representations of how much C02 concentrations increase under different scenarios. The curves that include temperature projections also have uncertainty bars based on the uncertainty of what equilibrium climate sensitivity will end up being. The consensus is between 1.5c and 4.5c with the most probable figure of 3c. Radiative forcing alone accounts for 1.2c with the rest attributed to feedbacks.

I see no issue with this approach. You would agree with them too except you accept a very fringe low climate sensitivity figure. The ridiculously low climate sensitivity as suggested by Ray Bates of 1c has almost been reached despite us only having increased C02 concentrations to about 400ppm. 160ppm below the doubling of atmospheric CO2 required. Bates seems to think that we can add 40% more C02 to the atmosphere and only cause a tenth of a degree of warming. He seems to think that the feedbacks will be net negative despite the fact that we've already measured more warming than the change in radiative forcing alone can account for.

And given the inertia of our climate system, the Equilibrium global average temperature of 400ppm CO2 is higher than the warming we've already experienced, it just takes time for the planet to reach that equilibrium, so its highly likely that Bates ECS figure has already been beaten with only 120ppm CO2 increase, rather than the 280ppm required for a doubling of C02 as defined in climate sensitivity

And observations are barely keeping up with the bottom members of those uncertainty bars. It remains to be seen 80 years from now if they caught up, but at the moment the observations suggest the whole climate system is not as sensitive.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

No, I'm saying that agw also affects these other climate drivers. It affects how long they last, how often they occur what the internal variables of these events are and if they produce weather events, how extreme those events are.

Here's one paper that looks at where El Nino

We were talking about AMO and European floods. If you have evidence that the AMO, which would be a main influence on European precipitation, has been affected by aghc then let's have a look. These indices are greater in amplitude than any longterm global signal.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

But wait, you were one who vehemently defended the predictions of an ice-free arctic within the next decade or so. What were you basing that on? Why did you post that polynomial image if you don't believe in extrapolation (which gives nowhere near ice-free by then).



And observations are barely keeping up with the bottom members of those uncertainty bars. It remains to be seen 80 years from now if they caught up, but at the moment the observations suggest the whole climate system is not as sensitive.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

But wait, you were one who vehemently defended the predictions of an ice-free arctic within the next decade or so. What were you basing that on? Why did you post that polynomial image if you don't believe in extrapolation (which gives nowhere near ice-free by then).

quote me 'vehemently' defending an ice free arctic within the next decade then. I have said that it is possible, but nowhere did i say that it is definitely going to be ice free before 2028

And observations are barely keeping up with the bottom members of those uncertainty bars. It remains to be seen 80 years from now if they caught up, but at the moment the observations suggest the whole climate system is not as sensitive.

we have 4 billion years of evidence that the climate system is very sensitive to small changes in radiative forcing.
The planet doesn't really care whether the extra energy comes from a hotter sun, or from greenhouse gasses trapping more heat.

The changes in solar input that have led to ice ages/inter-glacial ages are measured in hundredths and tenths of a percent of the TSI.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

We were talking about AMO and European floods. If you have evidence that the AMO, which would be a main influence on European precipitation, has been affected by aghc then let's have a look. These indices are greater in amplitude than any longterm global signal.

it would be shocking if it wasn't affected by agw

The sea surface in the subpolar gyre is now as cold as it was during the last cold phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index in the 1990s. This climate index is associated with shifts in hurricane activity, rainfall patterns and intensity, and changes in fish populations. However, unlike the last cold period in the Atlantic, the spatial pattern of sea surface temperature anomalies in the Atlantic is not uniformly cool, but instead has anomalously cold temperatures in the subpolar gyre, warm temperatures in the subtropics and cool anomalies over the tropics. The tripole pattern of anomalies has increased the subpolar to subtropical meridional gradient in SSTs, which are not represented by the AMO index value, but which may lead to increased atmospheric baroclinicity and storminess.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11046-x

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

quote me 'vehemently' defending an ice free arctic within the next decade then. I have said that it is possible, but nowhere did i say that it is definitely going to be ice free before 2028

Ok, maybe you said by 2030.

'Many' may have been wrong about the exact date, but the scientific papers deal in probabilities, and it is very probable that not long after 2020, there will be ice free summers in the Arctic. A few years doesn't change the long term trend and that fact that the trend is consistent with the science behind AGW

Akrasia wrote: »

There isn't any way of knowing for certain because sea ice formation in the arctic is chaotic, but the trend is absolutely downwards with sea ice on both poles at record low extents for the 2nd year in a row
[https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/global-sea-ice-hits-record-low-second-year-straight/93263

and would anyone really be surprised if 2020 did have an ice free arctic summer? Even if it still has nominal sea ice up to 2025, in the grand scheme of things, Arctic sea ice is on a death spiral

If the first fully ice free year is 2030 it's still consistent with the global warming hypothesis, The experts in this field know how chaotic the arctic ice system is and due to this, the American GeoPhysical Union have said that they can't confidently predict the first ice free arctic summer within about 20 years, but it could happen sooner than this.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Ok, maybe you said by 2030.

Arctic sea ice could disappear on any given summer from here on in if the conditions are right, or there could still be nominal sea ice in summer in 2050 or beyond.

I asked if you would be genuinely surprised if 2020 was a freak year where sea ice dropped below the 1m km2 designation for an ice free summer? A year like that can happen any time now, or it might not happen for another decade or two.
I suspect you would blame it on the NAO and if there is a recovery of ice the next summer, there would be plenty of people saying global warming is over and an ice age is imminent.

My point has always been that waiting for an 'ice free arctic' before we take action on climate change is hopelessly short sighted. There are impacts on global climate from reduced Ice in the arctic long before we see the 'ice free arctic'

We're already seeing these impacts although you refuse to acknowledge them.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPqXmkWXfs

Guy McPherson: "I can't imagine there will be a human on the planet in 10 years" Humans are heading for mass extinction. Mankind has less then 10 years left according to climate change scientist Guy McPherson on World Newshub. There's no point trying to fight climate change - we'll all be dead in the next decade and there's nothing we can do to stop it, a visiting scientist claims. Guy McPherson, a biology professor at the University of Arizona, says the human destruction of our own habitat is leading towards the world's sixth mass extinction. Instead of fighting, he says we should just embrace it and live life while we can. "It's locked down, it's been locked in for a long time - we're in the midst of our sixth mass extinction," he told Paul Henry on Thursday.

A scientist said we all have less that 10 years left, and since he's a scientist with the correct opinions on global warming he must therefore be right and looking at his field of expertise one can't help but be impressed by his knowledge on the subject of melting ice and the imminent disaster that must surely befall us by 2026.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Arctic sea ice could disappear on any given summer from here on in if the conditions are right, or there could still be nominal sea ice in summer in 2050 or beyond.

I asked if you would be genuinely surprised if 2020 was a freak year where sea ice dropped below the 1m km2 designation for an ice free summer? A year like that can happen any time now, or it might not happen for another decade or two.
I suspect you would blame it on the NAO and if there is a recovery of ice the next summer, there would be plenty of people saying global warming is over and an ice age is imminent.

My point has always been that waiting for an 'ice free arctic' before we take action on climate change is hopelessly short sighted. There are impacts on global climate from reduced Ice in the arctic long before we see the 'ice free arctic'

We're already seeing these impacts although you refuse to acknowledge them.

Yes I would be genuinely surprised if September 2020 gets anywhere near 2 million, let alone 1. You've backed up a bit now and conceded it's still possible we could still have ice in 2050, or a decade or two, depending. That's not quite the death spiral you spoke of previously. To me it seemed you were saying that once we hit rock bottom, we stay there. You even spoke of ice-free for 6 months of the year.

I have no doubt that at some stage we will see an ice-free September Arctic, but I would bet my house that it won't be in the next decade. As for consecutive ice-free years, or ice-free semesters, I won't live to see this.

Gaoth Laidir

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

A scientist said we all have less that 10 years left, and since he's a scientist with the correct opinions on global warming he must therefore be right and looking at his field of expertise one can't help but be impressed by his knowledge on the subject of melting ice and the imminent disaster that must surely befall us by 2026.

Surely this was on April 1st?

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

A scientist said we all have less that 10 years left, and since he's a scientist with the correct opinions on global warming he must therefore be right and looking at his field of expertise one can't help but be impressed by his knowledge on the subject of melting ice and the imminent disaster that must surely befall us by 2026.

Guy McPherson is a nutcase. If someone on my side of the debate used him as a source I'd challenge them to find a credible source for their information

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes I would be genuinely surprised if September 2020 gets anywhere near 2 million, let alone 1. You've backed up a bit now and conceded it's still possible we could still have ice in 2050, or a decade or two, depending. That's not quite the death spiral you spoke of previously. To me it seemed you were saying that once we hit rock bottom, we stay there. You even spoke of ice-free for 6 months of the year.

I have no doubt that at some stage we will see an ice-free September Arctic, but I would bet my house that it won't be in the next decade. As for consecutive ice-free years, or ice-free semesters, I won't live to see this.

I hope you're right but people who know a lot more than you or I are very concerned about the changing nature of the arctic ice. 3/4 of the ice in the arctic is now single year ice. The whole region is destabilizing... Actually, even if you are right, you are unbelievably blase about the prospect of an ice free arctic.

Peter Wadhams of Cambridge university is very concerned that the summer ice could collapse from its current state to an ice free state much more rapidly than the IPCC and models suggest along with an array of other climate destabilizing feedback effects that could be disastrous

https://e360.yale.edu/features/as_arctic_ocean_ice_disappears_global_climate_impacts_intensify_wadhams

https://www.nature.com/news/incredibly-thin-arctic-sea-ice-shocks-researchers-1.21163

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I hope you're right but people who know a lot more than you or I are very concerned about the changing nature of the arctic ice. 3/4 of the ice in the arctic is now single year ice. The whole region is destabilizing... Actually, even if you are right, you are unbelievably blase about the prospect of an ice free arctic.

Peter Wadhams of Cambridge university is very concerned that the summer ice could collapse from its current state to an ice free state much more rapidly than the IPCC and models suggest along with an array of other climate destabilizing feedback effects that could be disastrous

https://e360.yale.edu/features/as_arctic_ocean_ice_disappears_global_climate_impacts_intensify_wadhams

https://www.nature.com/news/incredibly-thin-arctic-sea-ice-shocks-researchers-1.21163

I'm blasé? What can I do about the ice? What can you do, for that matter? What can anyone do?

What's your solution to all this climate issue? If you had your finger on a button to solve the problem, what would that button say?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm blasé? What can I do about the ice? What can you do, for that matter? What can anyone do?

What's your solution to all this climate issue? If you had your finger on a button to solve the problem, what would that button say?

Global political cooperation, this is an emergency and immediate global action is required. We need massive global investment in infrastructure to speed up the transition to renewable energy. Strict emissions reduction strategies, stricter energy efficiency regulations on buildings, industry and food production. Global investment in helping developing countries to transition to carbon neutral economies and to utilise their solar energy resources. Trade embargo's against nations and industries that cannot produce sustainably. Carbon taxes to speed up the transition to green technology and subsidies to make the technologies affordable. The universal adoption of existing CO2 scrubbing technology to capture carbon from industrial sources so it can be sequestered.

For a start

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Global political cooperation, this is an emergency and immediate global action is required. We need massive global investment in infrastructure to speed up the transition to renewable energy. Strict emissions reduction strategies, stricter energy efficiency regulations on buildings, industry and food production. Global investment in helping developing countries to transition to carbon neutral economies and to utilise their solar energy resources. Trade embargo's against nations and industries that cannot produce sustainably. Carbon taxes to speed up the transition to green technology and subsidies to make the technologies affordable. The universal adoption of existing CO2 scrubbing technology to capture carbon from industrial sources so it can be sequestered.

For a start

That's quite a shopping list. Are you going to fit it all on one button?

But what can you or I do? You say I'm blasé about it, so what do you expect me to do? What are YOU doing about it?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That's quite a shopping list. Are you going to fit it all on one button?

There isn't a silver bullet that isn't a cartoon over simplification of the serious mess we're in. We need to overhaul a global energy system and every year that passes, the mountain to climb to avoid disaster gets steeper

It requires huge investment but its cheaper to invest now than suffer the losses later on (as we have known since the stern review more than a decade ago)

But what can you or I do? You say I'm blasé about it, so what do you expect me to do? What are YOU doing about it?

We need political action, which means putting climate change high up on the agenda at elections, putting pressure on our politicians and business leaders to put sustainable development as a priority.

It also means not standing in the way of measures that are required to achieve the above aims. It means writing letters to newspapers, texting radio stations, talking to your family, friends and using social media to build awareness of the dangers of climate change so they might do these kinds of things too.

It means not dismissing the warning signs or ignoring the scientific consensus, or arguing that we're not certain so we should wait for more evidence before we act.

We don't need to just vote greens, we need to convert whatever political ideology we prefer to the reality that were risking everything we hold precious if we don't take this issue seriously enough.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

There isn't a silver bullet that isn't a cartoon over simplification of the serious mess we're in. We need to overhaul a global energy system and every year that passes, the mountain to climb to avoid disaster gets steeper

It requires huge investment but its cheaper to invest now than suffer the losses later on (as we have known since the stern review more than a decade ago)

We need political action, which means putting climate change high up on the agenda at elections, putting pressure on our politicians and business leaders to put sustainable development as a priority.

It also means not standing in the way of measures that are required to achieve the above aims. It means writing letters to newspapers, texting radio stations, talking to your family, friends and using social media to build awareness of the dangers of climate change so they might do these kinds of things too.

It means not dismissing the warning signs or ignoring the scientific consensus, or arguing that we're not certain so we should wait for more evidence before we act.

We don't need to just vote greens, we need to convert whatever political ideology we prefer to the reality that were risking everything we hold precious if we don't take this issue seriously enough.

No, I asked what are you doing / have you done about it. Have you written to newspapers, radio stations, etc.? Did that save any icebergs to date?

PokeHerKing

Akrasia wrote:

We don't need to just vote greens, we need to convert whatever political ideology we prefer to the reality that were risking everything we hold precious if we don't take this issue seriously enough.

Voting greens will kill us all a lot quicker than climate change will.

Akrasia

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Voting greens will kill us all a lot quicker than climate change will.

Then don't vote for them. But include environmental sustainability as a central platform of whatever ideology you agree with.

If you're a capitalist, recognise that there is a real financial cost attached to environmental destruction that needs to be accounted for or externalisers will make profits while everyone else pays the cost

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, I asked what are you doing / have you done about it. Have you written to newspapers, radio stations, etc.? Did that save any icebergs to date?

Yes. I saved 2 icebergs last week. I actually am trying to rehome them if you know anyone short of lettuce

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes. I saved 2 icebergs last week. I actually am trying to rehome them if you know anyone short of lettuce

So you're willing to preach to everyone else yet there's no evidence that you're doing anything yourself. This discussion has gone way beyond science now and is taking on a political theme, so I'm out.

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So you're willing to preach to everyone else yet there's no evidence that you're doing anything yourself. This discussion has gone way beyond science now and is taking on a political theme, so I'm out.

Remember "the agenda" you were asking about some time ago?

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

So you're willing to preach to everyone else yet there's no evidence that you're doing anything yourself. This discussion has gone way beyond science now and is taking on a political theme, so I'm out.

It's important to realise the complexity of the subject matter, in order to approach resolving our environmental issues, we currently have no other options but to turn to our political institutions in order to do so. I personally believe, if one ultimately wants to save the planet, you need to ultimately leave it, i.e. currently it is in fact impossible for humans to survive on this planet, without having negative impacts to it, I'm also not convinced our political institutions are equipped to do this yet, including pro environmental parties such as the green party, as we must first accept our most fundamental economic theories and ideologies are in fact flawed, leading me to term them, 'anti-human and anti-environmental in nature'.