If uncertainty is constitutive of historical becoming, Hiroshima transformed it into the central object of historical-philosophical reflection [I]. Since then, the world has remained suspended, often by a thread, over the nuclear abyss. [II]. Today it is “more unpredictable and more difficult” than a generation ago, said Jens Stoltenberg, NATO secretary general. [III]. There is in fact a convergence of risks, aggravated by the election of Donald Trump, who last December tweeted: “The US must greatly reinforce and expand its nuclear arsenal” [IV]. In 2017, the hands of the Doomsday Clock, published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [IN], were brought forward, with now two and a half minutes to midnight. In the 70 years of this monitoring, this is the closest moment to a potentially terminal nuclear conflagration, with the only exception being 1953, when the first hydrogen bomb exploded in the USA, as shown in Figure 1.
The lower the points on this graph, the closer we are to midnight, that is, to zero (vertical axis on the left) in the countdown to a nuclear conflagration.
The statement by the NATO Secretary General, mentioned above, reflects Donald Trump's vociferation that “North Koreans will face fire and fury like the world has never seen” [YOU], and Vladimir Putin’s response that escalating threats of war between the US and North Korea could trigger a “global catastrophe” [VII]. Furthermore, the nuclear risk also remains considerable in the Middle East and among other nuclearized Asian countries, such as India, Pakistan and China, especially due to control ofthe Himalayan glaciers, the largest source of their water resources [VIII].
And, however, the greater and more evident these risks become, the less reactivity they provoke. This paradox is explained by three well-known psychological mechanisms: (1) the habituation effect of decades of the Cold War and the rhetoric of deterrence (something similar to the fable of the wolf that never arrives); (2) the inefficient response of our psychic apparatus to non-immediate dangers, even if extreme; (3) the dismantling of the Welfare State and the regression of representative democracy, brought about by globalization, the extreme concentration of economic power and the new normality of capitalism after 2008. Because its immediate impacts on food, energy and financial security are now cornering in such a way the majority of the population, that concerns about less pressing risks, however large they may be, move to the background [IX].
The same paradox is observed in the context of environmental crises. The more severe and recurrent the scientific community's warnings about the destabilization of the climate system and the increasing degradation of ecosystems become, the less society's willingness to react accordingly appears to be. This is also explained by the three mechanisms mentioned above, as the recurring warnings about the worsening of environmental crises, even if underreported by the mainstream press, end up generating habituation, the impacts of environmental crises are still relatively diffuse and, above all, the anguish generated by the worsening The socioeconomic situation in the last decade has contributed to relegating these crises to a marginal position on the political agenda.
Nuclear uncertainty, environmental certainty
It is important to note here, however, a fundamental difference. Nuclear war belongs to the sphere of the imponderable. It can result from a “tragic failure”, a random slip in the escalation of reciprocal threats or a fit of madness [X]. On the contrary, the environmental catastrophe appears less and less uncertain, as the expansive dynamics of the capitalist economy and science make us ever more capable of provoking and predicting it, while the hijacking of democracy by corporations and the dynamics itself The feedback loop of environmental crises always makes us less capable of avoiding it. The worst-case scenarios of previous projections of degradation of environmental coordinates have generally been confirmed, or even surpassed, by subsequent observation of the phenomena. Contrary to nuclear winter, not preceded by an autumn, the collapse of natural systems is announced by a proliferation of signs that are increasingly clear and distinct from the background noise, that is, from the natural variability of the Earth system. Dennis Meadows referred to them in 2012, on the fortieth anniversary of his famous The Limits to Growth, when he stated: “I see the collapse already happening” [XIV].
The unretouched portrait of our future
The magazine's editorial from last June Nature Don’t mince words to describe this “already happening” collapse [XII]: “On planet Earth the heat is increasing. (...) From extreme rainfall to rising sea levels, global warming is expected to wreak havoc on human lives. Sometimes the most direct impact – warming itself – is forgotten. But the heat kills. The body, in short, evolved to work in a narrow range of temperature variations. Our perspiration-based cooling mechanism is simple; beyond a certain combination of high temperature and humidity, it collapses. Exposing yourself to such environmental conditions for any length of time quickly becomes a death sentence.”
Here is the unretouched portrait of our future, proposed by the editorial of one of the most prestigious natural science magazines, to which it is necessary to add, to make it even more reliable, the global average loss of forest cover between 2012 and 2015 of around of 220 thousand km2 per year [XIII], biological annihilation through deforestation, overfishing, the multiplication of dead zones in the oceans, the impoverishment of soils, the decline of the largest aquifers, the most devastating droughts and fires, widespread pollution and chemical intoxication of organisms.
Facts, not more projections, are the recent extreme meteorological events in India, Nepal and Bangladesh, which killed more than 1.200 people and killed 40 million, or the unprecedented succession in the same cyclonic season of hurricanes and major floods (Harvey, Irma, José , Katia...) that attack the Antilles and the USA. Another fact is the greater frequency of heat anomalies in the period 2001-2011 compared to the period 1951-1980, as shown in the famous “climate data” by James Hansen and colleagues in Figure 2.
Source: James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, “The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change”, VII/2012
But the situation has deteriorated further in the last three years [XIV], with 2016 reaching the highest global average temperatures ever recorded, a record in part due to the intensifying effect of warming produced by El Niño. But July 2017, with the El Niño effect already behind us, was, according to NASA, “statistically tied with July 2016 as the hottest in the 137 years of modern records.” [XIV]. Since 2015, thermometers have recorded temperatures between 47,7º C and 54º C in China, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, Turkey, Spain (47,7º C) and Kuwait (54º C), a country where made it illegal to work in the sun from 11am to 00pm between June 16st and August 00st. These peaks of extreme heat led to the cancellation of dozens of flights in Phoenix, USA, in July, because the planes were not designed to take off at temperatures above 1º C. In the near future, warming is expected to restrict the operational conditions of five models of commercial aviation at 31 major airports [XVI]. A greater frequency of extreme El Niño events is also expected from +1,5º C [XVII], with estimates of global average warming up to 2100 ranging between +2,7º C and +5,2º C, if the Paris Agreement is (or was...) implemented, as shown in Figure 3.
Source: World Resources Institute, 9/11/2015
As for deaths caused by heat waves mentioned above in the editorial of Nature, a work published in 2017 in Nature Climate Change by Camilo Mora and co-authors shows that “currently, around 30% of the world's population is exposed to climatic conditions that exceed the mortality threshold for at least 20 days per year. It is projected that in 2100, this percentage will be ~48%, in a scenario with drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and ~74% in a scenario of increasing emissions. An increasing threat to human life from excess heat now seems inevitable, but it will be greatly aggravated if greenhouse gases are not considerably reduced.”[xviii]. Figure 4 shows the number of days per year in which the temperature will be above the mortality threshold by 2100, in scenarios of lower (RCP 4,5) or higher (RCP 8,5) atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Brazil
As the map above shows, Brazil is among the main victims of the climate catastrophe. In fact, the first National Assessment Report (RAN-1) of the Brazilian Panel on Climate Change (PBMC), signed in 2013 by 345 scientists, projects for the period 2071-2100, according to the different curves of greenhouse gas emissions. , increases in average temperatures in all regions of the country between 3º and 6º C in relation to the end of the 0,8th century (when increases of ~XNUMXº C were already recorded in relation to the pre-industrial period) [XX]. In the Amazon, +5º C in summer and +6º C in winter, with a strong drop in rainfall. In the Caatinga, + 3,5º C in summer and +4,5º C in winter, with an equal drop in rainfall. In the Atlantic Forest (NE), + 3º C in summer and +4º C in winter, with significant drops in rainfall. And in the Atlantic Forest (S/SE), +2,5º C in summer and +3º C in winter, with increased rainfall, worsening flooding in the south of the country. Figure 5 summarizes these regional changes in temperature and rainfall in the periods 2011-2040, 2040-2070 and 2071-2100.
Figure 5 – Projections of changes in average temperatures (oC) and precipitation (%) in three periods (2011-2040, 2040-2070 and 2071-2100), according to the 2013 PBMC
Source: http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/2013/08/13/extremos-do-clima/
Here, in conclusion, is what all the scenarios projected by science have in common: if a worse future now seems inevitable, it will be immeasurably worse if we continue to fail to react to the extreme gravity of the current situation. Admitting that the rapid worsening of environmental crises represents a certain and imminent existential danger to civilization and the web of life in increasing latitudes of our planet implies overcoming the anachronistic political agenda in which we daily dissipate our energies. It involves prioritizing the fight against those most responsible for these crises. We know who they are, but a work published in the magazine climatic Change [XX] identifies its fingerprints: “two thirds of total industrial emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are the responsibility of 90 large carbon-producing companies”, that is, fossil fuel and cement corporations. Quantifying this historical (1880-2010) and recent (1980-2010) responsibility, the authors of this work demonstrate that these 90 companies “contributed with ~57% of the observed increase in CO2 concentrations, with 42% to 50% of the global average warming surface (GMST) and with 26% to 32% of sea level rise in the historical period” (1880-2010). As for the recent period (1980-2010), they are responsible for 43% of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, for 29% to 35% of warming (GMST) and for 11% to 14% of sea level rise”. This corporate network, formed not only by these 90 fossil energy and cement corporations, but also by the deforestation coalition (livestock, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, mining, etc.) is condemning young people and the next generation to a planet that is certainly much more adverse than bequeathed by our parents and, increasingly likely, to a planet uninhabitable in most of its latitudes. The immense challenge of the politics of our time is to create an alternative democratic and free society, willing to make a war effort to mitigate the impacts of an inevitable future – which involves wresting strategic economic decisions from the suicidal logic of profit and subordinating them to restoration of collapsing ecosystems. This challenge has an expiration date and it is running out.
[I] See Michel Serres, Eclaircissements. Entertainment with Bruno Latour. Paris, 1992, pp. 29-30: «Hiroshima reste l'unique objet de ma philosophie»; Hicham-Stéphane Afiessa, « Michel Serres à l'ombre de la bombe », in Portraits of philosophes in ecologists, Paris, 2012, pp. 157-175.
[II] See Tony Judt, Reflections on a forgotten century, 1901-2000, São Paulo, 2008, pp. 333 et seq.; Pavel Aksenov, “Stanislav Petrov: The man who may have saved the world”. BBC Russian, 26/IX/2013.
[III] See Daniel Boffey, “Nato chief: world is at its most dangerous point in a generation”. The Guardian, 8/IX/2017.
[IV] See Rachael Lallensack, “Doomsday Clock ticks 30 seconds closer to midnight, thanks to Trump”. Science, 26/I/2017.
[IN] See “It is two and a half minutes to midnight”. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: “In 2017, we find the danger to be even greater” <http://thebulletin.org/timeline>.
[YOU] See Julian Borger, “Donald Trump vows to respond to North Korea nuclear threats with 'fire and fury'”: The Guardian, 9/2017/XNUMX.
[VII] Cf. Justin McCurry, Tom Phillips, “North Korea nuclear crisis: Putin warns of planetary catastrophe”. The Guardian, 5/IX/2017.
[VII] “India army chief: we must prepare for war with China and Pakistan”. The Guardian, 7/IX/2017.
[IX] Food insecurity is now increasing even in the United Kingdom, cf. Rajeev Syal, “One in eight workers struggle to afford food, finds TUC survey”. The Guardian, 7/IX/2017.
[X] Cf. John F. Kennedy: “Today every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under the nuclear sword of Damocles, suspended by the thinnest of threads, capable of being severed at any moment by accident or miscalculation or madness.” Address before the General Assembly of the United Nations, 25/IX/1961 (online).
[XIV] See Madhusreee Mukerjee, “Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return?” Scientific American magazine, 19/XII/2012; Graham Turner, Cathy Alexander, “Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse.” The Guardian, 2/IX/2014.
[XII] Cf. “Mercury rising”, Nature, editorial, 22/VI/2017.
[XIII] Cf. Mikaela Weiss et al. “Global tree cover loss remains high, and emerging patterns reveal shifting contributors”. World Resources Institute, 18/VII/2017.
[XIV] See “High temperatures and extreme weather continue”. WMO, 7/7/2017.
[XIV] “July 2017 equaled record July 2016”. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 15/VIII/2017.
[XVI] See Ethan D. Coffel, Terence R. Thompson & Radley M. Horton, “The impacts of rising temperatures on aircraft takeoff performance”. climatic Change, 13/VII/2017.
[XVII] See Guojian Wang et al., “Continued increase of extreme El Niño frequency long after 1.5o C warming stabilization”. Nature Climate Change, 7, 24/VII/2017, pp. 568-572.
[XVIII] See Camilo Mora et al., "Global risk of deadly heat”. Nature Climate Change, 19/VI/2017.
[XX] See Marcos Pivetta, “Climate Extremes”. Fapesp Research, August 2013, pp. 16-21.
[XX] Cf. B. Ekwurzel et al., “The rise in global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level from emissions traced to major carbon producers”. climatic Change, 7/IX/2017. I would like to thank Fernando Chaves for recommending this work.
