Klimapolitik als Kunstfehler

(erschienen im Tages-Anzeiger vom 9.11.2019, aktualisiert 6.7.2020)

Für einen Arzt ist der Umgang mit der Klimakrise durch Publikum, Politik sowie viele Medien und Experten eigenartig, um nicht zu sagen befremdlich. Ab Beginn der Ausbildung wird dem Arzt klargemacht, das er im Falle einer Fehlleistung - eines sogenannten Kunstfehlers - vor Gericht und sogar ins Gefängnis kommen kann. Kunstfehler können z.B. darin bestehen, dass man eine schlimme, eine noch schlimmere, oder die schlimmste Möglichkeit verpasst. Diese schlimmen Möglichkeiten mögen selten und sehr selten sein, aber das wird vor Gericht nicht helfen. Ein oft angeführtes Beispiel ist die Blutung aus dem Enddarm: Weit häufigste und wahrscheinlichste Ursache sind natürlich harmlose Haemorrhoiden, aber was für den Arzt vor allem zählt ist der Dickdarmkrebs. Wenn er diesen übersieht, und nur Haemorrhoiden behandelt, die auch vorhanden sein können, so kann daraus ein Gerichtsfall werden.

Vergessene Schere

Deshalb ist ist die schlimmste Möglichkeit für den Arzt eine dauernde Sorge, wir suchen sie, wir bereiten uns darauf vor und die harmlosen und häufigen Ursachen sind fast eine Nebensache. Dafür haben wir eine Art doppelte Buchführung im Kopf, zwei Algorithmen: Der eine sucht und berechnet dauernd die wahrscheinlichste Möglichkeit von Ursache/Verlauf/Endresultat,  der andere die schlimmste. Im Zweifel geht man von der schlimmeren Möglichkeit aus. Weil die Medizin ein unpräzises und unvorhersehbares Geschäft ist müssen wir uns oft mit Näherungsresultaten begnügen.  

Die Experten des Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) verhalten sich anders: Sie beliefern uns mit einleuchtenden Voraussagen in der Mitte eines angeblichen Wahrscheinlichkeitskorridors. Als Arzt wäre man reflexartig interessierter an den schlimmsten Möglichkeiten. Aber - wie erst letztes Jahr allgemein durchsickerte - vernachlässigt das IPCC mehrere bekannte verschlimmernde Faktoren und Selbstverstärkungsmechanismen (*) und liefert damit nicht einmal den wahrscheinlichsten Verlauf, gar nicht zu sprechen vom schlimmsten, welche jedoch unser Verhalten bestimmen sollten. Das überrascht nicht sehr, ist doch das IPCC ein von Regierungen abhängiges Gremium: Alle Regierungen wollen im Sattel bleiben und deshalb werden Probleme in der Regel nicht voll zugegeben. 

      

Jedermann spricht von Kippmechanismen und dem Punkt ohne Wiederkehr, welche jederzeit eintreten können, wenn sie nicht schon eingetreten sind. Wenn ich die zunehmend beschleunigten Temperaturkurven betrachte, die fast 400 Temperaturrekorde letzten Sommers, den letzten September, Oktober und Mai - die wärmsten je gemessenen - und wenn ich an das Methan denke, das aus Gewässern und auftauendem Permafrost sprudelt, oder an den immer noch steigenden Output von CO2 und SUV's, an das brennende Australien und an das anhaltende Tabu auf Diskussionen über die Bevölkerungsgrösse, so sagen mir meine internen Algorithmen, dass die Auflösung der Zivilisation in den nächsten Dekaden nicht mehr ein worst-case Szenario ist, sondern das wahrscheinlichste. Worst-case wäre, dass alles schon in den nächsten Jahren passiert.  

Wenn man die Haltung und Reaktion der offiziellen Stellen auf die Klimakrise mit den Massstäben misst, die routinemässig auf ärztliches Handeln angewandt werden, so wäre das ein Fall fürs Gericht. Weil es die ganze Welt betrifft und in einer Art Holocaust 2.0 enden wird müsste man sich etwas wie einen Nürnberger Gerichtshof für die ganze Welt überlegen. Nun könnte man einwenden, dass das schlimme Ende noch nicht bestätigt ist.  Aber wenn es bestätigt ist, wird es für Gerichtsverhandlungen zu spät sein.

Um das Thema auf den Tisch zu legen könnte man sich eine gespielte Gerichtsverhandlung vorstellen, ähnlich Ferdinand von Schirachs Theaterstück "Terror": Ankläger wären  Kinder, Tiere, Pflanzen und ihre Vertreter. Angeklagte wären Regierungen, Firmen, Experten usw. Das Publikum wäre die Geschworenen. Vielleicht könnte eine solche Inszenierung das Bewusstsein über die Dringlichkeit der Situation schärfen.      
________________________________________________
(*) Von den IPCC-Prognosen nicht berücksichtigte Selbstverstärkungsmechanismen: 

1. Das Abschmelzen des Eises vermindert die Erdreflexion was den vorausgesagten Temperaturanstieg um 20 oder mehr Prozent erhöhen kann.
2. Die Treibhausgase und ihr jährlicher Ausstoss bleiben nicht stabil sondern steigen weiter an, was den Temperaturanstieg gegenüber den Voraussagen weiter beschleunigt. 
3. Seit vier Jahren steigt das Methan stark an, weiterer Anstieg ist durch Erwärmung von Feuchtgebieten und Permafrost programmiert, im schlimmsten Fall kann das zu fatalem Temperaturanstieg innert weniger Jahre führen.
4. Die Ur- und Regenwälder gehen weltweit durch Rodung, Trockenheit und Brände zurück und können so immer weniger CO2 binden, strafen zugleich den CO2-Ablasshandel mit Zertifikaten Lügen.
5. Seit 2019 sagen verschiedene Klimamodelle mit weiterer Erwärmung einen Schwund der Wolkendecke voraus, was die Erwärmung verstärken könnte. 

Malpractice in climate politics

(translated from "Klimapolitik als Kunstfehler", Tages-Anzeiger 9.11.2019, updated 6.7.2020)

From a physicians viewpoint the approach to global warming by the public, by politics and some media and leading climate professionals seems rather strange: From the beginning of his training a physician is made aware that he will go before court and even to jail if found faulty of malpractice. Possible mistakes could be that you miss a grave, a worse or worst condition. These bad possibilities may be rare, but this  will not help you in court. An often cited example is bleeding from the end of the bowel: Most frequently and most probably this is caused by harmless hemorrhoids. But what counts for a physician is the worst case, and this is carcinoma of the bowel. If you do not rule this out before treating haemorrhoids (which indeed also may be there) it may become a case for court. That’s why for a physician in any situation the worst case is of constant concern, we look and prepare for it, and the harmless and most frequent causes are an aside.

Forgotten scissors

Therefore we have so to speak a sort of double bookkeeping in our heads, two algorithms, one permanently calculating the most probable cause/course/outcome and the other one the worst, and in doubt the latter one overriding the first. Medicine being an unprecise and unpredictable business we often have to make do with rough approximations.  

This is in contrast to the behaviour of the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): They present us with some probable or plausible middle-of the road projections. A physician would be more interested in worst cases. Anyway - as became clear last year - IPCC omits several known aggravating factors and feedback loops (*) and therefore does not even take into account the most probable outcomes, not to speak of the worst, which however really should determine our behaviour. IPCC being a semigovernmental body this is  not at all surprising: all governments want to stay in the saddle, that’s why as a rule they never report the full scandal.

Everybody mentions tipping points and the point of no return which both of course are to be expected anytime if they did not already happen:  If I consider the accelerating temperature curves, last summers nearly 400 broken temperature records and also last September, October and May being the warmest ever measured  as well as the reports about Methane bubbling out of lakes and permafrost, the still rising output of CO2 and SUV’s, the burning Australia and the still general taboo on discussing population size my internal algorithms tell me that the impending dissolution of civilisation in the next few decades is not anymore a worst-case scenario but the most probable one. The worst case would be that it already happens in the next years. If you measure the attitude of official bodies towards such outcomes by the standards routinely applied to physicians this would be a case for court. Because this concerns the whole world and ends in a sort of Holocaust 2.0 one could consider something like a world Nuremberg tribunal. Now one could object that the worst outcomes have not been confirmed yet. But if they will be confirmed it will be too late for a court.

To put the theme on the table one could imagine a mock tribunal (similar to Ferdinand von Schirachs successful drama “Terror") in a theatre. Accusers could be children, animals, plants and their lawyers etc. Defendants could be governments, corporations, experts etc. The public should be the jury. Perhaps such a staging would rise awareness about the urgency of the situation. 

___________________________________________________

(*) Some aggravating mechanisms and feedback loops not accounted for by the IPCC:  

1. Disapperance ice and snow reduces the reflection of the earth which can increase the predicted temperature raises by 20 or more percent. 
2. The CO2-concentration and the CO2-immissions are not stable but increase year by year. 
3. Since several years there is a raise of methane concentration in the air. Sources include warmed wetlands and permafrost, agriculture and fossil industry. In the worst case this can cause a dangerous raise of the temperatures within years or even months. 
4. Large-scale destruction of rainforests by clearing, drought and wildfires reduces their capacity to bind CO2 and at the same time invalidate the concept of climate certificates by CO2-compensation.
5. Since 2019 year several climate models predict a reduced cloud cover of the earth with further warming, which could self-reinforce further warming. 

Some other posts in English: 

• White man doomed
• Call a spade a spade: Holocaust 2.0
• How biosystems tip over
• Letting down humanity
• The fragility of human rights and climate justice
• The Promethean Illusion
• Reactions to Coronavirus and Climate crisis: A question of age group?

Letting down Humanity

(Translation of "Und was, wenn wir uns nicht retten können?" in this Blog, which first appeared in Journal 21, 15.8.2019. Updated 7.2.2022)

What is new is that everything accelerates: the ice melts faster than predicted. Its lack of reflection increases CO2-related warming by 20 or more percent (1). The sea warms up faster and rises faster (2) than predicted. Greenhouse gases continue to rise, global warming accelerates and the fatal self-boosting feedbacks by methane release and large-scale forest fires have only begun. Since spring 2019 hundreds of temperature records have been broken and we had the warmest months of January, Mai, June and July ever. We notice it ourselves: The summers get mercilessly warmer and warmer. 

July temperatures (global) 1880-2019

The four apocalyptic horsemen are: Global Warming (3), which is occurring up to a hundred times faster than earlier warmings. The lack of water (4), which threatens one fourth of humanity. Species extinction (5) due to wasting and poisoning of habitats. And last but not least overpopulation (6), the root cause, which continues to increase. Each of these factors can be fatal on its own and they reinforce each other. E.g. the co-director of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Research Johan Rockström, an expert on the limits of the planet said that with global warming of 4 degrees (which is possible before 2100) he has difficulty to see how the earth could nourish eight billion of people or even half of that (7). And what will happen to the rest?

Viktor Vasnetsov (1887): The four apocalyptic horsemen

Many call for action, and many clash with those who deny the problems. But does that make sense? Is there any escape from this fourfold overkill?

For example, the American Roy Scranton experienced terror and state collapse as a soldier in the Iraq war. Back in the US, it dawned upon him that the same fate awaited the developed nations. He concluded that, just as the soldier must learn to die, in the Anthropocene we also have to learn to die, not just as individuals, but as a collective (8).

Independently of him, the French Pablo Servigne and Raphaël Stevens in their book "Comment tout peut s'éffondrer- Petit manuel de collapsologie à l'usage des générations présentes" (9) predict the collapse of civilization. Here is a summary interview in French (10).

Three personal experiences reinforce my concern: Prof. John Schellnhuber, the most prominent German climatologist omnipresent in the media who in public exudes a mild, solution-oriented optimism told us already 2017 in private that he no longer sees any way out of this trap for humanity.

And about 1973, that is shortly after the first report of the Club of Rome, I had a vivid dream. I stood on the edge of a medium-sized gravel pit, which was partially restored, that is, renatured. Down there among bushes, maybe a hundred yards away, was a small group of nude, quite green people, about three in number, mostly grownups, but not old. They did not notice me and said to each other "We are the last human beings". I felt that this was a meaningful, a so-called "big" dream, but rationally could not do much with it, and at best hypothetically linked it to the environmental situation. But after all, C.G. Jung used to quote a rabbi who had written: "The dream is its interpretation"...

My father, Markus Eduard Fierz (1912-2006), was a theoretical physicist "of the first hour", who knew Pauli, Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, and worked and taught in Basel, Princeton, CERN and ETH. He had great intuition and was a virtuoso at so-called Fermi estimates, the estimation of sizes from inadequate information (The famous Fermi question was: "How many piano tuners are there in Chicago?"). Later in life he became very concerned about the environment and from 1990 on predicted a general ecological collapse starting around 2020 saying that of course it was not possible to predict the year exactly, but once it started it would go downhill very quickly for mathematical-physical reasons. After failing to understand both dream and father for decades and years, I now realize both could end up being right.

I found the content and fate of an article (11) by Prof.Jem Bendell, the English university teacher of sustainability revealing: Based on a large literature review he argues that the environmental situation is out of control and irreversible. Already in the next decade, one would have to reckon with great crises, even with the beginning of the dissolution of civilization. This article was not accepted by a journal because it does not cite enough scholarly literature on collapse of civilisation (there is almost none) and because it could scare the readership.

Bendell, fed up with this academic correctness, published the article on the web, where it has been downloaded half a million times and translated into several languages. There, and in an interview with climatologist Wolfgang Knorr (12), he comes to the conclusion that even the scientists do not truthfully inform the public: All the reports of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) up to 2020, written under the pressure of oil-producing nations, neglected the acceleration of global warming caused by multiple positive feedbacks. Therefore they are consistently too optimistic. To quote Bendell and Knorr: “Science is letting down humanity”.

In fact, the disaster perspective is concealed by everybody: Although scientists and some media have been warning us for fifty years, this happens regularly only in a piecemeal way, carefully and objectively weighed. Somebody is talking about dwindling glaciers, somebody else about the future of winter sports, someone dwells on insect extinction, another one is studying bees, there is talk about poison in rivers, or warnings about the temperatures in the cities, others are considering crop failures or exploring reasons for migration. They have the pieces in their hand, but, alas, lack the mental bond for the realization that it all comes down to a self-reinforcing global catastrophe. And therefore there is no urgent reference to our own destiny and the necessary alarm is not sounded. The only point the scientific community always agrees upon is the demand for further research and more money, which the politicians are only too happy to grant if only they can remain inactive.

Are the scientists afraid of their own courage? Are they afraid of loss of public esteem and public money, do they fear loss of media coverage, loss of reputation among colleagues when they talk the plain talk that would be appropriate, although it would hurt?

Incidentally, if refusing to call a spade a spade avoids arousing fright and depression in the addressees, this has the fatal consequence that they can continue to cling to their false hopes and pursue business as usual. Only fright and depression would pave the way for radical rethinking.

For a long time it was a mystery to me how even some of the most clever and highly educated politicians could claim that climate science is wrong. While writing this text I've come up with something: In my practical work as a doctor, I learned that one is almost always believed if one speaks up clearly, bluntly and directly. Could it be that such sceptics feel indistinctly but rightly that something is wrong with the scientific information and the IPCC reports, and that is why they do not believe them? To me this does not seem impossible.

We find this fragmented approach not only among scientists, but also among the worried and the Greens. These preach well-meant individual measures such as vegetarianism and renouncing plastic bags, but often fail to mention that this is never enough – they do not want to scare the voters after all. Only children and fools tell the truth and lead desperate crusades...

All of them are ignoring the population issue, but they are anyway overruled by the dull majorities that vote Trump, Bolsonaro, and Morrison into office, those politicians who basically already announce the end of civilization. Between these political poles lie the "healthy" middle of mindless consumer citizens, and the media, which question facts as opinions, as well as the jellyfish-like politicians who navigate according to the latest surveys. The result is an immobile crowd waiting in anesthetized wellness for disaster, like Christmas turkeys on their turkey farm. A physician managing a critical situation with such indifference would end up in court and jail for malpractice.

What is coming can already be seen in the Middle East with heat, drought, hunger, state disintegration, tyranny, epidemics, war and mass migration. This will gradually spread to other regions and to us. Particularly susceptible are complex systems such as large cities, major distributors, high culture, monetary value, banks, the financial casino, long-distance transport, old-age provision or legal security. The talk of human rights and climate justice will be left behind as mockery. We are caught in a suicidal culture and will perish with it.

Meanwhile, even the Secretary-General of the UN warns that we have only until 2020 to avoid the tipping point of the situation (13). And yet there is hardly any reaction. Protesters are imprisoned or expelled from the country. Therefore the next question arises: If we do not want to or cannot save ourselves, what then?

It means then the end of many nations, of many cultures, of human values (Menschlichkeit) in many places, of very many human beings and large parts of the living world, perhaps of humanity as a whole. Many old people are concerned with their individual end. In the Middle Ages, there was even the art of dying (Ars Moriendi), which prepared adepts for a good death and for the four last things - Death, Judgment, Heaven or Hell. But after all, mortals could console themselves with descendants, who continued their ideals, their skills, their culture and their genes. The death of civilization lacks this comfort. But somehow we have to translate the knowledge about the death of the individual into one about our collective dying.

Robert Bringhurst and his partner Jan Zwicky, two Canadian scientists, philosophers and poets, in their booklet "Learning to die - Wisdom in the Age of Climate Crisis" (14), believe that, even if a few people should survive the sixth mass extinction, our civilisation will not. And then nobody will know anymore about Plato, Bach or Rembrandt.

Bringhurst writes knowledgeable books about the myths and cultures of Native Americans (15). He describes how these natives understood themselves as part of a nature that cannot be dominated. This in contrast to the Western attitude that nature should be dominated as expressed in Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth...", the attitude that is actually the cause of our predicament.

Zwicky asks what moral qualities we need at the end of our civilization. These are the qualities that have always been needed in life: knowledge and the awareness that our knowledge is limited, modesty, courage, self-control, justice, patience and mercy. Only with modesty can we get rid of the ego, which gives us the courage to look the facts into the eye. And compassion is needed for those who cannot face the facts. In any case, our own actions and those of others are but gestures in the air that disappear like music. Like the previous mass extinctions, the present one will leave some life behind which will give rise to other forms of life.

These highlights must suffice, but this booklet shows that you can view the whole problem quite otherwise than with rejection, panic, schedules for action or a raised index finger, namely with philosophical composure.

If the end of life of an individual is inevitable and consists only of suffering, whose meaning is difficult to see, then the question of euthanasia arises, and indeed it is sometimes practiced today. This question will also arise when societies perish in hunger, disease, plunder and mutual manslaughter. The idea is not new. In the end-time novel "On the Beach" (1957, 16), Nevil Shute lets the last survivors of nuclear war kill themselves with cyanide to escape these final stages.

It's also about how to shape the last hours: When the children of the orphanage run by Janusz Korczak (17) had to leave the Warsaw Ghetto, he tricked them into believing they were going on a countryside trip and dressed them as nicely as possible. Korczak went along and preceding the procession of twohundred children a boy played the violin - the Germans love music. Holding their little hands, adorned and singing, they moved to the cattle cars, which were to unload them in Treblinka for immediate gassing. Le style c'est l'homme.

References and Links:

1. Wadhams, P. (2016) A Farewell to Ice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
2. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/30/world/rising-sea-cities-study-intl-hnk-scli-sci/index.html
3. https://lukasfierz.blogspot.com/2019/08/call-spade-spade-its-holocaust-2.html
4. https://lukasfierz.blogspot.com/2020/02/how-biosystems-tip-over.html
5. https://lukasfierz.blogspot.com/2019/05/wir-sind-zuviele-ein-tabu.html
6. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/18/climate-crisis-heat-is-on-global-heating-four-degrees-2100-change-way-we-live
7. Roy Scranton: Learning to Die in the Anthropocene, City Light Editions 2016
8. Pablo Servigne und Raphaël Stevens : Comment tout peut s'éffondrer- Petit manuel de collapsologie à l'usage des générations présente, Seuil, 2015
9. https://www.letemps.ch/societe/pablo-servigne-faut-faire-deuil-monde-ecrire-une-nouvelle-histoire
10. https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
11. https://jembendell.com/2019/07/31/climate-scientist-speaks-about-letting-down-humanity-and-what-to-do-about-it/
12. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2018-09-10/secretary-generals-remarks-climate-change-delivered
13. Richard Bringhust and Jan Zwicky: Learning to Die – Wisdom in the Age of Climate Crisis, University of Regina Press, 2018
14. Richard Bringhurst: A story as sharp as a knife, Douglas & McIntyre, 2011
15. Nevil Shute: On the Beach, Vintage, 2010
16. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Korczak

Posts in English: 

• What matters in Climate politics - An update for COP26
• Call a spade a spade: Holocaust 2.0
• We are too many - A Taboo
• How biosystems tip over
• Taboos and infantile illusions about our environment
• Letting down humanity (a summing up)
• The fragility of human rights and climate justice
• Malpractice in climate politics
• The Promethean Illusion
• A bow to Greta Thunberg
• Reactions to Coronavirus and Climate crisis: A question of age group?