Alas, It May Be Too Late To Hit The "Snooze Button" On The Climate Alarm

As the coronavirus rages on and preys upon our collective stupidity, e.g.

• The latest ‘COVID party’ had 700 attendees and took New Jersey police 5 hours to break up 

We're informed by Walter Russell Mead (WSJ,  July 27, p. A13) that :

https://www.wsj.com/articles/snooze-the-climate-alarms-11595889568

 A new study on "global demographics" -   see:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext

Shows we can figuratively hit snooze on the climate alarm because future forecasts of population growth are being "scaled back."   This is because of declining fertility rates. As we know, unchecked population growth is the primary driver of global warming- climate change.  The more people, the more fossil fuels consumed and the greater the carbon emissions,  and the more intense global warming. 

But Mead commits other oversights as when he writes (ibid.):

"More literacy and better access to information about contraception are - along with urbanization- associated with declining fertility rates as women gain better control of their reproductive lives."

The problem is that women's control of their reproductive lives is not entirely in their hands anywhere.  Just look at the U.S. and how the Trump bunch has essentially  wrecked any chance for poor and minority women to get access to affordable  birth control via the ACA. Add on the incipient religious objections (i.e. from Roman Catholics who also control a large part of the African population)  and you see formidable barriers to contraception.

Mead argues that given "the impact of these forces" we can expect to see Earth's human population peak at 9.7 billion by 2064 and then "decrease to 8.8 billion by 2100."  This as opposed to previous forecasts (e.g. by the U.N.)  of up to 12.7 billion by 2100.

However, Mead  and the UWa researchers overlook several factors:

1) Humans have multiplied their impact on  CO2 emissions and climate forcing related to the greenhouse effect beyond simple fossil fuel use.  The burning of the Amazon rain forest alone - now reaching catastrophic proportions - is a prime example,  with monstrous fires spewing gigatons of carbon into the air, e.g.


This along with other massive fires may well offset  all the projected lowered population emissions up to at least 2060.  (Assuming Bolsonaro doesn't act soon to control the burning.)

2) CO2 accumulates because each molecule remains in the atmosphere for up to 100 years on average.  Thus, earlier depositions remain even as new burdens are added yearly. The CO2 -driven warming we’re now experiencing is not the result of just one year – but  100 years’ previous accumulation. The process may be described something like a series with terms being added, viz: to describe the CO2 content now in the atmosphere, we must initiate the series with n= 1 (for 1920), viz.

CO2( 2020) =   x  ₁  + x  ₂ +  x  ₃ +   x  ₄ +.............+  x  _{1 00} 

E.g. terminating at the last term 100 years later. Here each ‘x’ denotes the CO2 burden added for each year in succession.
Thus, the CO2 effect for a given year is not just for that year, but rather inclusive of the cumulative additions for all the years - starting up to 100 years before.

Bottom line: Even if humans suddenly decreased their CO2 emissions to zero via decreased populations in multiple nations  the effect on the future greenhouse effect will be minuscule.   That's because all those CO2 emissions from earlier years still have to  have 'their say'.   Is there a way to eliminate those earlier emissions from the atmosphere?  No one has a clue, but they sure don't factor that inability into their rosy projections based on lower fertility assumptions.

Meanwhile, Africans  continue to burn wood from their own forests at a rate, using the material for fuel.  People and more people everywhere, too many for sure, gobbling resources at a rate as if there were no tomorrow. How will ample contraception and ancillary education get to these Africans when conservative U.S.  policies already limit birth control access - and the RC Church holds sway over too many African women.

Mead also pins his lessened climate alarm hopes on "more efficient agriculture" continuing to spread across the world.  But that hinges on  available water - fresh water sources- and they are running low. Of course, this was predicted back in a 'State of the World' report from 2000, which estimated that 1.8 billion would face water scarcity by 2025.   The report even forecast "water wars" if the matter wasn't resolved or in some way addressed in an equitable manner.

More recently we learned , 

'We Can't Waste a Drop.' India Is Running Out of Water. - WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-cant-waste-a-drop-india-is-running-out-of-water-11566224878

"Water crises are unfolding all across India, a product of population growth, modernization, climate change, mismanagement - and the breakdown of traditional systems of distributing resources."

More worrisome:

"Nearly all of India's biggest cities ...are rapidly depleting their groundwater reserves, and 40 percent of India's people could lack drinking water by the end of the next decade."

Mead's assumptions are also tempered by this graph appearing in the WSJ (July 10, p. B4):

Focus should be on current policies  which forecast a rise of 2.8- 3.2 C by 2100. But which the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists also regards as lowballed.  Consider the effect of the lockdowns.  When two thirds of the global population was under lockdown in early April "carbon emissions were down 17 % compared with average daily emissions last year."  (WSJ, ibid.)

Quite a drop, no?  But bear in mind that lockdown drop was only significant with respect to the previous year's emissions.  It doesn't say anything of the 99 years' emissions preceding and  btw, which are still in the atmosphere!  Meanwhile (ibid.):

"The United Nations Environment Program says global emissions need to fall 7.6 % a year until 2030 to be on track to meet the Paris goals"

The piece goes on to assert the target is set to be met this year "with the International Energy Agency forecasting carbon emissions to fall 8 % to 30.6 gigatons"

But let's be clear that's only one year's target met.  And that's with the "benefit" of a near global lockdown reducing the emissions.  But seriously, does anyone believe the equivalent of a pandemic-style lockdown would be accepted every year until 2030 to meet the Paris goal?    That is, not going beyond 2 C?   Newsflash: with current policies (see graph) we are already on track to hit at least 2.8 C by 2100.  And btw, please check the graph for current policies' projections in relation to the Paris 2C goal.

Also,  what about the 30- 33 gT from each of the previous 20 years?  And the 20-25 gT from each of the 40 odd years before that?  And the 20 gT from each year up to 100 - before that?   Did all those previously discharged  CO2 gigatons just magically disappear? No, they are still there in the atmosphere and wreaking havoc!

In a way, it's somewhat analogous to a homeowner who's been given a year's moratorium in paying his mortgage.  He would normally pay $1,500 a month, but because of a respite the mortgage debt has just been building up - so by the end of the 12 month grace period the homeowner will have to come up with $18,000.  A "jumbo" loan payment for sure. But using a similar reckoning to the IEA (in the case of gigatons of carbon emissions "saved") , he thinks he only  has to cough up one month's  payment of $1,500 at the end. 

More realistically in terms of CO2, we will need to cut global emissions by 50 % a year each year through 2080 to even have a chance to avoid the runaway greenhouse effect by 2100.  That is, factoring in all the cumulative emissions,  including the 30.6 gT still to be added for this year.  In addition to all the gigatons  that have been pent up in the atmosphere for the past 100 years.  And that is just to prevent the temperature going beyond 3.2 C by 2100.  Forget hitting the 2 C limit, that carbon limit 'horse' has already left the barn so to speak.

Bear in mind the CO2 concentration currently  in the atmosphere (415 ppm)  hasn't been seen in 12 million years. This condition  is rapidly pushing the climate back to its state in the Eocene Epoch, over 33 million years ago, when no ice existed on either pole.  Now, with no ice likely at all in 10 years or less (at least for the N. pole) we will be faced with further positive feedback driving us toward the runaway greenhouse scenario.  

This was well explicated by Carl Sagan in one of his essays, 'Ambush : The Warming of the World', in his book:  'Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Beginning of the Millennium':

"Melting of ice caps (already occurring) results in diminished albedo (reflection of solar radiation back into space), and a darker Earth surface - with more infrared radiation absorbed - reinforcing the tendency while enhancing the melting effect, leading to further darkening of the surface, reduced albedo and more melting."

The ugly truth?  NO amount of population decrease or fertility drop at this point is going to bring back that Arctic ice. Nor will it prevent sea levels from rising.  With that vast, reflecting ice surface gone, humans will have to figure out an alternative means of raising the albedo at the poles.  Basically, to avert such feedbacks would require perhaps the most monumental  engineering  effort  in the history of mankind -  dwarfing anything seen  hitherto. It would have to be mounted to reflect as much sunlight away from the Earth's poles as the melting ice sheets are dissipating now.

In the words of Harvard climate scientist James  Anderson:

 "Can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no." 

But never mind.  The pie-eyed Pollyannas like Mead  (and others in the WSJ's op-ed stable) will keep churning out happy froth for the hoi polloi to embrace, so they don't have to think the more serious thoughts.   After all, who wants to get into the weeds on such a depressing topic when we already have a Covid 19 pandemic to confront?

Rapid Melting Of Greenland Ice Sheet : Will Our Favorite Barbados Beach Still Be There Next Time We Arrive?

It's been known for at least 38 years, that South Florida will be 'ground zero' when the rising seas from climate change begin to have their most serious impact. Indeed, the image of  projected sea reclamation by 2035  for Florida - in a U.S. Geological survey map -  was actually published first in a (World Book) Science Encyclopedia article from 1981.   

Meanwhile, sea rise prognostications had forecast a 20- 25 ft. increase by 2070 owing to the melting of Greenland' enormous ice sheet.  But frankly, that's all gone by the backboards as we now have direct evidence the melting of the Greenland ice sheet has accelerated and dramatically.  

How much are we talking about?  According to the latest reports (cf. The Denver Post, Aug. 25, p. 1A, 'Greater Mass Loss Going Forward'):

"By the end of the summer about 440 million tons of ice wil have melted or calved off Greenland's giant ice sheet. "

Adding:

"In the span of July 31 to August 3, more than 58 billion tons melted from the surface. This is more than 40 billion tons more than the average for this time of year."

Which elicits the question of what transpires if this rate of melt is sustained or even accelerates? It seems clear that in such a case the forecast that "Greenland alone would cause 3-4 feet of sea level rise" must be advanced, possibly to 2040 or even earlier.  Indeed, Greenland accelerated melting is  now evident given (ibid.):

"A NASA satellite found that Greenland's ice sheet lost about 255 billion metric tons of ice a year between 2003  and 2016, with the loss rate generally getting worse over that period."

Add that to the melting of the Arctic ice caps and Antarctic ice shelf as well and one can imagine a scenario for a 20-25 ' sea level rise by mid century.   We also now have to factor in the effects of the burning Amazon rain - forest - likely to add 2- 5 gigatons of carbon to the already CO2 sodden atmosphere.  This is no longer in the realm of science fiction such as portrayed in flicks like 'Waterworld'.  

Just look at the projected map of sea reclamation projected by the U.S. Geological survey for Florida by 2035. Now imagine a sea level rise instead of 3 m and five times the number of Florida residents affected. Yes, it is quite within the realm of plausibility now.  Hell, we've even seen how Miami itself is now subject to flooding.  The map below of the Miami area shows effect of elevation on rate of property price appreciation:

Where the more contrast colored purple section refers to greater effect on rate of appreciation.  The incredible conclusion of Harvard real estate professor (and author of the paper) Jesse Keenan, is that ordinary home owners are already factoring future sea level rise into their calculations.

What about the island nation of Barbados, where I lived with wifey for 20 plus years?  It won't be any better for Bim's residents - unless they are living toward the higher elevations as indicated in the topographical  map below

Here the green coded area is greatest in elevation over sea level - from 194m to 338 m. To spare Bim's populace from the ravages of sea level rise on the same scale we expect for South Florida, they'd have to move to this area.  The most populated areas near the south coast (1- 3 m elevation) would be totally reclaimed by the ocean. Already as I posted previously, sea level rise has claimed large chunks of the beaches in and around Christchurch and St. Michael parishes.  On several visits to Bim over the past several years we've seen the encroachment of the sea first hand.

The future for Barbados and other island states does not look promising as an article in the UK Independent  notes:

"With a sea-level rise of one metre, which is now regarded as highly likely by the end of the century, the Caribbean would see "at least 149 multi-million dollar tourism resorts damaged or lost" and would also see loss or damage of 21 of the Caricom airports, and the inundation of land surrounding 35 of the region's 44 portsmage leapt upwards, as one metre of sea level.  

With a two-metre sea-level rise, by no means impossible, there would be "at least 233 multi-million dollar tourism resorts lost" plus damage or loss of nine power plants, 31 airports, and the loss of 710km of roads. However, when a more sophisticated analysis was done on the impacts of erosion caused by rising seas, it was found that the damage leapt upwards, as one metre of sea level rise on low-lying coasts gives between 50 and 100 metres of erosion. A one-metre rise with erosion factored in would result in "at least 307 multi-million dollar tourism resorts damaged or lost," the report says."

So we are talking calamitous economic and topographical changes here. Almost certainly permanent and indeed - with increased warming - the forecast can only get worse.  Indeed, we are speculating that at the current rapid Greenland ice sheet melt rate our favorite Bajan beach (below)  may no longer even exist by the time we next visit. 

Lastly, let's bear in mind that sea level rise is only one aspect of the ongoing climate catastrophe.  The other is the increased frequency of extraordinarily hot days -  spiking heat indices to unheard of levels (110 F and above) as lives and livelihoods are put at risk.

To fix ideas, the Union of Concerned Scientists 'Killer Heat' team recently compared historic averages over the period 1971- 2000 with projected heat indices for the middle to the end of this century. Their finding? 

"The team's projections bumped up against the limits of the NWS heat index formula, which is capable of calculating a value for 99 percent of summertime conditions. The analysis found that as climate change intensifies extreme heat, the numbers will often rise beyond the calculable range."

In other words, we are taking of conditions at the cusp of the runaway Greenhouse effect. Conditions so radically divergent from those today that current heat index models are unable to calculate the temperature (or thermature) limits.

One thing for certain, with the incineration of the Amazon rain forest  all our futures - especially for the younger generation - suddenly got much,  much worse.

See also:

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/rising-sea-level-threatens-hundreds-of-caribbean-resorts-says-un-report-2148034.html


And:

Brazil | Environmental Policy

Bolsonaro’s Horrific Plans for the Amazon Revealed in Leaked Presentation

And:

Donald Trump | Energy Policy | Environmental Policy

Trump and the Climate Crisis — a Crime Against Humanity

The Burning Amazon Shows The Cancer of Human Overpopulation Has Almost Run Its Course

Image above shows every fire that's started across Brazil since August, 13, 2019.


Scene from ground level near Humaita, Brazil on August 17.


Another view from Humaita, Brazil, from August 14th.

"Our house is burning. Literally. The Amazon rain forest - the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen - is on fire. It is an international crisis."  - Emmanuel Macron,  Thursday

One need have looked no further than yesterday's  WSJ (page A5 story), e.g.

'Fires Destroy Amazon Rainforest, Blanketing Brazilian Cities in Smog '

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fires-destroy-amazon-rain-forest-blanketing-brazilian-cities-in-smog-11566397901

To behold how we are now at the tipping point for cataclysm with the planet's "lungs" now being burned to a crisp.  This as human population growth has triggered ecological upheaval from India to Brazil to Siberia and Alaska and in between.  While too many  dunderheads and dopes still believe humans are "too puny" to cause or create a negative global impact, the evidence is now all around us. 

In Brazil, for example, we learn (WSJ, ibid.) that many of the fires raging - and even visible from space- were set by loggers.  These demented fools "have been burning newly cleared land for cattle ranching and agricultural use. The resulting clouds of smoke have reached such epic proportions as to be captured from a NASA satellite in space."

The idea has been to plunder as many forest resources as possible from the last great carbon repository on the planet- holding the line between humans and the runaway greenhouse effect.   Of course, the 'joker' in the deck, if we can call it that, has been Brazil's Trump clone (nicknamed "the tropical Trump"), Jair Bolsonaro.  Like Donnie Hitler Jr., this authoritarian maggot has no use for preserving the planet for future generations and even calls himself "Captain Chainsaw".  He is the one who has incited farmers, loggers to go on this burning spree that now puts the whole planetary habitat at risk - for all of us.  And the swine has done it by his mocking of environmentalists over their concern for the Amazon's preservation. ( In one spasm of rage he actually compared the Amazon to a "virgin" that "the outsiders want to take first".)

But say one thing, say the next.  Though Bolsonaro and his anti-environmental policies are the  proximate cause of the Amazon conflagration, population pressures - for arable land, living space and such - also played a role.   Hence, we can't ignore the fact that twenty three million people live in the Brazilian Amazon, 45 % of them below the poverty line.  In the words of one Sao Paulo -based journalist:  "Starving people don't care about the rain forest.. They consider it a green hell  and see forest rangers as enemies."

This is given that five of the six poorest states are located in the Brazilian Amazon according to the national statistical agency.  Such problems then are ultimately of human overpopulation and inadequate resources to support it.  Just as it is in respect of the  worsening water woes in India. Not to mention the uncontrolled land development now devouring natural regions globally at the rate of two football fields ever 3 minutes.  This according to a new UN report. So even if a lunatic like Bolsonaro didn't exist we'd still be in dire straits.

But perhaps not as quickly in the wake of "Capt. Chainsaw" having given so many subtle and overt cues to his eco-henchmen in waiting. 

 The scale of the Amazon  fires alone is such that smoke from them is ending up affecting cities more than 5,000 miles away.  Latest projections indicate that Amazon smoke will soon also cover the U.S. from LA to Detroit - which means we here in Colorado will be right smack in the middle of it.  The sheer number of fires spawned is staggering: some 72, 843 separate fires since January. This marks an 83 percent increase over last year   According to climate scientist Michael Mann:

"The impact is devastating because it's eliminating irreplaceable ecosystems and worsening climate change at the same time.. "

So it isn't for nothing the vast Amazon rainforest has been  nicknamed "the lungs of the Earth" .  This is because it has been responsible for the release of 20 percent of the world's oxygen even as it absorbs CO2 to generate that oxygen.  But as those "lungs" are destroyed the dynamic will be solely one way: no more oxygen produced, only more CO2.

Meanwhile, Africans also continue to burn wood from forests at a rate, using the material for fuel.  People and more people everywhere, too many for sure, gobbling resources at a rate as if there were no tomorrow. And there may not be at the rate they keep consuming.

In India, meanwhile, we learn,

'We Can't Waste a Drop.' India Is Running Out of Water. - WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-cant-waste-a-drop-india-is-running-out-of-water-11566224878

"Water crises are unfolding all across India, a product of population growth, modernization, climate change, mismanagement - and the breakdown of traditional systems of distributing resources."

More worrisome:

"Nearly all of India's biggest cities ...are rapidly depleting their groundwater resrves, and 40 percent of India's people could lack drinking water by the end of the next decade."

Of course, this was predicted back in a 'State of the World' report from 2000, which estimated that 1.8 billion would face water scarcity by 2025.   The report even forecast "water wars" if the matter wasn't resolved or in some way addressed in an equitable manner.

Meanwhile,  in a piece in last Sunday's Denver Post by Bruce Finley ('Development Devours Natural Landscape At High Rat According to Study', p. A7) we learned that the conversion of natural landscapes into developed tracts is proceeding at a feverish pace, displacing habitats for thousands of species and destroying natural vegetation which serves as a carbon absorber.   As noted in the Post piece:

"A United Nations -backed biodiversity and ecosystem science panel determined that about three quarters of the land around the planet and two-thirds of marine environments have been significantly altered by human activity. An estimated 1 million plant and animal species face extinction."

What gives? Well, to put it bluntly, too many people!  Sir David Attenborough, in his BBC documentary entitled: 'How Many People Can Earth Hold?',  pulled no punches in his assessments. He observed that every current major societal, environmental problem- from clogged highways, to overflowing hospital ERs to crowded schools, as well as scarcity of commodities (reflected in their much increased prices) to fouling of our water and atmosphere, can be laid at the feet of too many people on this planet - each needing food, air, water and energy from the time it's born.

Of all the resources, the most critical is water because no one can live without it for very long. Even now, 1 billion people live in water-stressed conditions, meaning that renewable water supplies drop below 1,700 cubic meters per capita.  This is now the case with what's transpiring in India - and many other regions of the planet. 

The point is we're rapidly approaching the threshold at which there will simply be too many people to feed given existing resources- water, arable soil, fertilizers etc.. The projections now are for at least 10 billion people by 2050, and an 80 percent probability of 12.3 billion on Earth by 2100. Simply put, there simply aren't the resources to support even the lower addition. At root, the issue is sustainability - especially for water which is needed for crops. NO water, no crops to feed a growing population. The graphic below puts this into perspective;

The interpretation of the graph (upward) is simple. By June, 2030 TWO full Earths - that is the resources therein - will be needed to support the then population. Already we are at 1.5 Earths. Every year Global Footprint Network raises awareness about global ecological overshoot with its Earth Overshoot Day campaign. Earth Overshoot Day is the day on the calendar when humanity has used up the resources that it takes the planet the full year to regenerate.

A core problem is that people have a difficult time grasping any kind of exponential increase such as with population.

The late Univ. of Colorado physics professor Albert Bartlett delivered one of the best lectures  on the nature of the exponential function as it applies to  computing future population growth. It can be found at the link below :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4

Go to time index 13:04 and continue watching as he computes the global population projections at an estimated growth  rate of just 1.3 percent per year.  Within a minute or so we see the graphic appear:

Which Prof. Bartlett specifies as the full stop to further population increase, i.e.  the absolute arrival of  "zero population growth".   (Though he goes on to show that at the same assumed birth rate the mass of humans would equal the mass of the whole planet in 2400 years.)  As he notes:

"It's absolutely clear people could not live at that density on Earth. So zero population growth is going to happen!"

In other words, there exists an absolute limit to human population growth.   It cannot go on indefinitely!  Prof. Bartlett even includes a humorous cartoon to reinforce the point for any simpletons:


Why is this not possible?   Well because each human needs a defined living space to support him over a lifetime, not merely the minimal space his body may occupy. This is owing to the fact humans need resources to live which are extracted from a given land area.  This life support basis is a function of the rate of consumption of resources in this living space, and the birth rate.  The current average – when all humans are factored in – amounts to nearly 2.1 hectares per person .  This reckons in crops, lumber,  water,  meats-cattle etc.,  consumed over a life .  A square meter therefore cannot be a life support space. Only a certified moron would believe so. (Unless we are talking about immobilized humans put into a deep coma or deep freeze and remaining in stasis).

Thus, no high population density scheme that doesn’t factor in acreage impact  can be taken seriously.   Our species became a blight and cancer on the planet and to itself (bear in mind cancer occurs when cells fail to cease dividing, growing) at the instant it lost track of bio-support capacity and when we exceeded it.   The signs all around us now, from the massive Brazilian Amazon fires, to the dearth of water in India, scream in resonance of the failure of our species to control its numbers. 

As for solutions, as a recent blurb summarized them for Attenborough's BBC documentary:

"The filmmakers endorse the need for smaller families and increased access to contraceptives. Renewed investments in education are also championed in the film, particularly for women in impoverished countries, because the highly educated are less likely to have multiple children. Attenborough contends that it is only by following each of these steps that mankind can effectively limit the creation of new life and ensure a sustainable future for our species."

That sustainability is tied to the ability to reckon the bio-support capacity for the planet. How many can it support but without a total absence of life quality, only survival?

If one divides the total output of bio-productivity (determined in terms of food crops generated per hectare, water volume per hectare, etc.) and divide that by the population, one can get some idea. One expert to whom Attenborough turned calculated that based on his models - if we wanted a planet with equally shared bio-productive output - each human would get TWO hectares. If we inhabited such a world, then the planet might support 15 billion people. 

The reality is that the bio-productive output is not equal, and using a map of the world, Attenborough showed the divergences, what with the UK consuming 5.5 hectares per person, and the USA, 9.5 hectares. Thus, the average American is consuming more than four times that which is defined as a fair, equal apportioning of resources across all the numbers on the planet. According to Attenborough's expert, by this reckoning of such unequal apportioning of output, the planet can only hold 1.5 billion people.

The world then is overcrowded by roughly 6 billion humans. Sadly, it shows wherever one looks, from the massive housing shortages, to the water shortages (admittedly partly from drought) to the ever lowering GDPs of most nations.   Will we wake up in time to save some semblance of the future for our kids and grandkids?

It would be nice to believe so but with degenerates like Bolsonaro and Trump around it appears doubtful.  The clear addendum  remedy? Voters need to be intelligent enough not to vote in such unhinged, anti-environmental extremists and nationalists. Of course, this is an even more cogent reason for Millennials to get off their duffs and vote Dem in the 2020 elections. Personally, I suspect the planet cannot withstand another 4 years of Hitler Junior.
 
See also:

Thomas Neuburger

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Environmental Policy

It's Raining Plastic, From the Pyrenees to the Rockies to the Arctic

Excerpt:

 "I  often worry whether we aren't one of those species that self-eliminates, that commits "ecological suicide" as many bacteria do when they turn their environment too acid to live in. It's certain we're polluting the air with CO2 in a way that will change the climate from habitable to very inhospitable."