When Are We Due For It?

History has seen the rise and fall of many large and powerful cultures. Romans, Mayans, Akkadians, none of these historic empires have lasted in much more than memory and artifacts. But their decline and eventual disappearance is often a source of intense study and speculation, since many of them don't have clear records of their declining years. However, recent evidence has shown correlations between shifts in the local climate and the disappearance of these large civilizations.

The Mayan empire existed in Central America for around 2000 years before it faded back into the mists of time. The reason? Well, that is still a matter of speculation, to some degree. However, there are some theories that are particularly prominent.
"Some believe that by the ninth century the Maya had exhausted the environment around them to the point that it could no longer sustain a very large population. Other Maya scholars argue that constant warfare among competing city-states led the complicated military, family (by marriage) and trade alliances between them to break down, along with the traditional system of dynastic power. As the stature of the holy lords diminished, their complex traditions of rituals and ceremonies dissolved into chaos. Finally, some catastrophic environmental change--like an extremely long, intense period of drought--may have wiped out the Classic Maya civilization. Drought would have hit cities like Tikal--where rainwater was necessary for drinking as well as for crop irrigation--especially hard."
 If you take some additional time to look at these theories, it is easier to see that they could all be part of the same sequence of events. If we start with the drought, then that would lead to the exhaustion of agricultural supplies and means, as well as drinking water and possibly a primary means of transportation. No longer able to sustain the population that exploded with the preceding period of high rainfall and agricultural windfalls, the land began to lose potency, and the people began to suffer. This situation usually leads to civil unrest, and considering the leaders of the culture were also holy figures, they might even be seen as part of the cause of the people's misery. This would lead to the breakdown of government and trade alliances, as people stop listening to distant authorities, and start keeping supplies that might have been previously sent to the capital. As you can see, these possible causes don't have to be mutually exclusive, and in fact become more plausible when combined. This particular series of events has seen increased scientific evidence to its viability as well, with the time of the drought correlating with the time frame of the Mayan civilization's decline. As this hopefully demonstrates, a shift in the climate patterns can have a sudden and drastic impact on a society, to the point that it collapses.

Another example of such shifts in climate causing a societal collapse is the Indus (or Harappan) civilization that was established in the area of modern day "Pakistan, northwestern India and eastern Afghanistan." However, climate shifts also contributed to the establishment of the civilization, since the region was formerly inhospitable due to extreme weather and flooding that was strong enough to sweep away what people would try to build. However, as the monsoons responsible for this extreme weather became more gentle over the years, the flooding became gentle enough that it became an integral part of the farming process in the region. However, this process continued instead of halting in this "Goldilocks status," and since the river that supplied and nourished the region was apparently only fed by rain, with no large body source, the decline in rainfall also meant a decline in available water. In this case, as the river dried up, many people moved to other regions. Some were able to continue farming, since the rains still came, they just would not have been able to produce enough food to feed the city populations that had peaked during the prosperous period of the civilization's history. In this case, the fall of the civilization was a matter of time and circumstance. Unfortunately, without much cause to notice the gradual (oh so very gradual!) change in the weather patterns over the years, and no records to provide a warning (writing was developed during its time, but not from the start), the civilization was doomed to fall as the climate continued its drying trend. So, it becomes difficult to blame the fall of the civilization on their lack of foresight, when they didn't have much hindsight either. Besides, the society lasted for around 2000 years, which would probably span hundreds of generations of people, who didn't have any reason not to take advantage of such a pleasant, fertile region. At least their activities (supposedly) didn't contribute to the climate shift, since it was already part of an established trend.

Which brings up my last point- if a society can collapse due to climate shifts that are already occurring due to shifts in global temperature currents and the like, what will happen when something like this happens on a global scale? Unlike the Harrappans, we won't have anywhere to go if we are managing to afflict the climate processes of entire regions of the globe. We have already seen some of the warning signs of radical changes in the weather- the drought over the summer, Hurricane Sandy's impact on a region that normally doesn't see such violent weather, and generally rising temperatures. Unlike the civilizations of the past, we can tell what is driving the shifts in the climate now- heck, we can even identify contributing factors to their climate shifts. The question is, will we do anything about it, to prevent a permanent shift in global habitability, or will we simply continue along our current path of self destruction?

Extra links:
Roman Empire studies
http://www.groundwatergo.com/blog/the-top-5-ancient-civilizations-destroyed-by-climate-change/
Decline of Akkadian Empire at start of 300 year long dry spell

Put a Lid on It! Just Don't Forget the Seal

Cap and Trade seems like an interesting concept to me. The idea of establishing a system designed to limit atmospheric pollution through market forces seems like something that would work in the world of economics... except this is the real world (hey-o!). By setting up a market for limited emission permits, with a decreasing amount being sold every year, the hope is that businesses will have an incentive to prepare for the decrease by establishing systems to limit and stop emissions. As companies successfully make the transition, or even just reduce their carbon output, they can trade the excess allowances that they have to companies that have exceeded their expected emission levels. Supposedly, this system is supposed to be able to help ease the transition with less regulatory effort and spending. In fact, SO2 emissions (which contribute to the creation of acid precipitation) were actually successfully reduced to a target level before the target year, with such a system playing a significant role. However, when it comes to carbon emissions, it's not just industry that is responsible- most adults drive a car to and from work each day, and with the number of people who do this on a daily basis, it is not a negligible contribution to the equation. I'm not sure if the companies that produce the cars would be held accountable for this to some degree, however, so perhaps it has been considered.

California is putting a Cap and Trade system in place, where about 62 million allowances (each permitting a ton of carbon to be emitted) are going to be auctioned at the start of the program in a three hour window, starting at $10 each. With another auction set for February, it would seem that this will be a seasonal event. Any companies that opt to not purchase during the auction window will still be able to get them on the market from other companies, but this initial auction is being held by the state. Most large companies that practically depend of the emission of carbon pollutants get a break at the start of such programs, though- after all, if Rome wasn't built in a day, then how would you expect it to be remodeled and rebuilt in that time frame? With this consideration, "more than 400 of California's industrial heavyweights... will get 90 percent of their emission allowances free in the first two years, but the percentage of freebies will decline in future years." While I think 90% may be a bit much, at the same time, it at least allows for the companies to start making changes before they start risking the possibility of bankruptcy from the system. However, even with this, some groups are still unhappy:
"Business groups say California could achieve its goals of curtailing carbon without holding an auction. The state, they say, could simply give away all of the emissions allowances for free, and then enforce the cap. As companies move toward compliance, they will buy and sell the allowances among themselves and a price will emerge for carbon. But [fortunately] state officials reject that argument. The Air Resources Board says an auction is needed to jump-start the market and make sure a competitive price for carbon is established."
One of the main reasons why I am inclined to think that the officials are right to do this, is that if the system were set up as the business groups would like, there would be too much potential for racketeering as companies realize that cooperation could be easier than competition in this matter. Besides, as much as some like to tout the idea of market forces, emissions aren't the most tangible commodity. I'm sure many companies, thinking of the permits as a sort of imaginary trade, would be inclined to imagine up more to trade than they have (I believe that something like this had a role in the Enron shenanigans) to make a quick buck.

One of the big things that gets me about the whole system is that monitoring of the emissions is rarely described. Best as I can tell from a Wikipedia entry, monitoring is mostly at the level of the installation responsible for the emissions, and the output is reported to a regulator. This seems like a cause for concern on two levels. One: what is there to guarantee that the numbers being reported are accurate? What prevents the company from muddling their numbers in a way that benefits them? Two: How are they measuring the output? There are certainly many advanced systems that have been made to keep track of such things, but they aren't always installed in facilities. When that is the case, and the company opts to not pay for the system, is there a way for them to check? It just seems like there are too many ways for companies to dodge around this sort of regulation, short of an official audit being performed.

Overall, I don't think that Cap and Trade will work the way that those who endorse it hope it will. However, I also am inclined to believe that it has the potential to work, if things proceed without too much incident. But even if it works, will the effort be too little, too late? The system is in place to monitor and limit emission levels- even if they are decreased, that doesn't mean that the total atmospheric levels are decreasing, just that the rate of accumulation is. We are already above the levels that scientists believe are "safe." At this point, there is the possibility that we are already doomed, and beginning efforts that would only have been effective if we had started them much earlier. Unfortunately, with that being the case, all we might be doing is delaying the inevitable.

Extra link:
http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-cap-trade/

Jamming Cultural Frequencies

Culture jamming is an interesting phenomenon. It's a way to challenge how the public views the world as it is, a way to challenge the status quo. By definition, it is "a tactic used by many anti-consumerist social movement to disrupt or subvert media culture and its mainstream cultural institutions, including corporate advertising." I am inclined to believe that this definition could be easily broadened to include hoaxes that are intended to challenge cultural norms and trends. The term is somewhat derived from the term "radio jamming," which is when radio frequencies get taken over or scrambled by a third party between the broadcaster and the recipient. The difference is that culture jamming is typically a way to share a message, usually counter to the original message in a way that the consumer might not be able to tell the difference. It most often works through the same mediums as the messages they are trying to challenge, though often in a way that doesn't get noticed at first.

An organized example of this is the Billboard Liberation Front. While some of their "improvements" to signs are small enough that they might not get noticed at first, they significantly change the message that a sign is trying to convey. An interesting example I noticed on their front page was a neon sign advertising Camel cigarettes having certain sections blacked out and a modified portion to make it read "Am I Dead Yet?" Being organized online, and with their members largely secret, they work in a guerrilla fashion to improve the advertisements of their "clients" in such a way that they "unlock" messages that would have otherwise been "hidden" in the advertisements. To look at it a bit more objectively, they seem to have a strange sort of tongue-in-cheek humor in their approach to changing advertisements, with a manifesto that tells of the Advertisement as a ubiquitous idea permeating our consciousness to a subliminal level, and affecting out views of the world and ourselves... okay, that's actually the case, but they say it in an almost awe-inspired way. The last part of the manifesto states: "Each time you change the Advertising message in your own mind, whether you climb up onto the board and physically change the original copy and graphics or not, each time you improve the message, you enter in to the High Priesthood of Advertisers." They don't necessarily say that one has to physically change the sign- just that it is best to view it in such a way that you are capable of seeing through the veil, and not being suckered in by what they are trying to say, and to not view it with the eyes of a "consumer," but as an independent mind capable of using it to share their thoughts, or spread a message that is typically counter to the initial Advertisement.

Media hoaxes are also an example of culture jamming, though they may often focus on how people act and work to try and change how people are approaching their lives and interpersonal reactions, as compared to focusing on the media outlets and corporations. A legacy example of this type of culture jamming is a man by the name of Alan Abel. In 1958, he started with a campaign called "The Society for Indecency to Naked Animals," or S.I.N.A. for short. He successfully managed to keep the hoax going for 5 years before Time magazine blew the whistle on the campaign, which was run on about $20 a week, with a fake office that was a broom closet with a plaque on the door. The hoax itself was a commentary on censorship, poking fun at the type of people who would ban and burn books and records for "moral" reasons. The campaign was run very successfully with a small group and most of its public appearances being enabled by the news media, which had various "members" of the group come on to talk about the campaign, as well as interviews with the "president," G. Clifford Prout (really a comedian friend of Abel's named Buck Henry) on major news outlets. The hoax captured the public in a way that is hard to describe- people actually joined newsletters and sent in donations (One woman from Santa Barbara, CA actually sent in a check for $40,000!) to support the "cause." The money that people sent in was returned, but anyone who didn't see the initial outing of the hoax was continuously duped for a few more years through the newsletter. It was a very elaborate prank at times, too: there was apparently a song for the group, that was performed a capella on a show, as well as a coat of arms. While it doesn't seem that the public reaction to the reveal of the hoax was ever really recorded, I would hope that those who learned about it after supporting it had a moment where they really thought about what it was they had been trying to support, instead of simply becoming angry. But then again, the type of people who would send in money for such a cause probably aren't open-minded enough to have a reaction besides anger. Abel has continued to pull various media pranks over the last 50 years or so, with the goal of giving people a swift "kick in the intellect." His work has probably had mixed results over the years, but there is one thing that is certain: the man is dedicated, and very good at this particular form of social commentary.

So, whether it be by hijacking the advertisements of the corporations, or trying to make people think at least a little bit harder about the way that society treats certain actions, or about how information is being presented to them, there are people out there who are working to subvert the monopoly on the public mind that various powers-that-be have on the populace. And I am inclined to say: best of luck. People need all the help they can get on that front.

Extra Links:
http://www.adbusters.org/

Hoax saying the Alberta tar sands would be a setting for Mordor in "The Hobbit"

http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/CultureJamming.htm Excellent article, with even more links

Recounting of an interesting request for customized Nikes

An interview with Alan Abel

http://theyesmen.org/ A particularly famous Culture Jamming group