My ideas concerning democracy, the environment and the future of humankind

[LAKISYLVANIA]

NOTE: Originally posted in Dutch, but i'm happy enough with Google translate

Democracy

As a politician you have the task of representing the population (and best the part that he / she represents). If a politician doesn't do this, he / she risks misusing power, and there is a good chance that he / she is corrupt. And then you undermine the democratic value of a society. Although as a person you also have the right to vote that person out of course.

But, on the other hand, as a politician you also have a duty to do the right thing and to protect the population against the wrong choices that they support. Of course, it is primarily up to politicians to properly inform the population, and all parties / politicians should have an obligation to agree on a number of issues for which the constitution can be used. This could be, for example, "we are committed to protecting democracy", but in more concrete terms. Most people, of course, support a democracy, but it is imperative that the constitution protects democracy. This can of course go further with, for example, anti-racist measures and enshrining environmentally friendly measures in the constitution. But this may or may not conflict with principles such as freedom of speech. And a politician may think he / she is right, but is that? On the other hand, the population did democratically elect Adolf Hitler in 1933 (not by an absolute majority, but other right-wing parties then made the mistake of underestimating him and joining a coalition with the idea that they could control him. this the stepping stone for Hitler's absolute power). But at the time, a vote for Hitler could also have "made sense". Much of what would now be known about "his legacy and crimes" was not known then, and there were many reasons why he did so well. As a German in 1933 you had the right to be livid. In fact, if you weren't, you wouldn't have a heart. That does not mean that the people of Germany were not to blame (or at least the Nazi voters), but that there are extenuating circumstances for many (except SS and Nazi top of course). I can never believe that about 1/3 of Germany was as radical as it would later express itself. Furthermore, the people of Germany are not to blame. The failure of other Western countries to draw up a good peace agreement after the First World War that both parties could agree with (partly due to revanchism and the then more prevalent imperalism that later also gave rise to many other conflicts such as the Balkan wars, and the wasp's nest called the Middle East), the failure of avoiding the Great Depression by absolutely terrible economic measures in the 1920's and the failure of entering a stable German republic after the fall of the Empire by entering a republic that was doomed in advance. You could even say that Zentrum member (current CDU, but then more "Catholic" in nature) Bruning had already started the fall of the republic in 1930. The rise of Hitler has many causes, roots of which were laid decades before his rise, but only really became apparent after 1929/1930 with the fall of the Republic and the Great Depression. But here too - due to the lack of precedent and not realizing that the consequences would be so drastic for the future of Europe - there are extenuating circumstances, which is not to say that there is no fault.

But the conclusion is that it is sometimes difficult to find the balance between what the population wants, and what you as a person / politician or party think is the right thing, and in time will help the population more. Populism is often beneficial in the short term, but a different solution can sometimes be better in the long term. That's not to say populism is bad. In most cases I would be the populist myself (and follow the population). In other areas, however, I would do what I think would be best, in this case probably especially in the field of environmental policy, where I think that "my measures" would not have the support of the entire population, but are necessary. . Although you must of course also take into account the separation of powers and a parliament that can be obstructive. That makes politics much more complex than it actually is. Possibly even too complex, because party identity and the increasing polarization make it difficult to make compromises, as a result of which people take short-term solutions more often, and cause more long-term problems that often remain because they do not reach a compromise. can come and ultimately weaken democracy.

But nevertheless you have to learn to trust your population. Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

It is therefore up to politicians to set the right example, not to lose the confidence of the voter, to deal honestly and responsibly with the power entrusted to you, to treat each other in a respectable manner, to try to reach agreements with other parties with which you may have little common ground, so as not to demonize other politicians, parties and population groups (but criticism is allowed of course). Politics is very difficult, especially in the 21st century. You carry an enormous responsibility with you, one that can determine the future of your city, region, country, continent and the entire world. And we all bear part of this responsibility. You must continuously contribute to the stability, maintenance and development of a democracy in every domain. This is the only way we have a chance to create a better world for us, our children and grandchildren and generations to come. It is certainly not easy, but difficult works as well.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The Environment

Environment & climate is one of the topics I am most radical about. And not just climate, but the environment in general. So that is very important to me. Because it concerns us all, and this for many generations. We, our children, our grandchildren and tens of generations. We may be seen as the "bogeyman", and we are antagonized for allowing it to happen. I suspect that we will not be put in a much more positive light than the Nazis. But I also understand that taking action is very complex. Even if the Greens have an absolute majority in every country in the world, I fear it will not be enough. It is the greatest challenge we face and I am not sure we will succeed. Science, technology, decisiveness, a different attitude from people in general, politics and companies will be crucial. It seems that a change in lifestyle will be necessary if we are to survive. Something that will not like to be heard, but it's the truth. Keeping climate change to 1.5 ° C or 2 ° C is our goal (of the Paris Agreement), but unfortunately this does not seem feasible, even if we pass the Paris Agreement because it is not far-reaching enough, secondly because a lot of mechanisms are that accelerate global warming, and thirdly, because even with the right measures, climate change will not be stopped in 1 day. This is comparable to a train that, if it brakes abruptly, does not stop at 1, 2, 3. And this train goes very fast.

Critics minimize climate change, often because of lobbies that want companies to carry on and people who fear change and simply want it to remain as it is now (be it in terms of lifestyle and traditions or economics). According to them, climate change doesn't seem that serious. But as humans we have a great responsibility. If climate change (and environmental problems) leads to the demise of mankind, so be it and then we have had a good life, I often hear. The earth will recover anyway, and while the latter is probably true, we speak of a recovery within a few million years, possibly tens of millions of years, depending on the severity before we experience the biodiversity again that we had before. The breakdown is simply much easier than the construction. And if humanity disappears, we will also take many animal and plant species with us. Others say it is not our responsibility, but I disagree either. Ethically, we must take care of our planet, our home. That should be our religion, respect and care for nature and fellow man. Not worshiping an unproven figure (and even if he exists, he certainly blames us).

Others say it used to be warmer. That is also correct, but that goes back at least 2.5 million years ago. We are talking about a change from roughly since the industrial revolution (which is going faster and faster, up to the pace of today). During the time of the dinosaurs it was much warmer on our planet than today (but then the Poles were ice-free, the whole setting was different (no Himalayas, no continents on the Poles and an opening between the two Americas that all created a different climate , as well as an ecosystem that was adapted to the then temperatures)). Still others say that the climate is always changing and is not a stable system. And that is also true, but the climate has never changed as quickly as it is now. Today's climate change is unseen over a period of at least 50 million years (and possibly longer, but there is less evidence for that). Still others say that we do not come up with solutions, but just stand on the sidelines. But I don't see it as my job or that of the climate youth to come up with solutions (they do, by the way, but that is often overlooked in the media). Whether or not these measures are good is food for another debate. I believe more that we really need to drastically change our lifestyle, more sober in terms of space, food and transport for example and more caring, complemented with indeed measures both at national and international level, aimed at all of us. If only the working class and middle class are targeted (who often have a smaller ecological footprint), they will be the first to not join the story. If government leaders, business leaders and wealthy people can continue to fly their private planes, while the working class can no longer afford a one-time vacation due to an anti-social carbon tax, it will turn against you and the environmentally conscious.

Moreover, it is not effective because the extra tax will not be perceptible for the richer classes. That is why I rather propose a progressive CO² tax that increases the more you use the aircraft (ie you are a frequent user), and also depends on your wages (+ total power). With that tax, all kinds of environmental projects can be financed, as well as incentive campaigns and so on. It will not be the solution, certainly not, but it is a step in the right direction, because this challenge will take a long time. I think this will be the greatest challenge humanity faces (so far). Without any doubt. (except perhaps for building our civilization in general).

Apart from that, in the short and perhaps medium term, I think nuclear energy is an absolute necessity. But it is not a long-term solution, and of course it also requires a budget for maintenance of those nuclear power plants and brings other dangers (it is the first thing that can be the target in a war + what about the waste). But nuclear energy does not emit CO², and getting out too early will lead to an energy crisis, so I understand both sides. The mistake we shouldn't make, however, is to continue to use nuclear power (despite many promises we make), but reduce the budget (pending nuclear exit or phase-out) so that they cannot be renovated. If you do that, the chance of a nuclear disaster is much higher.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The Tipping Points

Moving on to climate change, rather than political, there are many "tipping points" that may or may not have their own effect on the climate. This often involves major disasters on a large regional scale with a global effect (and possibly a domino effect). A tipping point can be compared to "a point of no return" or the point where a return to the previous one is very difficult once you have passed it, because breakdown is much "easier" than construction. A series of tipping points becomes more likely the faster the climate heats up, and the more general destruction there will be in the environment.

The most important (there are many more) are the following. One of them is more of a positive thing, and I'm not going to hide that, but the others are all largely negative.

1. Changes in the Gulf Stream: This tipping point is a "cold blob" in the North Atlantic, the only place on Earth where the temperature has cooled from 30, 50 or 100 years ago. Possibly caused by melt water from the Greenland ice sheet (and sea ice), and since ice is a fresh water source, and oceans contain salt water, this causes a physical phenomenon where warm water sinks to the bottom and is transported to other parts of the country. ocean, and cold water to the surface. Ultimately this changes the circulation (quite slowly for now) in the Atlantic Ocean and can affect the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is the ocean current that brings warmer ocean air to us. When this weakens or even disappears, the weather and climate in Western Europe, and possibly also eastern North America and further inland in Europe, will be drastically different. It is not known when the tipping point will be reached, but it is there, as it happened several times in the past at the end of the "great" Ice Age (also then due to the "melting"). This would cause the temperature to decrease considerably but temporarily (a century?) In mainly Western Europe, while it continues elsewhere. But much is unclear and more research is needed. This regional effect would in turn trigger other mechanisms in turn. And no, this would not undo global climate change

2. Melting of sea ice in West Antarctica: Antarctica already had an ice sheet 33 million years ago, which is fairly stable and will remain so. For this to melt, a temperature rise of around 5 to 10 ° C may be necessary (although you should of course not want that, due to the albedo effect, rise in sea level, etc ...). The only more unstable ice here is the sea ice in West Antarctica. The main problem is that this involves a large amount of ice, which would cause sea levels to rise significantly, and the tipping point of no return may not be far away.

3. The disappearance of the Amazon rainforest: This seems to me to be one of the most catastrophic tipping points, given the enormous diversity of the Amazon rainforest. The rainforest is quite fragile, but the heart of the rainforest is at least 50 million years old. However, climate change isn't even the biggest problem. That's deforestation. Vegetation and forests cause precipitation (through shadow effect and temperature differentiation, and thus a positive feedback effect). About 50% of the rainfall in the rainforest comes from the vegetation itself. In other words, the Amazon rainforest is self-sustaining and responsible for its own rainfall and conservation. When more and more trees are deforested, the rainforest can no longer sustain itself, which means that it largely shrinks. Even the core is then no longer safe for survival. Many animal species, as well as plants and insects only live here. The rainforest has the greatest concentration of biodiversity in the world. And of course the forests also provide more oxygen in the atmosphere, as well as a decrease in CO² through photosynthesis. 4 ° C would be the tipping point of no return, with the rainforest collapsing at a rapid pace. That means that we still have some leeway in this area, but now it comes. When 40% of the rainforest is cleared, 70% of the remaining rainforest disappears, leaving only the western Amazon region to survive. But due to the combination of deforestation and global warming, 20% to 25% will be enough. We are at about 17%. And deforestation is only increasing for the time being. Some suggest that the point of no return has already been reached, due to last year's recent droughts and massive wildfires, and that it is already too late to save the Amazon. The entire rainforest could disappear in a period of 50 years, of which 70% within 10 to 15 years.

4. Greening the Sahel (and possibly Central and Southern Sahara) : The only positive thing, unless you are a fan of the desert. However, it will increase in Mediterranean regions (such as southern Europe, North Africa, California, parts of Australia and South Africa). But it must be said that there is some uncertainty in this. The large increasing gradient between seawater temperature and land temperature is the main cause, as well as the positive feedback from vegetation that can provide itself with "precipitation". This is one of the few places on Earth that greens quickly after the great drought of the 70s and 80s. In the past, almost the entire Sahara was temporarily a (thickly vegetated) savanna for almost ten thousand years (and that barely 8,000 years ago when it disappeared quite quickly, although the Sahara was still greener than it is 3,000 years ago). That is part of a cycle and is related to the end of the Ice Age, and changes in the rotation of our planet that determine how much sunlight a hemisphere absorbs, and thus shifts AND thickens the band that the monsoons bring (and it becomes more intense). ). However, the dry Sahara phases last much longer than the wet Sahara, and the rotation does not account for a dry Sahara. Still, a wetter Sahel and Sahara is possible, and it has indeed become wetter in recent decades, but models suspect that precipitation will increase considerably deep into the Sahara (and this will only increase as the temperature rises) . But with a low reliability and various other mechanisms it is uncertain, but I do not rule out the possibility that the monsoon will shift to the north, and indeed that a (large) part of the Sahara will become green in the most optimistic scenario (but then at the expense of Southern Europe). Can we see this happening in our lifetime. Again, the answer is yes. We don't know what the "tipping point" is, but in the past with changes between a "Wet Sahara" and a "Dry Sahara", the transition only happened in ten years. This can be artificially accelerated, as some have proposed the "Build a Green Wall" project.

Since vegetation can often sustain itself, thus increasing rainfall, such a project can speed itself up. It's not even really science fiction to make the Sahara disappear, and feasible in a lifetime. But it will remain a fragile environment to preserve. And it has other consequences, such as a stronger Atlantic Hurricane season (because the moisture goes there, and nourishes the formation of tropical systems that are more frequently formed). But a "Green Sahara" can then remove CO² from the air, on the other hand, and be a source of oxygen through photosynthesis, thereby helping to slow down global warming. This is called a form of geoengineering (and actually the current industrial revolution and human activity is also geoengineering but with no intention of causing that change). It is only controversial because it has other consequences (such as more powerful Atlantic Hurricanes and a decrease in rainfall in the Amazon rainforest in this case), and because it may be commercialized and thus a product of a company. But geoengineering may become inevitable for the future in the fight against climate change.

5. The disappearance of the permafrost (or strong decrease) : This would also be catastrophic, as permafrost contains a lot of CO². This is permanently confined and cannot be released into the atmosphere as long as the permafrost does not melt. Permafrost is frozen organic material that has not been melted for at least 2 years. With large amounts of permafrost, this is permafrost that is thousands, sometimes millions of years old. Permafrost contains more CO² in total than in the atmosphere alone, not to mention methane gases, a greenhouse gas that has 20 times more effect than CO². Given that the Poles are warming faster than the regions around the Equator, it is quite likely that a large amount will melt. Probably around 50%, but in a more pessimistic scenario it can go up to 100%, which therefore accelerates warming even more due to those large amounts of CO². It may be a kind of tipping point that we have not yet reached, but that we cannot avoid because the "climate train" cannot brake in time to avoid this tipping point if we brake abruptly. Although there is no unanimity here either as there are others who say that the large part of the permafrost remains intact until a warming of 5 ° C.

6. Coral dying: 80% of the coral has already died in the Caribbean, not only due to warming but also for other reasons such as overfishing. By 2035, the last remnants would disappear. Other coral areas have also been severely affected. Half of the Great Barrier Reef is gone, and coral areas worldwide are regressing.

They only count for about 0.1% of the oceans, but 25% of marine life lives here, and given the biodiversity many more percentages of unique species. Here too, I fear that the tipping point has in principle already been reached. Marine life is highly dependent on coral and at the second largest mass extinction on our planet (about 450 million years ago when there was no life on land), all the coral also died out, and 60% of the life disappeared in the oceans (and therefore on Earth). Coral always came back, but was vulnerable to mass extinctions and abrupt climate change. It only takes tens of millions of years for coral to recover to the level of biodiversity it had before. The current coral reef is about 20 million years old, by the way.

Other (possible) tipping points are eg. Changes in the precipitation of the Indian monsoon, the disappearance / shift of the taiga, changes in the ENSO oscillation, disappearance of Alpine glaciers, ocean anoxia events (i.e. widespread lack of oxygen in the oceans) and the disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet and in the Arctic Ocean, and there are many more, although not all tipping points are equally relevant for the time being.

A return / recovery is always possible, sometimes this can be accelerated by yes, human intervention, but in some events this will be a process of many decades, centuries and millenia and in others a process of millions of years. Although as humanity we obviously have our brains, and also a lot of knowledge and science that will only increase. For example, there will be a way to restore or "rebuild" coral reefs through human intervention, so that we do not have to wait millions of years for that recovery. But this will take time and energy. It is, of course, always better to prevent than to cure.

But fair is fair, stopping some things just doesn't seem realistic anymore or are a lost cause. We must try to stop others at all costs (whatever it takes). It is absolutely damage control and damage control at this point, even in the most positive scenarios. Obviously it cannot remain five to twelve forever. Scientists say it has been five to twelve for twenty years. Well twelve hours have passed. But we are doing our best and shifting the focus to limiting the damage so that it remains viable, and hopefully the technology / science can fix a lot of what is being undone (although that makes no sense if we continue to do so).

It's hard work, but then it's the greatest challenge in human history, surpassing any other past event without a doubt. And unfortunately, for many people it seems a far-from-my-bed show because the impact is not always felt.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Humankind

And then it is even about so much more than climate change. There are so many environmental problems, and humanity has left its mark on the world in whatever form it takes, such as the disappearance of the vast European forests for today's cities. For example, the civilization of the Maya disappeared after centuries of drought, because they cut down too much rainforest. The Dry Sahara phase was accelerated by extensive agriculture that ravaged the savannah, and therefore migrated to a smaller area near the Nile banks, laying the foundation for the first cities and Egyptian civilization (ditto for Sumer / Babylonia near the Tigris and Euphrates.). planet has never seen so much change in a short time. Our impact is therefore enormous, as is the challenge we face. It looks like this will remain relevant for thousands of years. And possibly this is a recurring phenomenon in every alien civilization, and a hurdle that must be overcome after the formation of life, complex life, intelligent life, and now this. But there are solutions: ringworlds, terraforming of eg. Mars, building an artificial Moon, etc. that will require an enormous amount of resources, but are scattered in our solar system. The question is, is it ethically correct to do this? It is a difficult issue that we cannot do overnight. But people are resourceful and adapt easily. Our major weakness is the lack of (a coherent) long-term vision