'When's the plague coming?'
Bushfires, ash rain, dust storms and flash floods: two weeks in apocalyptic Australia
As the country lurches painfully from one extreme weather to another, residents are fearful of what they will face next
A sense of fatalism hovers over Australians in the wake of recent extreme weather events, as Kate Lyons in Sydney says in her report to the Guardian Fri 24 Jan 2020:
In Australia this summer, talking about the weather inevitably leads to talking about the apocalypse.
“When’s the plague of locusts going to arrive?” jokes one Sydney resident after hearing reports that her city is to receive another storm of giant hailstones on Friday afternoon, just a day after it sweltered in temperatures of 40C and toxic smoke kept people stuck indoors, away from the respite of the beach.
A barista serving coffees to customers outside his cafe sees the spots of ash rain peppering their skin like freckles. Ash rain – such a common sight now it feels strange to think it needs an explanation – is caused as the rain picks up the smoke, the filth, the charred debris floating over cities and towns from huge nearby bushfires. Experts warn it could have a devastating impact on water supplies. Handing out the coffees the barista jokes darkly: “What next? Sars-rain?”
The modern use of the term "apocalyptic" is of importance, primarily because of the "psychology" that is associated with millenarianism and millenarian movements. The Wikipedia article on Apocalypticism says that:
Apocalypticism is the religious belief that there will be an apocalypse, a term which originally referred to a revelation, but now usually refers to the belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one's own lifetime. This belief is usually accompanied by the idea that civilization will soon come to a tumultuous end due to some sort of catastrophic global event. These views and movements often focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, and cataclysmic intervention of God in history; the judgment of all men; the salvation of the faithful elect; and the eventual rule of the elect with God in a renewed heaven and earth. Arising initially in Zoroastrianism apocalypticism was developed more fully in Judaic, Christian, and Islamic eschatological speculation.
Apocalypticism is often conjoined with the belief that esoteric knowledge that will likely be revealed in a major confrontation between good and evil forces, destined to change the course of history. Apocalypses can be viewed as good, evil, ambiguous or neutral, depending on the particular religion or belief system promoting them. However, it is not exclusively a religious idea and there are end times or transitional scenarios based in modern science and technology.
However, an apocalypse is not necessarily an "end of days" event, and our present times include several levels of possible meaning in the use of the word. And, predictably, the most positive level is regarded by the powers that be as heretical, and easily labelled extreme.
A reminder . . ."Apocalypse" (ἀποκάλυψις) is a Greek word meaning "revelation", "an unveiling or unfolding of things not previously known and which could not be known apart from the unveiling".
As a genre, apocalyptic literature details the authors' visions of the end times as revealed by an angel or other heavenly messenger. The apocalyptic literature of Judaism and Christianity embraces a considerable period, from the centuries following the Babylonian exile down to the close of the Middle Ages.
There are echoes of eschatology, or "the end of times", in popular culture, literature, films, comics, manga and other art forms. A list of apocalyptic films can be found on Wikipedia, that include the 1961 film:
The Day the Earth Caught Fire . . .
. . . and the 2004 film:
The Day After Tomorrow
Business Insider has this recent story referencing the film. Many of the films in this genre have a fictional narrative that prepares the audience for a situation that is hopeless in the face of catastrophe on a global scale.
There IS a crisis! But do NOT despair!
Originally this speculative eschatology was to be found in a part of theology concerned with the final events of history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity. Hence, this concept is commonly referred to as the "end of the world" or "end times".
The word arises from the Greek ἔσχατος eschatos meaning "last" and -logy meaning "the study of", and first appeared in English around 1844. The Oxford English Dictionary defines eschatology as "the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind". A relatively modern term pointing to a longer history of belief systems.
Fact and or fiction?
However the apocalypse, revelation, or "seeing things as they actually are", is also associated with a more positive, revolutionary and transformative scenario, that in the medieval period generated collective efforts to create perfection on the planet Earth, a period of peace to last a thousand years before a final judgement day. Rather than wait for divine judgement and a destination in heaven or hell, these Millenarianist movements, including religious, social, or political groups (from Latin mīllēnārius "containing a thousand"), were driven in the belief in a coming fundamental transformation of society, after which;
"all things will be changed".This is a collective mind set focused on real change, and requiring radical and revolutionary change to the system of power. In the middle ages this involved creating autonomous social and political space for what Norman Cohn described as anarcho-syndicalist communities. See Norman Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages (1957, revised and expanded in 1970) an amazing study of millenarian cult movements.
Covering a wide span of time, Cohn's book discusses topics such as anti-Semitism and the Crusades, in addition to such sects as the Brethren of the Free Spirit, flagellants, the Anabaptists, and the Ranters.
The Pursuit of the Millennium concludes with a discussion of the theocratic king John of Leiden, who took over the city of Münster in 1534.
The context of power, and the abuse of power then, and which was clearly visible, included the church, principalities, kingdoms and empires. Today it is global capitalism, a far more complex and often invisible force.
See more and listen to Norman Cohn . . .
If you listen to Norman Cohn speaking about these millenarianist movements it becomes a lot clearer why, in a European context at least, the radical community is seen by the powers that be as a potentially extreme opponent. An enemy!
This Guardian report by Jamie Grierson and Vikram Dodd (Mon 27 Jan 2020) on a thread of stories relating to Extinction Rebellion, is headlined:
Terror police list that included Extinction Rebellion was shared across government
And with this sub heading:Document was sent to several departments, NHS England, Ofsted and 20 councils
Controversial guidance that listed Extinction Rebellion as an extremist ideology was sent to a wide range of government departments and local authorities including the Home Office and Counter Terrorism Policing headquarters, the Guardian can reveal.
The south-east division of Counter Terrorism Policing was forced to recall the document, which listed the climate crisis group alongside neo-Nazis and jihadists, after it was exposed by the Guardian.
After the Guardian revealed the document’s existence Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE) branded it an “error of judgment” and said it “was produced at a local level”.
But now, after an internal review, the unit has confirmed the guide was sent to the Home Office, the Department for Education, NHS England, the Ministry of Defence, HM Prison Service, Probation Service and Ofsted, as well as 20 local authorities, five police forces and Counter Terrorism Policing headquarters (CTPHQ) in London.
A meeting between two extremists . . .
“Do we want to go down in history as the people who did nothing to bring the world back from the brink in time to restore the balance, when we could have done?”
Prince Charles, not Greta Thunberg speaking at Davos!
Graeme Wearden in Davos reports on Prince Charles exhorting his audience to fight climate crisis using so-called "green taxes" (Wed 22 Jan 2020):
'The time to act is now.'
“What good is all the extra wealth in the world gained from business as usual if you can do nothing with it except watch it burn in catastrophic conditions?”
Charles, who also met the climate activist Greta Thunberg at the summit, urged the private sector to use its ingenuity and practical skills to help lead the world out of a climate calamity. “The only limit is our willingness to act and the time to act is now.”
The prince was speaking after launching an initiative, the Sustainable Markets Initiative and Council. His 10 proposals included the rapid decarbonisation of businesses, driving investment in new environmentally friendly technologies and helping consumers to make sustainable choices.
The prince said global consumers could make markets sustainable, but could not make sustainable choices if these options were not clearly laid before them.
Charles also warned that being socially and environmentally conscious cannot be an option for wealthier people only. Markets needed to change, so that prices actually reflected the environmental as well as economic costs.
“If all the true costs are taken into account, being socially and environmentally responsible should be the least expensive option because it leaves the smallest footprint behind,” he argued, implicitly calling for subsidies and tax changes.
The Prince of Wales arrived in an electric car – rather than the helicopter option favoured by some, such as Donald Trump. However, he reportedly travelled to Switzerland by private jet, a reminder of the gap between the goals outlined at the forum this week and the global elite’s behaviour.
On the day following Prince Charles' pitch persuading the global elite to . . .
1) Put nature and the protection of nature’s capital at the heart of operations.
2) Create responsible pathways to decarbonise to reach net zero, and for governments and businesses to set a clear plan for how they will decarbonise.
3) Reimagine industries through the lens of sustainable markets.
4) Identify game-changing technologies that can speed up the creation of a sustainable economy and eliminate barriers to change.
5) Remove subsidies that prevent the economy becoming more sustainable, and set taxes, policies and regulations in a way that catalyses sustainable markets.
6) Invest in science, technology, engineering and maths skills, and in research and development, to help bring emerging technologies to market.
7) Invest in nature as an economic driver of growth.
8) Agree unified metrics for measuring environmental, social and governance standards, to provide transparency to company’s supply chains.
9) Make it easier for consumers to see which products are ethical and sustainable.
10) Realign investing so it can support sustainability. This would direct trillions of pounds in pension funds, sovereign wealth funds into environmentally responsible projects that offer long-term value and rate of return.
. . . Donald Trump's treasury secretary tells Greta Thunberg to study economics.
Tracy Keeling writing for the Canary (23rd January 2020) says:
A Trump official tried to tear Greta Thunberg down a peg or two on 23 January. Responding to a question about the climate activist’s call for divestment from fossil fuels, Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin said Thunberg should “come back and explain that to us” after she’s studied economics in college.
Mnuchin’s message was effectively ‘shut up and listen to the grown-ups, Greta, until you are one yourself’. He should have known better than to try and outwit Thunberg, though. He of all people, in fact.
Divest, divest, divest
Thunberg spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos on 21 January. She told the meeting of global elites that:
Any plan or policy of yours that doesn’t include radical emission cuts at the source, starting today, is completely insufficient for meeting the 1.5-degree or well-below-2-degrees commitments of the Paris Agreement.The Paris Agreement lays out a commitment by signatory countries to ensure the global increase in temperatures doesn’t exceed 2°C (with the aim of keeping it at 1.5°C or below). Climate scientists say that temperature increases above the average in 1850-1900 must be kept to 1.5°C at the most if we are to limit the most severe effects of climate change. The average temperature increase in 2019, i.e. global warming since 1850-1990, reached 1.1°C. In short, we’re not going far enough or fast enough in taking necessary measures (such as reducing emissions) to hit the target.
So Thunberg called on Davos attendees to:
- Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction.
- Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies.
- And immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.
It was this vital demand that Mnuchin responded to with his condescending remarks. He also commented:
Is she the chief economist, or who is she? I’m confused.
Perhaps a picture will help
Donald Trump notoriously needs his briefings to come with lots of pictures because he’s “indifferent to subtleties”, reports claim. Perhaps Thunberg wondered whether that applied across the board with Trump’s team, because she responded to Mnuchin’s slur with a visual. The climate activist also explained where the graph came from and challenged Mnuchin to either:
. . . tell us how to achieve this mitigation.
. . . or explain to future generations and those already affected by the climate emergency why we should abandon our climate commitments.
Author Naomi Klein, meanwhile, pointed out that Thunberg isn’t alone in calling for divestment from fossil fuels:
Others just flat out gave Mnuchin a piece of their mind:
CNBC reporters discussed the climate crisis with the Treasury secretary after his comments. Some of the journalists appeared to be completely in tune with the Trump administration’s climate-crisis denial. But one asked Mnuchin about a contradiction in Trump’s position, whereby he supports the value of tree-planting to the planet but “does not believe that carbon dioxide is ultimately the problem”.
Trees absorb carbon. That makes them a vital ingredient in battling the carbon emissions we’ve released, and continue to release, into the atmosphere. But if Trump doesn’t believe carbon is a key part of the problem, then why does he think we need the trees? That was essentially the journalist’s question. Mnuchin responded:
It’s both correct. He doesn’t believe that [carbon is] the problem. On the other hand, obviously, planting a trillion trees is a good thing for the planet.Pressed further, he continued:
Well, first of all trees are being cut down at paces all around. I mean, having forests, creating trees, I think these are all good things.Clearly, someone needs to go back to school. But it's not Thunberg.
And when it comes to trees, well trees are, according to Trump's stooges, there to be logged!
This image of a massive smoke plume, powered by strong winds, rising above the the Woolsey fire on 9 November 2018 in Malibu, California was used by the Guardian in this story:
'Blatant manipulation'
Revealed: emails show Trump and appointees tried to craft a narrative that forest protection efforts are responsible for wildfires
Emily Holden and Jimmy Tobias reported (Fri 24 Jan 2020). The report begins:
Political appointees at the interior department have sought to play up climate pollution from California wildfires while downplaying emissions from fossil fuels as a way of promoting more logging in the nation’s forests, internal emails obtained by the Guardian reveal.And the report concludes:
The messaging plan was crafted in support of Donald Trump’s pro-industry arguments for harvesting more timber in California, which he says would thin forests and prevent fires – a point experts refute.
The emails show officials seeking to estimate the carbon emissions from devastating 2018 fires in California so they could compare them to the carbon footprint of the state’s electricity sector and then publish statements encouraging cutting down trees.
The records offer a look behind the scenes at how Trump and his appointees have tried to craft a narrative that forest protection efforts are responsible for wildfires, including in California, even as science shows fires are becoming more intense largely because of climate change.
Hanson, the forest and fire ecologist, said that in addition to using the government data for political purposes, the department numbers overstated the carbon emissions from forest fires while downplaying emissions from fossil fuels.“The Trump administration and the interior department are pushing mystical theories that are false in order to justify gutting public land protections to advance their pro-industry and lobbyist dominated agenda.”
He said that the carbon emissions numbers generated by USGS and released to the public were an “overestimate” that “can’t be squared with empirical data” from field studies of post-wildfire burn sites in California. Other scientists the Guardian spoke with did not dispute the government’s data, but did find fault with the way it was presented to the public.
“The comparison of fire to electrical emissions [in California] was not explained or justified”, said Harmon, the Oregon State University scientist. “Picking other sectors would have left an entirely different image in the reader’s mind…If the comparison had been made nationally it would have been found that fire related emissions of carbon dioxide were equivalent to 1.7% of fossil fuel related emissions. So it is hard to escape the conclusion that some cherry picking was going on.”
Jayson O’Neill, the deputy director of the Western Values Project, said the emails are another example of the administration “trying to find ways to tell a story to achieve industry goals”.
“As wildfire experts have repeatedly explained, you can’t log or even ‘rake’ our way out of this mess,” O’Neill said.
A trail through the Tongass national forest, where Trump proposed allowing logging. Photograph: Rafe Hanson
Liar, liar . . .
"Liar, Liar," by 1960s garage rock band The Castaways. Dance performance by The Honey Bees (Mary Ann, Ginger and Lovey) of Gilligan's Island. Written by James Donna and Denny Craswell, "Liar, Liar" was The Castaways first and only hit single. It reached number 12 in the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 1965. Liar, Liar is featured in the films Good Morning Vietnam and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. The Castaways may be seen performing Liar, Liar in the 1967 beach movie It's a Bikini World.
"Liar, liar, pants on fire Your nose is longer than a telephone wire"
While Greta Thunberg was clashing with the US treasury secretary she was being supported by Angela Merkel, as reported by Graeme Weardon from Davos 2020 (Thu 23 Jan 2020):
Angela Merkel, though, spoke warmly about the work of the new generation of climate activists.
“The impatience of our young people is something that we should tap,” the German chancellor said. In a special address to the WEF, Merkel called for more international cooperation to tackle climate change.
“I am totally convinced that the price of inaction will be far higher than the price of action,” she declared.
Thunberg has used this week’s gathering in Davos to push for radical change on the climate emergency.
She called for an immediate exit from fossil fuel investment, an end to subsidies for the industry and a halt to investment in fossil fuel exploration and extraction by companies, banks, institutions and governments.
“You might think we’re naive but if you won’t do it, you must explain to your children why you’ve given up on the Paris agreement goals and knowingly created a climate crisis,” she told delegates on Tuesday.
Mnuchin’s comments clearly show the White House has yet to heed the call.
The US labour secretary, Eugene Scalia, called for a balanced approach. The energy sector has been an important source of jobs and fully divesting from fossil fuels would also harm US pensioners, he said.
On Tuesday, Trump told Davos that delegates should be optimistic.
“To embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune tellers,” he said.
Meanwhile Payal Parekh alongside 1500 people;
spent three days walking from Landquart to Davos in possibly the coldest and most high-altitude climate justice march of all time. On the final day, we even managed to block the road to Davos, which has been blocking progress for a fairer and more just world the past 50 years.
In this Guardian Opinion piece (Fri 24 Jan 2020) Payal Parekh says:
We can’t trust the billionaires of Davos to solve a climate crisis they created
While Australia is burning and frontline communities all over the world are threatened by the very real consequences of the climate crisis, Davos-style meetings will never give us the answers we need. In truth, it would be foolish for anyone to expect a private club whose 1000 member companies have paid between 60,000 to 600,000 swiss francs to be a member (the more you pay the more access you have) should be trusted to solve an issue they created.
'Pay the rent'
On the 26th January many Australians celebrated Australia Day amidst the harsh taste and smell of what seems to many Australians to be apocalyptic infernos.
However, there are also many Australians who are questioning the historical basis for this celebration and regard Australia Day as a symbol of the adverse impacts of British settlement on Australia's Indigenous peoples. In 1888, prior to the first centennial anniversary of the First Fleet landing on 26 January 1788, New South Wales premier Henry Parkes was asked about inclusion of Aboriginal people in the celebrations. He replied:
"And remind them that we have robbed them?
This Opinion piece by Paul Daley, published on the eve of the Australia Day celebration, makes a case for valuing the knowledge of Indigenous People:
Fire and carbon.
That’s what I’ll be reflecting on today, 26 January, Invasion Day to me and many I know, Australia Day officially.
Amid all of the inevitable non-Indigenous nationalist hyperbole that’ll be megaphoned your way, there is an alternative, quieter but insistent political, social and environmental conversation happening about bushfires and carbon mitigation and what that all means when it comes to being Australian today.
This 26 January, as the country burns, as our government becomes the ever-greater subject of international ridicule over its recalcitrance on emissions mitigation, the national mood is one of ennui and despair. There is a deep introspection about caring for country and global responsibility that will more energetically than ever defy the official celebrations on this most divisive day of national self-congratulation, imbued though they’ll be from the top with the politically convenient, she’ll-be-right distraction of Aussie stoicism.
Fire and carbon are, ironically perhaps, central to what I think really should be the focus of national reflection on any day of the year – the key to connecting with this continent’s heart and what we should hold dearest.
I’m talking about continental human existence and the increasing evidence that Indigenous people were in this place 120,000 years ago. That’s 55,000 years longer than the generally agreed scientific proposition of 65,000 years of Aboriginal civilisation.
An article in Australian Geographic by Angela Heathcote (August 15, 2018) discusses the implications of a new book, The Edge of Memory by Patrick Nunn, a geographer from the University of the Sunshine Coast, in relation to the present climate crisis. Nunn hopes to explain to Australians about these oral histories and to appreciate how long they’ve endured, but also how this knowledge offers a model for contemporary action.
Angela Heathcote says in her article:
THE BATTLE BETWEEN oral histories and written histories is long standing. In academic circles in Australia, the written histories of European settlers have held more weight than the oral histories of Aboriginal Australians.
Only in the last 15 to 20 years have historians begun to revisit these oral histories and realise the important information they hold about the Australian landscape and its ancient people.
“This whole orality versus literacy debate is something that I’ve become really concerned about. It’s what I call the ‘arrogance of literacy’, and it’s the idea that just because we have something written down, or that we can pick up a book and look something up, we’re superior,” Patrick tells Australian Geographic.
The book combines information on the important oral histories of Indigenous cultures around the world, however, Patrick emphasises that Australia is an outlier in terms of world cultures because the oral histories of the country go back so far.
“Many scientists still say ‘oral histories only go back a few hundred years’ but that simply isn’t true. They go back to the edge of memory, which in the case of Aboriginal Australians, is thousands and thousands of years.”
According to Patrick, one of the most valuable oral histories told by Aboriginal Australians are the accounts of sea-level rise that occurred 7000 to perhaps as much as 12,000 years ago.
“Those stories emerge from 22 places all around the Australian coastline, and they all say essentially the same thing. Now, sea levels around Australia started rising around 18,000 to 17,000 years ago, but stopped rising about 7,000 years ago. This means, if there are Aboriginal Australian stories about nature and the effects of sea-level rise, these stories have to have endured for more than 7000 years.”
Patrick says that Aboriginal Australians were not just aware of sea-level rise, but prepared for and then adapted to it.
“We find that in some places around Australia there are many stories of resistance. There’s a story from Cairns which talks about people climbing up a mountain, heating up rocks, and rolling those hot rocks down into the ocean to hurt it or stop it rising, and they recall that it actually worked.
Actions required today to reduce a rise in sea level are urgent but, if adopted globally, have a better chance of working than rolling hot rocks down into the ocean!
Why the Guardian will no longer accept fossil fuel advertising
The world’s leading scientists tell us we have just twelve years to change human behaviour to avert catastrophe. Teenage climate strikers inspire millions of people, young and old, to protest against inaction, and devastating bushfires sweep across much of Australia. This is the most important challenge of our times.
We have decided that we will no longer accept advertising from fossil fuel extractive companies on any of the Guardian’s websites and apps, nor in the Guardian, Observer and Guardian Weekly in print. Our decision is based on the decades-long efforts by many in that industry to prevent meaningful climate action by governments around the world.
We have just twelve years to change!
