The Bali Conference
December 18th, 2007
As a futurist, I look at long term trends and waves of history. The three waves of history we know have been the Agricultural Age, the Industrial Age and the Information Age. The first age began some 10,000 years ago when man first began to literally put down roots. The second age began some 250 years ago with the invention of the steam engine. The third age began some 30 years ago with communications satellites, computers, the explosive growth of the white collar work force and the birth of the electronic global village envisioned by Marshall McLuhan.
We are now entering a new age, the Shift Age. In the months ahead I will write in some detail about this age because — shameless plug here — it is a name I have coined and is also the title of my book that will be published in the first quarter of 2008. For this column however I will focus on just one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Shift Age. The Shift Age marks humanity’s last, at least on this planet, stage of evolution, the global stage. Humanity has ultimately and finally entered this global stage and there is no turning back.
In 1974, around the beginning of the Information Age, humanity reached 4 billion in number. We are now at 6.7 billion which means that our species has grown 66% in the last 33 years, an astonishing fact. This is one of the two primary drivers of global warming, the shear growth of the species. There are so many more of us. The second driver of course is the increase in per capita energy consumption globally. The continent of Asia, China and India in particular, has experienced an explosion of capitalistic consumption patterns. Many of the parts of the planet that have experienced some of the greatest population growth are now experiencing some of the greatest growth in energy consumption. Intertwined, these two growth curves provide the exponential human contribution to global warming.
Global warming is the first true global issue. What I mean by that is that it is the first issue that can only be addressed, or solved by all of humanity. It is not a problem that a few countries can get together and solve. It will take all of us. The prior issue that put humanity’s survival at risk, nuclear proliferation was an issue that less than a dozen countries needed to sit at the table and discuss. Nine nation states had the bomb and the rest of the world hoped that these nations would act with extreme restraint. Compare that to the Bali conference on climate change which had some 190 nations participating. Addressing climate change successfully will flow from unanimity of all the nations of the world. No one or group of nations can solve it. It is the first great threat to humanity that is beyond the scope of the nation state to solve.
This is the filter through which I observed the United States’ participation at the Bali conference. Sure the Bush administration has been brain dead on the issue of global warming and has only begun to realize how behind the curve it is relative to its own citizens (read voters). The U.S. contingent acted as though this issue was like all the others it has faced as the single greatest super power. Take a position and bring the world to its way of (non)thinking. This time it didn’t work. No only was it not leading, but the other nations basically said that if the U.S. didn’t want to lead, then get out of the way and follow the rest of the world. The Bush delegation couldn’t handle that perception, so on the last day it capitulated and joined in, at least partially.
Global warming is the issue that is the first global issue of The Shift Age. It points the direction for humanity. Spaceship earth is a finite place. Unlimited growth cannot go on indefinitely. James Lovelock, the great visionary scientist, came up with the concept of Gaia that the entire Earth functions as a single living superorganism that regulates its internal environment. In his most recent book “The Revenge of Gaia†he postulates that the organism is sick, is running a fever and that global warming is a self correcting mechanism to ride itself of a virus-like organism that is threatening the superorganism. That ‘virus’ is humanity. He further states, pessimistically, that unless radical steps are taken soon, the 6.7 billion of us may well dwindle to some 500 million by the end of this century. While that may or may not be a radical idea, it is clear that life as we know it historically has changed forever in part due to our shear numbers. While some still debate whether humans are causing the problem, it is clear that we must join together collectively to address, confront and ultimately do everything we can to reverse global warming. It is a risk management issue. It is a survival issue. It is a global issue that involves all of us, like it or not.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:53 am
what is being called “global warming” is a pollution problem, not a population problem
and warming is not a problem, it is an adjustment that nature makes…. and this is what nature is, one big adjustment machine, one with infinite elasticity…
i live in a very warm country, nature is fine, people are fine, the entire culture is basically in response to the climate and the seasons, and is in that way natural too, in synch…
so what is this problem, and who is it a problem for? it seems only a secondary consideration for those in the “first world” (and those who wish to emulate what the first world did first, i.e have a life of abundant consumption) who would prefer to continue business as usual, and will, unless forced to change by those who struggle to convince them that “there is a problem”.
whether we call this second group scientists, or idealists, or practical observers of reality, they haver no power, as power is understood by manufacturers, polluters, plush life-style adherents, politicians….
i am saying that the problems need to become obvious, and hurtful, then some change will happen…. that is how nature works, and humans too…
if one wishes to take on the cause of global warming, one becomes a drum-beater or a power seeker, to effect change…
to be the change, one needs a more subtle awareness than the activist, one needs to see trends in advance, and, for example, begin to make the things that will be consumed as alternatives to what is consumed presently that is polluting, what has been called thinking our of the box…. not a category rewarded by the status quo
living a simpler life is also part of this, but only the wise, or the stressed, ever consider it..
overselling “global warming” seems to created ridicule and opposition, a more conscious approach is to recognize that what we oppose, we strengthen, and simply go about our lives in a different way, drive less, consume less, talk to those we encounter about living wisely…
petrol, gas, at ten bucks a gallon would put walmart out of business in a year, just as today the epa is not allowing california to raise its automobile emission standards, the powers will oppose all attempts to create change…
you need to become a kind of guerilla operator, offering altrnatives that are better… simple railing against something does nothing…
December 21st, 2007 at 10:24 am
Taking individual action, changing behavior, altering values are all part of major change. The two things you are overlooking is that major, fundamental change on a global scale, or even a national scale takes leadership at the highest levels of government. The U.S. could not have reached the moon without it for example.
The other thing is that, like the national debt, global warming is not currently painful. It is therefore asking humans to do something they usually do not do which is preventative medicine. Or the metaphor of the frog that will stay in a pot of lukewarm water and never jump out as it is brought to boiling whereas if it is dropped into boiing water it immediately jumps out.
As I have written earlier, global warming is a risk management issue. If those that say it is fast approaching are right we must do something to survive. If they are wrong, we still will have developed new innovative energy solutions, increased conservation, freed America from dependency on foreign oil etc.
As Yoda said “Do or not do, there is no try”
December 21st, 2007 at 11:55 am
have continued thinking about your post, stripping the global warming concept, attempting to reduce it to an essence, and have come up with…
happiness doesn’t come from having stuff…
but this is anathema to any economy… imagine a satisfied and secure population that didn’t go out on the weekend to buy stuff to fill emotional needs… the economy would go to hell…
i would agree with you about lack of leadership, there is really none in sight anywhere, but keeping the agitation and dissatisfaction going seems to be keeping things afloat and makes it seem like someone somewhere knows exactly how to run an economy…
will look for your next topic
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
and another link.. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5677638284028972412&q=documentaries+bbc&total=79&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6
my two pence worth, just as genisis, or any creation myth, is the projection of the beginning of our own subjectivity into story, armegeddon is the projection of the anticiaption of our subjective death… both have nothing to do with reality
and another link http://www.tricklenews.com/pebble/default/2007/12/23/1198407120000.html
why global warming does just not matter
December 25th, 2007 at 1:07 am
a couple more links…. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_richard__071223_hyperconsumption_cau.htm
about hyperconsumption and global warming….
and a very good article, unfortunately it looks like you have to buy the magazine, http://www.wie.org/, is the cover story of the recent issue of “what is enlightenment” called “ecology, politics, and consciousness”, and because i cannot figure out how to open the article so i can link a quote, i am going to type one…
“We don’t need more recyclihng, we need a completely different system of closed-loop manufacturing, and no matter how many cans i crush, my personal actions at the consumer level are of very little importance in getting us there. Even millions more eco-consumers will not get us what we need. What we need instead, it seems to me, is a global movement of smart people who understands the systems in which we are embedded, are actively pursuing better models which could replace them, and are clever as heck about communicating visions for doing so to their fellow citizens.”
a very good article, called A Brighter shade of Green, Reboothing environmentalism for the 21st century, by ross robertson… it is excellent..
December 25th, 2007 at 11:16 am
you may already know this…
http://www.johnhagel.com/paper_pushpull.pdf
sorry if i am bugging you, i am trying to find who is on my team, and how to communicate what the world needs to hear over the next years
December 28th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I can agree, wholeheartedly (although my heart has been broken into some 935 pieces already), with those of us who believe that climate change must be considered “the new normal†— in acknowledgement of the fact that such a lot of effects of global warming cannot be avoided, short term. It’s a natural fact, of course. Human greenhouse gas pollution of the atmosphere has been massive for a very long time; it is still increasing, and expected to keep doing so for plenty of years, as humanity’s ruling class is awaiting the introduction of “future technological fixes†to the scientific fact — and big problem — of global warming.
To the best of my understanding, this was the real outcome of the UN’s Climate Change Conference in Bali. The IPCC’s scientific consensus, which won’t let humanity off the hook, is to be considered the official truth on which future policy-making is going to respond.
But there’s a tendency among ordinary people to do away with all thoughts about a change of attitudes. It seems to me like the vast majority of human beings are ready to take what is coming, and wait it out. As the thought of mitigating practices in the form of real lifestyle changes is out of the question, as it runs contrary to everyone’s idea of being happy.