Putting the Green New Deal in ecological context

[Anastassia Makarieva]

Dear colleagues,

Today in a highly recommendable google group "The proud holobionts" of Prof. Ugo Bardi (see also his blog under the same title) a reader posted a link to what looks to me a timely paper calling things by their names.

Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4508. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154508 

This paper expectedly received its dose of ostracism, which in this case took the form of an Editorial that expressed a regret that it got published. It also gave rise to two critical comments (with responses).

Editorial https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/889

Comment 1 https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/964

Reply https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/970

Comment 2 https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/971

Reply https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/974

Altogether, it makes for informative reading. Please be warned: it is a heated debate.

To me, their main point is 

"Not only is the GND [Green New Deal] technically flawed, but it fails to situate climate disruption within the broader context of ecological overshoot. Anthropogenic climate change is merely one symptom of overshoot and cannot be treated in isolation from the greater disease. The GND offers little more than a green-washed version of the unsustainable growth-based status quo. Even if feasible, its operationalization would only exacerbate human ecological dysfunction."

[The critics picked up the 'technically flawed" issue, but overlooked the main one.]

That is to say, current civilization uses energy to support activities destroying the biosphere. Finding renewable sources for sustaining this process will obviously lead to a catastrophe. 

We put it as follows

The main danger for the life-compatible environment and climate on Earth consists in the excessively high absolute magnitude of global anthropogenic energy consumption. This danger persists irrespective of whether this consumption is accompanied by direct environmental pollution like CO2 emissions or not. Modern or, even more so, growing energy consumption will totally destroy Earth’s environment within the coming decades. Within the nearest century it is necessary to reduce global energy consumption by one order of magnitude, when it can be met by the existing renewable energy sources without causing environmental and climatic problems. This demands a detailed scientific analysis of the biotic nature of environmental stability on Earth and of possible ways of how the imperative of reducing global energy consumption could be constructively faced. In the absence of such an analysis, the attempts to find alternative energy sources (including thermonuclear power) to sustain modern or growing energy consumption of the civilization represent a logical dead-end, which will result in but further aggravation of the dangerous situation the civilization today finds itself in, with clearly foreseeable loss of the most important ecosystem services on which the humanity is critically dependent.    

Warm regards,

Anastassia

PS Please also take notice of the recent publication in Nature Communications which says that deforestation in Siberia reduced summer cloud cover. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28161-7

[ch.klee]

Dear Anastassia, dear colleagues,

thank you, Anastassia, for pointing out this interesting article. It is very pleasing that scientists based on a comprehensive investigation make it clear how absurd this project “GND” is. The fact that humanity has moved far beyond all permissible limits has long been known.  In 1972 this was announced by the Club of Rome. In 2008 there was an interesting publication about material consumption which for the first time provided data on resource consumption and resource efficiency worldwide, with an outlook to the entire half of the 22nd century (Monika Dittrich et al., “Green economies around the world”.) And finally, Anastassia, V. Gorshkov and you emphasized the importance of a healthy and undisturbed biota in many publications, especially in your book on „Biotic regulation of the environment" (2000). In addition, it has also become known through your scientific work that the paradigm that nature adapts to the climate is wrong and the reverse is right, namely that the biota produces the climate and regulates it within certain limits.  Also for this reason, a healthy Biota is a prerequisite for the survival of our civilization.  The ongoing massive energy consumption, regardless of the type of energy (and it will be more than currently because of the low efficiency factor of most Renewables) will completely destroy the already half dead biota and accelerate climate change. Presumably our civilization will not survive this looming crisis. The authors of the new publication recommend the same necessary actions as were mentioned in the Biotic-Regulation Book (2000) to drastically reduce energy use and reduction of global population. Curiously enough they forgot to mention Gorshkov/Makarieva in their references.

Although everything should be scientifically and technically clear, this peculiar GND-project will certainly be carried out, for the benefit of industries but to the detriment of people and the earth. Here again the desire for more and more of this deadly unlimited growth is shown, which apparently completely blinds the rationality of the people. This is the greatest immorality of mankind.

Kind regards, Christian Klee

[Wilderer, Peter]

Dear Christian Klee:

 

I think it is important that you reminded us of the book written by Victor Gorshkov  and Anastassia Makarieva (Biotic Regulation of the Environment – Key Issue of Global Change). I think it would be worthwhile to write a summary paper of the most important findings that the authors have provided us with their book.

 

The most eye opener for me was the realization that our planet has been in a meta-stable position for billions of years. According to the authors' calculations, this situation, which is unusual in the cosmos, is caused by processes for which the planetary ecosystems are responsible, primarily. Attached please find a graph which with reference to Figure 8.2 in the book of Gorshkov and Makarieva  I have used in former times in many of my lectures.

 

You are absolutely right with your remark: "the paradigm that nature adapts to the climate is wrong and the reverse is right, namely that the biota produces the climate and regulates it within certain limits".

 

I think it is our duty to emphasize the important role of planetary ecosystems and to make it clear to the decision makers, worldwide.

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

 

Dr.-Ing. Drs h.c. Peter Wilderer

Member of the TUM-Senior Excellence Faculty

Moosweg 5, D-83727 Schliersee

peter.w...@mytum.de

phone:  08026 78148

mobile: 01525 990 2615

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biotic Regulation of the Environment" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to biotic-regulat...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/biotic-regulation/7620e32d-e0c4-45e9-b63e-847f8731e348n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jan Pokorný]

Dear Peter,

I support your idea to write a summary paper active on biotic regulation based on the book written by Victor G and Anastassia M.  Ecosystems including plants are considered as passive objects of climate change namely increased concentration of greenhouse gases.

Biotic regulation can be explained and shown on different levels. Attached is really simple one.

Best regards

Jan Pokorný

ENKI, o.p.s Třeboň

Czech Republic

(co-author: waterparadigm.org)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/biotic-regulation/c37f761efad04a0c8e336ace562de795%40mytum.de.

---

Tento e-mail byl zkontrolován na viry antivirovým softwarem AVG. www.avg.com

[ch.klee]

Dear Anastassia, dear Peter, dear colleagues,

thank you, Peter, for your response and your recommendation to create a summary paper about Biotic Regulation (BR) to wake up and vaccinate the policymakers with “BR Vaccine”

 Please remember my postings dated 22.02.21 (“How can we act against ignorance “) and my contribution from 14.06.21 in our discussion board, where I mentioned my plan to design the layout for a book or other kind of publication about Biotic Regulation (BR) especially regarding structure and text to find broader attention for the BR topic. In both writings I asked for comments, ideas how to proceed and for readiness for teamwork. I did not get one feedback – except your comment this week.

But anyway, in the meantime I have been pondering about how to proceed in this crucial topic, especially after having read the Publication of Seibert/ Rees which Anastassia provided for the group members.

As the case stands, I am more than ever convinced that it is an ethical demand to move against the destructive actions of the so called Green New Deal (GND) and make clear, that in everything humankind can do, following the principles of BR will be the only possibility to avoid the demise of our human societies.

At the same time, we must be aware, that the overwhelming part of scientists and lobbyists in the western world stand behind this GND-project – as well as the Policymakers who naturally trust in their statements and all the same the industries awaiting heaps of money to flow into their pockets. You know IPCC as a powerful institution also supporting the absurd claim that switching from fossil fuels to the so-called renewables is the only healing medicine for our planet.

Therefore, writing a comprehensive and likewise illustrative outline about the function and power of BR is the first but also the easiest part of what must be done. This outline could come out in the fashion of public science, for instance like articles in “Scientific American.” The publication must gain acceptance against the existing robust resistance of the GND-proponents mentioned above. It will be useless if it does not initiate following necessary steps, the first being response of target persons. The proponents of GND have no interest at all to get information endangering their plans. According to my personal experience they will simply do nothing or at best politely express their lack of interest.

That is why in the next step, or simultaneously, we must find target persons not being part of the GND proponents and open for objective discussion; and finally, they should also have political influence. These could be persons in executive functions of universities, research institutions and /or people working in the Ministries of Research and Environment and lobbyists for nature conservation. That is for my understanding the most important task which must be solved rapidly in different countries, at first perhaps in Europe. It will be a difficult job and I am not sure, that we can manage it.

Moreover, I think, it would be helpful to publish an “Open Letter” in some transregional newspapers. This article should deal with the looming climate change in connection with the findings and statements of Biotic Regulation Theory which would make clear for everybody the right way how to solve the problem. It should also emphasize the urgency for rapid actions because the available timeslot is shrinking extremely fast. Further activities like well prepared interviews with Anastassia, presentations and conferences may follow.

The whole task should be conducted like a project, the different actions harmonized which each other.

So much for my ideas that I would like to share with you. Comments are welcome.

Have a nice weekend!

Kind regards,

Christian

[Anastassia Makarieva]

Dear colleagues,

To add some optimism, here is what people are trying to do in the Amazon to protect the forest using cryptocurrency:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HzdffB_RTRab3Nu3y9vNKU-kXb9OwJn-/edit

Warm regards,

Anastassia

сб, 12 февр. 2022 г. в 21:11, ch.klee <ch....@t-online.de>:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/biotic-regulation/c0998937-7c56-4aa3-b7b5-ebf262e6321dn%40googlegroups.com.