As a consequence of global warming and human-induced climate
change, the thawing of permafrost not only contributes to global
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and warming, but also poses
substantial risks to both local ecosystems and human communities in
affected regions

Considering the cold winters and short, cool summers, the presence
of permafrost affects the availability of arable land and the growing
season for crops, making agriculture challenging. While climatedriven northward expansion of agriculture increasingly provides
new food sources, little is known about the effectiveness, feasibility
and risks in cultivation-permafrost interactions.

Thawing permafrost also releases contaminants, including
mercury, into the environment. This negatively
impacts water quality in Arctic rivers and lakes, leading to potential
risks to human health through contaminated food chains and drinking
water sources.

Beyond its ecological consequences, permafrost thaw has significant
implications for the infrastructure built on permafrost soil. As the
ground becomes unstable, buildings, roads, pipelines, water facilities,
and communication systems are damaged and hazardous substances mobilised

Up to 80 per cent of infrastructure elements
show substantial infrastructure damage and 70 per cent of current
infrastructure in the permafrost domain is in areas with high potential
for thaw by 2050

The world is in metacrisis. That means that many crises are occurring simultaneously and affecting one another.

Attention must be placed first on the whole, not on the parts. That includes the natural world. It is the source of the resources including food that support human survival and prosperity. Disregarding the effects of our actions on nature is among the principal reasons for the metacrisis.

--

Even in the narrow case that only considers emissions, there is no evidence that the renewable energy transition has changed their upward trajectory despite thirty-six international climate conferences and trillions of dollars of investment over the last forty years.

In fact, there is no evidence that an energy transition exists. Energy consumption and population continue to increase every year.

--

Growth is the problem. Carbon emissions are a consequence of the growth in energy consumption that has enabled the growth in human population and economic activity.

As long as energy use continues to increase, efforts to limit carbon emissions will be negligible, and temperature will rise.

Growth is also the root cause of the ongoing crisis of the natural world. Populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish have declined by an average of 69% since 1970.

--

The global financial system is highly interconnected, meaning a crisis in one region can quickly spread to others. Financial institutions and markets are increasingly reliant on digital infrastructure, making them vulnerable to cyber-attacks.

Those who believe that a renewable energy transition is possible seem to ignore that carbon emissions, GDP, population and society’s ecological footprint all correlate with energy consumption. That means that there is a cost for lower emissions.

Unless the future is somehow completely different from the past and present, the only solution to climate change and overshooting our planetary boundaries is a radical reduction in energy consumption. Lower economic growth and a lower population will be unavoidable components of a renewable energy future. That’s not part of the transition narrative, and is a non-starter for most people and political leaders.

--

We need a holistic approach, one that moves fluidly from the whole to the parts and back again. Otherwise, we’re simply shifting problems around, likely making everything worse in the process.