Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Note to Joe Romm of Climate Progress Who Graciously Accepted My Comments on His Blog re Polar Cities, But with an important Caveat....

I had written on Joe's Climate Progress blog:

December 22, 3010

Dear Joe and commentariat:

Reading through the 188 plus comments, I noted to myself that many people are now admitting in public that they agree with James Lovelock’s predictions about mass migrations north in the future to live in climate refuges for climate refugees. And with Danny Bloom, who as you know, calls these Lovelockian ”climate settlements” in the far north — and in New Zealand and Tasmania too — as “polar cities”, where survivors of climate chaos will be housed to serve as Lovelock’s famous “breeding pairs” of humans in the future.

It’s no longer science fiction or mere eccentricity on the part of Lovelock or Bloom, but many people are now embracing these ideas, as seen in comments above. Bloom, 61, calls himself “James Lovelock’s Accidental Student” since he got his idea for polar cities directly from Lovelock. 91, and Lovelock has seen Bloom’s images and ideas of polar citiees and said ”’yes yes, it may happen and soon” in an email.

So the fact that so many comments actually say what Lovelock and Bloom have been saying in the past indicates that the awful A-word — ADAPTATION — is now taking over from mitigation. It would be nice and useful and helpful is one day Joe Romm takes some time to do a gentle blog post about Bloom and his polar cities meme.

[JOE ROMM, owner of the blog, told me in a nice and important reply on the blog itself: Polar cities, as defined on Wiki and elsewhere, Danny, are not really what folks have been saying here. This is a post on what individuals should do.

The notion that people would migrate north is hardly "Lovelockian." It is "obvious." It isn't the "A-word" that is being discussed here -- It is the "M-word" (misery). National-level adaptation like polar cities takes 1) a strong understanding of climate science by the public, media, and politicians, which is currently lacking and 2) $$$$$ to spend abating climate impacts, which is also lacking. We aren't there yet. Not even close, as I discuss here.

I'm not inherently against 'polar cities' -- but if we are going to dream we live in a world that had #1 and #2, focusing on mitigation makes more sense. Doesn't mean I won't do a post, just means you should stop bombarding me with emails and comments.]

I then further noted to Joe Romm of Climate Progress:
I agree with you. Joe. about everything you wrote in your bracketed response above, and thanks for hearing me out. Yes, first come #1 and #2, and focusing on mitigation. Yes yes, a thousand times yes. But at the same time, just as a thought exercise and to keep thinking outside the box, the idea that humanity in the future might need climate refuges in the far north for climate refugees around the world to gather in, this idea might be worth considering merely as a WHAT IF question. That's all I am posing, a what if question. So I am glad to know, Joe, that you are not inherently against 'polar cities' --and that you might even do a weekend post one day about such ideas, just to get informed and reasoned feedback, as a what if post, and I will hereby stop bombarding you with emails and comments. Sorry, but from my cave in Taiwan, nobody ever listens to me and I sometimes have to shout, but I realize it's bad manners and I apologize. This is not about me, Joe, as I am sure you know. It is about the future of the human species. I care. I care about human life 500 years from now. You should ask me someday WHY I care about 30 generations hence, even as I prepare to die soon [heart clogged] and have no children that I fathered to pass on my genes to.

No comments: