50 Year Plan

Here's a quote from a current New Yorker article (the bolding is mine, though really, every sentence deserves it):

When carbon dioxide is released into the air, about a third ends up, in relatively short order, in the oceans. (CO₂ dissolves in water to form a weak acid; this is the cause of the phenomenon known as “ocean acidification.”) A quarter is absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems—no one is quite sure exactly how or where—and the rest remains in the atmosphere. If current trends in emissions continue, then sometime within the next four or five decades the chemistry of the oceans will have been altered to such a degree that many marine organisms—including reef-building corals—will be pushed toward extinction. Meanwhile, atmospheric CO₂ levels are projected to reach five hundred and fifty parts per million—twice pre-industrial levels—virtually guaranteeing an eventual global temperature increase of three or more degrees. The consequences of this warming are difficult to predict in detail, but even broad, conservative estimates are terrifying: at least fifteen and possibly as many as thirty per cent of the planet’s plant and animal species will be threatened; sea levels will rise by several feet; yields of crops like wheat and corn will decline significantly in a number of areas where they are now grown as staples; regions that depend on glacial runoff or seasonal snowmelt—currently home to more than a billion people—will face severe water shortages; and what now counts as a hundred-year drought will occur in some parts of the world as frequently as once a decade.

I agree. From everything I've read, which is getting to be quite a lot now, I'd say that 40 to 50 years is the right range. By that point, life for many billions of people on this planet will be markedly worse than it is now.

You might hear some people suggest there is hope, in the form of technological advances, and moves toward "green" energy and products. I'd have to say that all of these solutions can safely be put under the heading "too little, too late." Even worse, some are just fads, or marketing gimmicks to make a company look enviro-friendly. Look at your grocery store. They probably have an aisle devoted to "green," and "organic" products. What then, do they sell in the other 18 aisles? Some clothing companies sell "green" shirts, made of organic cotton. What are their other 40 products made of?

I like to buy eggs (not my picture) that are "certified organic," from free-range chickens, free of antibiotics, and hormones. But these eggs come not just in plastic packaging, but in excessive plastic packaging, with an extra flap that comes down over the eggs, for no apparent reason. Why don't they come in the same simple cardboard as other eggs? I don't know. Probably because the company's logo and rhetoric are easier to present on a nice, flat piece of cardboard they can attach to the plastic, instead of printed on bumpy cardboard, where the text and images would look dull.

This is probably the point where I should talk about what we can do to help. Um.

When you consider that, in a single day, a golf course uses as much water as a family of four uses in four years, it doesn't seem likely that "grassroots" is really the way to go. What can a factory owner do? Quite a lot. What can I do? I don't know, write a letter?

I'm sorry, is that wrong? As a member of this young, new generation, am I supposed to make love to the idea of grassroots? Tough shit. One factory changing its process to use less water and less energy and less material would be as effective as an entire city using "low flow" toilets and showers. Not to mention that it's unlikely that an entire city will ever do that.

So what can we do? I'd say, think long and hard before you conceive any children. If you're 20 years or older, you have a decent chance of being dead before things get really, really bad. If you're under 2o years old, well, best of luck "carrying the fire."