Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: Climate Change: New Data, New Debate
Robin Collins
Clive Elsworth
Robin
> We might investigate SRM geoengineering, Mann says at 24:20
That’s a welcome shift, and I nearly missed it, thanks.
It hints at Mann’s main reason for opposing SRM, which given the pressure he’s been under, is understandable.
Clive
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAKes%3DnFhy-iQieqVQvRJZCxeopZaO58dSHFeonwKpkAH6Ys6EA%40mail.gmail.com.
H simmens
Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
“A wonderful achievement, a SciencePoem, an Inspiration, a Prophecy, also hilarious, Dive in and see"
Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
On Jul 8, 2026, at 7:07 AM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:
Dan Miller
Michael MacCracken
A problem is that he seems to be using a higher standard of proof for trying intervention than for moving forward without it. The key question, it seems to me, is to get some discussion going on decision frameworks to be using and considering and relative risk management.
Best, Mike
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/46E54684-ECEF-46DB-ABC9-33EBDA5EB639%40gmail.com.
Robin Collins
Robin Collins
robert...@gmail.com
A lot of time and effort goes into arguing about why some NGOs, media outlets and academics are so anti-SRM. Is this because we think that if they were pro-SRM it would get done? Is it the case that generally what NGOs, the media and academics are in favour of becomes government policy? Should we be more focussed on how climate policy is actually made, who are the effective influencers, what are the effective arguments, how does it differ from nation to nation, and so on?
The logic for policies to avert a climate catastrophe hasn't changed much in the last 30 years, even if a lot of detail has been added. If that logic hasn't worked so far, why not and why should we expect anything to change anytime soon? If the argument is that the suffering hasn't yet been sufficient to trigger action at sufficient scale, how much suffering is necessary to trigger that action? Might a more effective path to action perversely be to accelerate and extend climate harms?
I'm just wondering whether we're asking the right questions of the right people? Everyone's in their comfort zone. Is that a place from which it's likely we'll provoke into action whoever needs provoking?
RobertC
Dan Miller
 | |
 | |
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Hi Robert,
SRM won’t be done for at least another 20 years, no matter what strategy is employed.
It would be more fruitful to focus on less provocative methods for the near future.
Oswald
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/922fb22f-bf29-427e-9fed-c030e35c47eb%40gmail.com.
Tom Goreau
What the late Paul Ehrlich called the Great Endarkenment:
Light-obscuring misinformation dumped on us by AI/trump/musk/foxnews/etc/ not only fouls all our senses, it blocks the light of real information, and heats up the entire earth:
To end Albedo loss, stop the lies from hitting the fan!
This cartoon comes from the classic book by Odum and Odum on how to best manage the inevitable global system crash, caused by untramelled greed and overexploitation, which will Earth unlivable for our grandchildren.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/922fb22f-bf29-427e-9fed-c030e35c47eb%40gmail.com.
Glenn Weinreb
Below is an example SAI Reflectivity Plan. This will be published in a magazine soon.
Best Regards, Glenn Weinreb
A Reflectivity Plan
Spending Billions of Dollars to Save Trillions…
By Glenn Weinreb | July 7, 2026
Preface
If we solved the global warming problem with Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), what would need to be done between now and full-scale operations, possibly 15 years from now? The answer to this question might be referred to as a “Reflectivity Plan.” Yet what might that look like? This article is an example plan. Also, it is open-source; therefore, it can be used in any way or modified for free.
Also, who might oversee a large research initiative such as SAI? Is it possible to set up a new laboratory and task it with solving the entire climate problem? The following article explores this question.
Do We Need a New Climate Laboratory?
https://www.ma2life.org/g/film/Do_We_Need_a_New_Lab.pdf
Reflectivity Plan
This plan describes a staged path for researching and potentially deploying a system that reflects a small fraction of incoming sunlight to offset global warming. The concept uses aircraft to move a limited amount of sulfur from ground-level emissions into the upper atmosphere, where it would remain aloft longer and reflect more sunlight. The plan does not assume immediate full-scale deployment. It proceeds through research, low-level operations, construction, and continuous monitoring.
The program is organized into three phases of approximately five years each. Phase I develops the scientific evidence and equipment. Phase II begins carefully controlled operations at small but increasing scales. Phase III constructs the fleet and infrastructure needed to reach full scale. Full-scale operations would follow only if the preceding phases demonstrate acceptable performance, manageable risks, and sufficient international authorization.
Phase I – Research and Development
Phase I establishes the scientific, engineering, and operational foundation for the entire program. It has two major workstreams: atmospheric experiments and development of large-scale sulfur-handling and aircraft systems.
1. Atmospheric Experiments
Two principal experiment types would be developed and conducted:
• Mist experiments. Aircraft release a sulfur-based mist (e.g. H2SO4 aerosol) that is monitored for several hours.
• Gas experiments. Aircraft release a sulfur-based gas (SO2) that is monitored for days to weeks as it disperses and changes chemically.
The experiments would measure how much sunlight is reflected, how the released material changes over time, how it spreads, and whether unexpected effects appear. This requires specialized release equipment, aircraft-mounted instruments, ground stations, satellite observations, atmospheric sampling systems, and data-analysis software.
2. Large-Scale Equipment Development
In parallel, engineers would develop the equipment needed for eventual large-scale operations. Full-scale operations would require large aircraft delivering roughly one hundred tons of sulfur gas into the upper atmosphere every several hours. Achieving this at reasonable cost could require automation of flying, refueling, reloading, and material handling.
A representative prototype would modify a large commercial aircraft, such as a Boeing 777, with a sulfur tank in the lower fuselage and a delivery pipe running toward the tail. The purpose of the first aircraft is not to begin deployment; it is to establish whether the aircraft, storage, transfer, release, and automation systems can be made safe, reliable, and economical before considering a fleet that might eventually include approximately one hundred aircraft.
Budget
We assume a budget of approximately $1 billion for experiments and approximately $1 billion for large-scale equipment development, spread over several years. This would represent a major increase over prior research funding.
Phase I Decision Gate
Proceed to Phase II only if Phase I experiments show that the material can be released, tracked, modeled, and monitored; prototype systems can operate safely; and the expected climate benefit appears large enough to justify controlled experimental operations.
Phase II – Experimental Operations
Phase II begins limited reflectivity operations while maintaining an explicitly experimental posture. The objective is to learn how the system behaves at scales large enough to produce measurable effects but still small enough to reduce or stop quickly if adverse effects appear.
Controlled Scale-Up
The illustrative ramp begins at approximately one-thousandth of full scale, or 0.1%, and increases over several years to approximately one-tenth of full scale, or 10%. Each increase would occur only after review of the preceding operating period.
At every stage, the program would evaluate:
• Measured sunlight reflection and climate response.
• Atmospheric transport, chemical transformation, and persistence.
• Potential side effects and indicators of environmental harm.
• Aircraft reliability, sulfur handling, operating cost, and monitoring performance.
• Agreement between observations and global climate models.
Full-Scale Reference Point
For planning purposes, we use a rough full-scale objective of reflecting approximately 1% of sunlight. This might involve moving approximately 10% of sulfur that would otherwise be emitted near ground level, to a high altitude. These figures are reference assumptions to be tested and revised, not fixed targets.
Transparency and Review
Monitoring results should be shared broadly and quickly. Independent scientists and participating governments should be able to inspect the data, reproduce analyses, and compare the effects of reflecting with the effects of not reflecting. Transparent review is necessary both to detect harm and to reduce international conflict.
Phase II Decision Gate
Advance toward Phase III Construction only if measured effects remain consistent with acceptable environmental performance, monitoring systems are credible, operating procedures are controllable, and participating governments agree on the next scale increase.
Phase III - Construction and Scale-Up
Phase III builds the physical system required to move from approximately 10% of full scale to 100%. It converts the experimental program into an operational capability while retaining the same monitoring, review, and stop mechanisms developed in the earlier phases.
Construction Program
The construction program would include:
• A fleet of specialized or modified aircraft.
• Airport and ground-support infrastructure.
• Sulfur processing, transport, transfer, storage, and loading systems.
• Automated refueling, reloading, dispatch, and flight-control systems where appropriate.
• Global monitoring networks using land instruments, satellites, and aircraft sampling.
• Data systems, operating centers, maintenance facilities, and international oversight mechanisms.
Ramp to Full Scale
The scale-up would proceed from roughly 10% to 100% over approximately five years. Construction and operations would overlap: early aircraft and infrastructure would support continued measurement while later units are built. The target scale and operating pattern would be adjusted as evidence improves.
Full-Scale Operations
After the three phases, full-scale operations would continue only while authorized by the governments involved and while monitoring indicates that the benefits exceed the harms. The system must remain capable of reducing output or stopping. If operations stop, the cooling effect would diminish and the underlying warming trend would resume; therefore, termination planning must be treated as part of system design rather than an afterthought.
Phase III Decision Gate
Enter full-scale operations, after Phase III, only when the aircraft fleet, ground infrastructure, monitoring network, governance structure, emergency procedures, and international agreements have all been demonstrated at intermediate scale.
Risks
SAI entails three primary risks:
- Harm Risk refers to the possibility that we detect harm as we build up SAI, and need to stop.
- Conflict Risk refers to the possibility that nations fight over SAI in some way.
- Timing Risk refers to the possibility that we do not complete the three Phases in the needed time.
These risks are interdependent. Harm can create Conflict; Conflict can delay the program; and delay can increase pressure for a rushed deployment. The plan therefore treats risk management as a continuous activity across all three phases.
Harm Risk
Harm Risk refers to the possibility that reflectivity operations create unacceptable environmental, climatic, or health effects and must be reduced or stopped. Moving sulfur to the upper atmosphere has not been performed at the proposed scale, so calculations and climate models must be tested against observations.
Potential harms should be identified in advance, quantified where possible, and compared with the harms expected from continued warming without reflectivity. Monitoring would combine land-based instruments, satellite observations, and direct air sampling from aircraft.
Phases I and II are intentionally small relative to full scale so that unexpected effects can be detected before large infrastructure is committed. The program should maintain the ability to pause, reduce, or terminate operations at every stage.
Conflict Risk
Conflict Risk refers to the possibility that nations disagree over whether, where, how much, or how long to reflect sunlight. Large national governments would control the principal budgets, regulations, airspace, and security resources. Some countries might favor deployment while others oppose it, particularly if regional effects or political interests differ.
The best available safeguards are transparency, shared monitoring data, independent scientific review, multinational decision-making, and explicit comparison of the consequences of reflecting with the consequences of not reflecting. Governance arrangements should be developed during Phase I and tested during Phase II rather than postponed until construction begins.
Timing Risk
Timing Risk refers to the possibility that the three phases are not completed before climate impacts become severe enough to trigger panic or unilateral action. The illustrative schedule is approximately five years per phase, or fifteen years total. If ocean circulation, river flows, food production, or other systems deteriorate faster than expected, governments may attempt to compress the schedule and accept greater risk.
The timing risk can be reduced by starting research early, improving global climate models, funding multiple technical teams in parallel, setting clear decision gates, and preparing contingency plans for accelerated but still monitored operations. The purpose of early work is not to predetermine deployment; it is to ensure that future leaders have tested options and credible data rather than being forced to improvise during a crisis.
Getting Started
To fund SAI Phase I, consider selling “solve the entire climate problem via an R&D surge.” One might refer to this as a “climate moonshot.” For a summary, see the following video:
Do We Need a $10B Climate Moonshot? [#20]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihTGiOEKrns
To get this started, consider a conference or a film, an example of which is below.
The Climate Kids (docudrama film draft manuscript draft)
https://www.ma2life.org/g/film/The_Climate_Kids.pdf
Climate Moonshot Conference (3-page draft)
https://www.ma2life.org/g/moonshot/Climate_Moonshot_Conference.pdf
SAI Videos
The following videos summarize Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI):
Reflecting Sunlight [#9]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ-ddFDiA4w
Can Air Pollution Save the Planet? [#10]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4O2hv9t
The Science of Global Warming [#7]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Por9aWKLdc4
AI Support
To discuss climate moonshot with artificial intelligence (AI), consider feeding the following PDF files to AI.
Climate Moonshot PDF Files
https://www.aplantosavetheplanet.org/pdf-ai
Robin Collins
Michael MacCracken
Hi Glenn--Interesting effort. A few comments:
On Phase 1:
Regarding Atmospheric Experiments, I am not at all convinced that they could be done and actually need to be done. Even with a mist cloud, it will spread out pretty quickly, not just due to atmospheric turbulence but due to gravity difference flow in the stratified stratosphere. I'm not at all convinced one could gather useful information that would give better reaction rates than one would get in a test chamber, etc. Formation of sulfuric acid aerosols goes on for quite long times following massive volcanic eruptions--I just don't see how that will get really useful information in the amounts considered.
On Gas experiments, I also see no real possibility of use over that long time given the amounts envisioned. The longitudinal spread by the winds will take it around the world in a couple of weeks and meanwhile spreading latitudinally.
What might well be worthwhile is more intense study of what has happened with small volcanic eruptions and modeling studies to see how well observations can be represented.
On what can be measured, I really doubt the amounts involved will lead to discernible influences. Sorry, I just don't buy that this can be done. Try it out the experiments in fine-scale models that really can treat the dispersion of small amounts, etc.
And I'd suggest that this could be done in two years--and that the second part of Large-Scale Equipment Development ought to also be able to be done in less than five years.
On the Decision Gate, I think that the "tracked" and "monitored" aspects will both be quite limited--and again might better be done by seeing how well injections by small volcanic eruptions can and have been observable--provision of which it would be useful to be mentioning.
On Phase II:
Again, I think doing much more to look at the detection and monitoring of injections by small volcanic eruptions have done. There was one Santer talked about as possibly the cause of the slowdown in warming during the first decade of the 21st century. Hardly any notice was made in terms of the effects at ground level--the plume and change in aerosol loading I think was monitored and detected, so one could get a sense of how much it takes for detection, but figuring out if there was a surface temperature effect, etc. took a good deal of work. As note, Santer did this and it would be useful to check out his analyses I could make contact with him on this if this would be of interest).
I think the idea of one thousandth scale is really low--I think the volcanic studies will show that one really needs to get up to a couple of percent of potential maximum to be able to see anything. I in particular think that the idea of separating out benefits and harm will be very difficult, probably impossible given natural variability (and the time to get statistical significance will be far too long at the low level to ever get to deployment. It is really important to remember that the causes of most harm will be the ongoing GHG warming impacts of which there are uncertainties of magnitude that will swamp the effects of low level SAI. I can agree you may need to give indications of being very careful in build up but getting detection and attribution is going to take quite large injections. Again model experiments give the opportunity for getting statistical significance much more rapidly. So, do a bunch of model testing versus past volcanic eruptions as best one can and then do some sensitivity studies--I just don't think there can be useful detection without quite significant emissions, etc. What would be useful in both Phase 1 and 2 is documenting how much of the changes are resulting from GHGs--perhaps would have to do looking back at past years--would need to build a baseline.
So, on the Detection Gate, I don't think there will be sufficient sized variations to do the evaluation you are talking about. Thus, I'd really be planning to go through phases 1 and 2 in 5-7 years.
Phase III: I would think one would be working out a lot of what is in the construction phase during the first two phases of the effort. I don't know of any real downsides of small to modest volcanic eruptions as compared to the huge downsides of GHGs, which will still be the dominant influence even with SAI at full tilt. If attribution studies are challenging with GHGs, they will be more challenging with SAI, which will be smaller--unless what is done is really concentrate the effort in the polar regions what one would want to be reversing the melting back of sea ice, where gradual changes can possibly be seen, etc.
So, what I would be suggesting is a condensed plan that adds an effort on more closely examining what have been the consequences of relatively small volcanic eruptions and testing out the possible experimental and prototype injections to determine if the observation programs being suggested are even feasible, and especially how measuring nothing is going to be interpreted as a positive outcome.
Best regards, Mike MacCracken
robert...@gmail.com
As ever, everyone is getting carried away by the practicalities! The practicalities are not the problem. The problem is the political will to act. The idea that having a practical plan will provoke action is strictly for the birds!
If you persist in seeing this as a linear problem solving challenge, you'll get nowhere. That simply isn't how complex systems work.
There are only two ways to avert collapse. Either the global elite who are preventing change for fear that they will lose wealth, status and power must recognise that they'll lose more of those things the more they try to cling on to them. Or the system has to collapse in order to wrench their wealth, status and power from them, a necessary precursor to building a more sustainable system. Take your pick. And remember that almost everyone likely to read this is included in the group of those desperately seeking to preserve what they've accumulated - unwittingly, perhaps, we are also amongst the villains!
Regards
Robert
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/09039954-c175-4d97-aded-e024cf51fd0e%40comcast.net.
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Hello Robin,
I do not think that dimming the sun’s radiation is an option which can be seriously considered. I am not saying that it would not work, but it would certainly be vetoed in the UN security council, and also it would provoke huge unrest in the religious part of the world’s population. It is, politically, a dead horse.
Of course just my 2 cents…
Oswald
Clive Elsworth
I don’t understand. Didn’t the Montreal Protocol enact a practical plan?
Could anything have happened without a practical plan?
Yes, political will is needed too, but it’s hard to muster that without anything affordably useful to do.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/9bcecc99-0b85-4ec7-bedc-d9571c30154b%40gmail.com.
Robin Collins
robert...@gmail.com
Oswald,
This framing of 'dimming the Sun' is misleading and unhelpful. What is required is a reduction in absorbed solar radiation. And it is required because there is no longer any plausible intervention in the carbon cycle (including methane) that can now prevent GMST from rising to and remaining for an extended period at a catastrophic level. The SRM moniker is a major problem. It needs a new name, perhaps RASoR or something that names what it is in the same way that CDR does - CO2 removal.
That said, I do agree with you that the likelihood of SRM/RASoR being done at sufficient scale sufficiently soon to make a material difference is remote. The geopolitics are the problem, not the technology.
Imagine two slippery slopes A and B. You don't know which kind of slope you're on until you get to the end. Only then do you find out whether you're about to smoothly slide to a halt or fall off a cliff.
Robert
robert...@gmail.com
We have to stop appealing to the Montreal Protocol as 'proof' that a coherent, timely and effective response to global warming is feasible. Limiting ODS in the geopolitical world of the 1980s was a radically different type of problem to dealing with accelerating climate change in the neoliberal 2120s. This is not the place to elaborate but the degree of 'wickedness' associated with climate change simply wasn't present for ODSs. I have mentioned this before with references to the relevant literature.
In response to your point, Clive, of course nothing would have happened without a practical plan but the plan is a response to the policy question 'What are we going to do about this?'. It isn't a response to the question 'Are we going to do anything about this?' That second question implies a deeper question 'Is solving this problem going to threaten my retention of political power?'
For ODS it didn't. For climate change it does. End of.
Robert
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Hi Robert,
unfortunately we are not able to “frame” a discussion. The concept of SAI will be discussed as “dimming the sun”, if we like it or not.
What I miss in HPAC is discussions regarding the 2nd pillar of the triad. It is still possible to remove the GHG which cause global warming, methane and CO2. But HPAC concentrates on only one solution. I agree that the third pillar, emission reductions, is widely accepted and needs no further enhancement by HPAC.
GHG removal is a building stone of IPCC strategy. It can start regionally, without the UN security council discussing it. It is way cheaper than SAI and could start tomorrow.
Why not use it?
Regards
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/ff14f051-0588-4720-8ef7-d235316a96f3%40gmail.com.
robert...@gmail.com
Hi Oswald
Are you not concerned by the great likelihood that a climate induced catastrophe can no longer be averted without reducing absorbed solar radiation?
That isn't to say that reducing emissions and GHG aren't also necessary. It is to say that they're most unlikely to be sufficient.
RobertC
Tim Foresman
Get Outlook for Android
To: oswald....@hispeed.ch <oswald....@hispeed.ch>; 'Robin Collins' <robin.w...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'H simmens' <hsim...@gmail.com>; Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [HPAC] RE: We might investigate SRM geoengineering -Mann
rob...@rtulip.net
No Robert, the wickedness today only applies to carbon, not to albedo.
Albedo can be restored without challenging current systems of political power.
Indeed, rebrightening is in the interest of the capitalist system, as a necessary condition for ongoing profitability and stability.
Emissions reduction is a wicked problem, but restoring albedo is not.
The pseudo-wickedness of the geoengineering problem arises because many people in the climate action movement see communist revolution, or some analogous systemic transformation, as more important than climate stability. That is the implication of the unrealistic IPCC call in 2022 to halve world emissions by 2030 which remains the dominant myth in climate circles.
The Montreal model of a business-science-state coalition only applies to albedo, not to decarbonisation.
My view is that deploying SAI will be the precondition for the development of the global thinking required to assess effective carbon mining strategies.
I see a business lobby to establish an Albedo Accord as the political precondition for Glenn Weinreb’s excellent climate moonshot SAI deployment proposal.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/fb467b34-dcd9-4813-96ab-1a4e73cd1a2a%40gmail.com.
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Dear Robert,
we all are concerned about global warming.
I do however not see a catastrophe coming up. Climate developments are slow, inch by inch, and politics are even slower in their reactions. It will get hotter, then next year might be cooler, and our politics go forward and backwards with it. The problem with our system is it does not work well with long term developments, since politicians are concerned about the next election. Considering this it is actually quite amazing that we have made so much progress with abandoning fossil fuels.
China is more apt to develop long term strategies. Solutions may come from there. They are in the lead with Wind&Solar, as well as EVs, and they will be in the lead with GHG removal. They have no hesitation to interfere with the weather, making rain with silver iodide particles, so why not remove methane with FECL3. It will happen eventually.
Regards
Oswald
Tim Foresman
Sent: Thursday, 09 July 2026 09:54:23
To: robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>; 'Robin Collins' <robin.w...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'H simmens' <hsim...@gmail.com>; Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [HPAC] RE: We might investigate SRM geoengineering -Mann
robert...@gmail.com
Hi RobertT
We'll just have to disagree. Reducing absorbed solar radiation at a climatically significant scale is, IMNSHO, a wicked problem.
Attached is a document I wrote in 2022 as part of an aborted attempt to write my magnum opus on climate change. It specifically addresses wickedness. Although the 'problem' it is concerned with is climate change writ large, rereading it, it seems to me to apply pretty well to the more limited set of issues relating to reducing absorbed solar radiation. You'll see that I never finished it but it's still 9 pages!
Robert
Robin Collins
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Hi Robin,
emission reductions, amazing or not, will contribute to cooler temperatures in the long run. However they will not help much in the next 50 years, I myself and I think all here including yourself agree on that.
To reduce global warming (GW) we need GHG removal on a big scale. This is possible with EAMO and OIF, the two really powerful GHG removal techniques. With EAMO you catch both birds with one stone, because it will remove methane from the atmosphere as well as CO2 from the oceans. Also it produces cloud condensation nuclei – additional cloud cover over the oceans.
GW is a huge problem and we need action ASAP.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Yes but, we are in the midst of tipping collapses as we speak.
Our filming of warming effects across North America this summer season were to revisit the central Rockies with the epically unprecedented drought that the Colorado Forest Service says will kill all of the ponderosa pine on the front range from beetle attack in the next few years. This is baked in because of drought stress that persists even without drought in long-lived vascular species, and where drought is now driven by heat and associated nonlinear evaporation regardless of precipitation. (Zhuang 2024)
What we have found across North America is that on average, all earth systems are degrading from current warming and degradation does not stop unless the degradation forcing is removed before the point of no return where the systems is so degraded it cannot self-restore even if the degradation forcing is removed. These tipping collapses are projected to become irreversible by mid-century with the result of risk of loss millennia of stored carbon in quantities ten times greater than all emissions humans have ever created.
A plan starts with a mission and our current climate mission is faulty as it does not stop already activated tipping element collapses because it does not remove the forcing that began their degradation, because... it does not adequately address risk. The warming amount that our climate culture uses for targeting adequate climate pollution mitigation is not the issue. It is the risk of irreversible Earth systems collapses that are now set in motion with tipping activation and ongoing degradation from current warming.
The first part of the plan then is to adopt an emergency restoration mission because of current warming, where time is short to the baked in point of no return where tipping elements (on average) are at risk of driving warming far beyond what humans have already done and could possibly do with even vastly increased emissions. The mission revolves around loss and reversal of Earth systems services that our global culture relies upon not only for survival, but for money.
The second part is to implement emergency solutions as we do in any emergency. First we act to address the emergency with the tools at hand, then once emergency mitigation is launched, we address root causes. Emergency implementation of shovel ready solutions includes temporarily pausing IMO sulfur fuel regulations, then looking to the rest of the world's sulfur fuels content regulations and relaxing those rules too. It's an emergency. If we do not act, the point of no return is on us where never-before experienced economic forcings are realized. It's not the warming per se, it's the way tipping elements respond in time frames that are not something our culture has ever experienced. This loops back in to part one - change of mission.
The risk of mortality from relaxing air pollution regulations must be compared to the risk of emissions of millennia of stored carbon with Earth systems collapses beyond the point of no return, not with simple further warming from our current climate culture, as this philosophy does not robustly include feedbacks that are driving tipping responses. In plain English, our current further warming culture cannot stop ongoing degradation of Earth's ecologies where their collapses are now baked in with the result of the release of millennia of stored greenhouse gases. The challenge then is to change the mission, so that restoration is the focus, in time frames that matter to tipping.
Once part one and two are launched, then we proceed to some iteration of Glenn's plan as emergency response suggests - First we must address the emergency, then we prevent it from happening again.
I led a stakeholder team in developing a restoration emergency response as requested by the City of Austin Climate Program during their development of Austin's latest climate plan in 2021. Not much has changed with this plan since, except tipping publishing has significantly advanced, and the IMO regs and continuing sulfur reductions in Europe, China and India, (with aborted response by tRump in the US.)
Climate Emergency Response
The Urgent and Immediate Response Needed to Reverse Activated
Climate Tipping
With a Safe, Sustainable and Equitable Target of Less Than 1.0˚C
Warming Above
Normal
September 2021
https://climatediscovery.org/Climate_Emergency_Response_Austin_September_2021.pdf
MeltOn
Ps. Follow us on Instagram, linked below, for observation of the effects of warming in the Central Rockies from unprecedented drought with our summer filmwork. We originally were going to look at the beetles, but now it looks as if we will be chasing fires (or being chased by them).
Zhuang et al., Anthropogenic warming has
ushered in an era
of temperature-dominated droughts in the western United States,
Science
Advances, November 6, 2024.
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.adn9389
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/002401dd0faa%247354fef0%2459fefcd0%24%40hispeed.ch.
Tom Goreau
Not to mention coral reefs, which were deliberately sacrificed for political reasons rather than admit that bleaching was caused by global warming. Many more ecosystems will follow…..
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Phone: (1) 857-523-0807 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
On the Nature of Things: The Scientific Photography of Fritz Goro
Coral Reef Natural History From Beginning To End (in preparation)
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer
“The Earth is not dying, she is being killed” U. Utah Phillips
“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies” Noam Chomsky
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/a5cb0de6-f0ee-4742-ade7-7af570999f79%40earthlink.net.
Glenn Weinreb
If someone wants a tackle climate change with an R&D surge, they need to specify what they want to develop. Below is an example.
Best Regards, Glenn Weinreb
Do We Need a New
Climate Laboratory?
By Glenn Weinreb
One strategy for addressing climate change is to set up a new laboratory and task it with solving the entire climate problem.
Yet what might they do?
In theory, they could divide the problem into two primary parts and do R&D to the extent required to resolve each. One problem is carbon dioxide emissions (i.e., 40GtCO2/year), while the other is global warming (i.e., 0.3°C/decade).
To solve the carbon dioxide emissions problem, we need to figure out how to make green energy at a cost less than fossil fuel. Consumers would then switch to save money.
To solve the global warming problem, we need to figure out how to reflect sunlight back into outer space at a reasonable cost and without harm. We probably need to reflect approximately 1% of sunlight within ~15 years near the North and South poles. In theory, this could be done with airplanes that spray reflective gases into the upper atmosphere.
Financial Strategy
An R&D surge might be referred to as a “climate moonshot.”
A moonshot would probably be funded by people who want to use their money to save the planet from climate change, as opposed to investors who seek a financial return. Planet saving and investing differ in multiple ways. Candidates for moonshot sponsorship include high-net-worth individuals, foundations, and governments.
In theory, sponsors could require produced materials be placed on the internet for open review (“open-source”). This would save time and money for multiple reasons, including the reduction of inaccurate claims.
When doing R&D, small money is spent before medium money, and medium before large. For example, within a moonshot initiative, $1M might support proposal writing, $10M might support doing detailed design work, and $100M might support building prototypes.
What to Develop?
Ultimately, we need to think about how to spend billions of dollars, to save trillions. Also, for no money, one person or one group of people, can design a moonshot program by putting together a list of things to develop. In other words, they can focus on the following question:
What is a list of things that if developed solve the entire climate problem?
This article is an example list.
Climate Moonshot
Our proposed moonshot divides the climate problem into 10 different research areas, with roughly $1B allocated to each over 5 years. Total cost is expected to be approximately $10B. The initial development phase cost $100M and supports proposal writing, design modeling, doing rough designs, and developing experiments.
The 10 research areas are summarized as follows:
Moonshot Area I: Improve Climate Models
To bend the global warming curve, we need to reflect sunlight back into outer space. Before we do this, we need calculate to how much sunlight needs to be reflected, from where, and when. This requires climate models. However, existing models do not accurately predict observations. Therefore, a surge of funding is needed to improve them. More specifically, we need to improve our understanding of clouds, and of sunlight reflecting off air pollution (i.e. measure anthropogenic aerosol radiative forcing). Reference videos:
The Climate Acceleration Problem [#6]
The Science of Global Warming [#7]
The Uncertainty of Climate Change [#8]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoqX7uBaeKU
Moonshot Area II: Conduct Sunlight Reflectivity Experiments (SAI)
In theory, airplanes can spray sulfur-based gases into the upper atmosphere, to reflect about 1% of sunlight back into outer space, to offset global warming. For details, see Wake Smith’s 2024 Cryosphere Paper, and for an example reflectivity plan, visit www.aplantosavetheplanet.org/rp.
Sulfur is already present in coal and oil, and is therefore released upon combustion—and sunlight reflects off air laden with sulfur. Therefore, we could harvest sulfur from carbon-based fuel before combustion, transfer it to an airplane, and emit it at a high altitude, instead of at ground level. High-altitude sulfur stays aloft for one to two years, while ground-level sulfur typically stays aloft for hours to days. Consequently, changing the emission site reduces the planet's temperature, without increasing total sulfur emissions. In a sense, we can solve the global warming problem by moving air pollution. According to one study, this would cost approximately $18B/year.
To better understand this, we need to develop airplanes that emit experimental quantities of material, and then monitor for days to weeks. Reference videos:
Reflecting Sunlight [#9]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ-ddFDiA4w
Can Air Pollution Save the Planet? [#10]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4O2hv9tSDA
Moonshot Area III: Develop Large Automated Spray-Planes
To control global warming, we probably need large airplanes that can emit approximately 100 tons of material every several hours. To do this at a reasonable cost, we probably need a system that supports automated flying, automated refueling, and automated reloading. And we probably need 100 to 200 of these automated airplanes. But before we build hundreds of planes, we need to build one. In other words, we need to design and prototype an automated system that supports one large spray-plane. In theory, a Boeing 777 airplane can be modified to perform this task. For details, click here.
Moonshot Area IV: Automate Nuclear Power Construction
The first three Moonshot Areas cost roughly $3B over 5 years, and sets us up to reflect sunlight within ~15 years (i.e. building airplanes and airports requires an additional ~10 years). Ultimately, future leaders would need to compare reflecting, with not reflecting.
Also, we have a carbon dioxide emissions problem. And to transition to a green economy, we need to reduce the cost of 24/7 green energy to below that of fossil fuel. Fortunately, this is easy. We just need to automate the construction of nuclear power plants. More specifically, we need to develop custom machines that build these sites. This would cost little compared to the cost of a nuclear power plant. Reference videos:
Low-Cost Nuclear Power [#11]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlbovU67wI
Automated Nuclear Power Construction [#12]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afO0cy1l7Qo
How to Make $10 Trillion Dollars [#13]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gqmKGV1h5Y
Moonshot Area V: Co-locate Chemical Processing with Nuclear Power
To make chemicals without emitting carbon dioxide, at a cost less than the traditional approach, we need to co-locate chemical processing equipment with low-cost nuclear reactors. More specifically, we need to develop standards that define how this fits together.
Also, to reduce the cost of the processing equipment, we need to develop a transportation system that moves large platforms of chemical processing equipment from a shipyard or factory to a nuclear power site. For details, see videos #11 through #13, referenced previously.
Moonshot Area VI: Economic Fusion Moonshot
There are primarily two types of nuclear power: fission and fusion. Fission is the traditional form that generates electricity with uranium fuel. However, it is not popular due to meltdown risk, nuclear waste, proliferation risk, and cost. Fusion, on the other hand, does not have these issues; however, it is still in development. In theory, we can accelerate development with a surge in funding for technologies used by fusion machines that by-design produce power that is competitive in an electricity market (i.e. focus on economic fusion). Reference video:
Fusion Moonshot [#14]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvZzGHSugy4
Moonshot Area VII: Develop Next Generation Solar Farm
In theory, we can reduce the cost of solar power by developing a technique for placing solar material directly onto soil. Reference video:
Next Generation Solar Farms [#17]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aOSrsZD2MY
Moonshot Area VIII: Develop Green Energy Standards
In a green new world, we need more standards that define how things fit together mechanically, electrically, and with communications. This includes standards for devices in automated buildings, standards for swappable EV batteries, and standards for ships powered by liquid ammonia. Reference videos:
Green Cars: Swappable Batteries [#15]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY_jNQ77FA8
Next Generation Building Automation [#16]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_obb_z77co
Moonshot Area IX: Develop High-Temperature Tunnel Boring Machine
To extract underground geothermal energy at a low cost, we need vertical tunnel boring machines that operate at high temperatures (reference).
Moonshot Area X: Develop Policy Making Tools
In theory, we can build a website that creates climate plans based on requirements specified by the website user. This would allow policymakers and concerned citizens to get a better sense of how to fix climate at the lowest-cost. Reference videos:
What is Our Climate Plan? [#4]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTzmZGHa9EM
What does a Climate Plan Look Like? [#5]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZLFWarYlbw
Lab Business Plan
A business plan for the new laboratory exists and it is open-source. Therefore, anyone can copy (“bifurcate”) or modify for free via the CC BY 4.0 license. For original files, visit www.aplantosavetheplanet.org/lab.
The following videos provide a brief summary:
The Climate Solution is More R&D [#19]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGPGiIDZoDA
What is The World’s Climate Plan? [#21]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nU31iTTUo
Can R&D Save the Planet from Climate Change?
In theory, we can set up a new laboratory and task it with doing R&D to the extent required to solve the climate problem. Globally, this might cost billions of dollars per year. However, the cost to initiate and oversee might be closer to $100M/year. In other words, financial support from one funding source might be small relative to total. Yet more importantly, a solution to the climate problem exists, and it is not blocked by politics or financial constraints.
Robin Collins
Bruce
What might be helpful for prioritizing would be coming to agreement on the highest temperature for 2050 and/or 2100 that must be avoided and then estimate what the total rf must be limited to in order to nor exceed those those temperatures (note that the total rf depends on the expected climate sensitivity expected for those years, so a range of values of climate sensitivity might be needed). This would just be a start, but it would give us some specific values to work with.
Bruce Parker
<image001.png><image002.png>
Michael MacCracken
Well, I'd say 1 C is too high in 2050 and 0.5 C is too high in 2100. Now what?
Mike MacC.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/2AC011E1-A6DB-A147-85DB-62866373C7D0%40hxcore.ol.
Bruce
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 6:19 PM
To: Bruce <br...@chesdata.com>; healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] RE: We might investigate SRM geoengineering -Mann
robert...@gmail.com
Hi Dan
I don't think that is fair to the trolley problem. It's philosophically important because it exposes deep tensions between consequentialist reasoning and deontological constraints. It doesn't make a moral judgement as to which is 'better' and certainly doesn't justify your claim that 'People are more comfortable letting many people die through inaction than they are in letting a few people die through action.'
The set up of the trolley problem requires that one choses whether to save five people by killing one. How about picking some random person off the street and removing their vital organs to do life saving transplant surgery on five sick people who would otherwise die? How's that any different? It is dangerous to see these thought experiments as anything more than intellectual provocations. They are not, and are not intended to be practical policy prescriptions.
This construction does not translate well to the do or don't do SRM decision. Crucially whereas the trolley problem is framed as a personal action decision, SRM is a public policy decision to which different standards inevitably apply. Moreover, with the trolley problem the potential victims are there on the track in front of you but in the SRM case, most of the potential victims have yet to be born. This raises the question about our moral obligations to future generations which is entirely absent in the trolley set up.
In this regard a much better philosophical conundrum is presented by Parfit's Non-Identity Problem (1 and 2) which argues, compellingly, that we have no such obligations. But while we may have no moral obligations towards future generations, that's not a free pass to trash the planet because, as the deontologist would argue, that's just bad behaviour. Perhaps do a session on that.
Robert
SRM is a classic version on the Trolley Problem. People are more comfortable letting many people die through inaction than they are in letting a few people die through action.
Regarding Risk-Risk analysis, see here:
Dan
On Jul 8, 2026, at 1:01 PM, 'Michael MacCracken' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
A problem is that he seems to be using a higher standard of proof for trying intervention than for moving forward without it. The key question, it seems to me, is to get some discussion going on decision frameworks to be using and considering and relative risk management.
Best, Mike
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/46E54684-ECEF-46DB-ABC9-33EBDA5EB639%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/6deb54cd-7426-445e-9fd9-86f1f0109be2%40comcast.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/45E85904-25B7-441D-B5F7-0E14C65E6720%40gmail.com.
robert...@gmail.com
Have a look at AR6 WGII Figure TS.4. Pick a number from there!
Also, bear in mind that the cumulative excess warming is probably more significant than the peak. We've marginally exceeded ~1.5oC for 1 year and climate induced perils are already increasing in frequency and severity. This suggests that if we just stay at this level of warming for, say 50 years, while we'll be well within the Paris target range, the global climate impact will by then be very considerable.
RobertC
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/8728880D-49FB-D04A-8AD4-03354704666F%40hxcore.ol.
Robin Collins
Michael MacCracken
Hi Bruce--First, I don't think it is a plurality of scientists is the issue. The ones who are able (at least potentially, are those in the Conference of the Parties on behalf of their governments.
And what we need to do is get them to ask the right questions in the right way, by which I mean the possibility, likelihood, and consequences of some particular severe types of impacts on society and the environment. So, chances of severe weather impacts, etc. Frame in terms of the decision-making framework of decision makes, so about risks--and not based on the typical high confidence decision framework scientists tend to be prone to (wanting confidence of two-sigma or more, etc.), also citing examples of extreme weather, diminishing glacial ice, SL rise, intense heat waves, etc.
Mike
Bruce
Can we start the process by developing our own set of "right questions" and working with those in the Conference of the Parties on behalf of their governments to refine the "right" questions?
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 9:41 PM
Dan Miller
Dan Miller
Hi Dan
I don't think that is fair to the trolley problem. It's philosophically important because it exposes deep tensions between consequentialist reasoning and deontological constraints. It doesn't make a moral judgement as to which is 'better' and certainly doesn't justify your claim that 'People are more comfortable letting many people die through inaction than they are in letting a few people die through action.'
The set up of the trolley problem requires that one choses whether to save five people by killing one. How about picking some random person off the street and removing their vital organs to do life saving transplant surgery on five sick people who would otherwise die? How's that any different? It is dangerous to see these thought experiments as anything more than intellectual provocations. They are not, and are not intended to be practical policy prescriptions.
This construction does not translate well to the do or don't do SRM decision. Crucially whereas the trolley problem is framed as a personal action decision, SRM is a public policy decision to which different standards inevitably apply. Moreover, with the trolley problem the potential victims are there on the track in front of you but in the SRM case, most of the potential victims have yet to be born. This raises the question about our moral obligations to future generations which is entirely absent in the trolley set up.
In this regard a much better philosophical conundrum is presented by Parfit's Non-Identity Problem (1 and 2) which argues, compellingly, that we have no such obligations. But while we may have no moral obligations towards future generations, that's not a free pass to trash the planet because, as the deontologist would argue, that's just bad behaviour. Perhaps do a session on that.
RegardsRobert
On 08/07/2026 19:05, Dan Miller wrote:
SRM is a classic version on the Trolley Problem. People are more comfortable letting many people die through inaction than they are in letting a few people die through action.
<maxresdefault.jpeg>
Regarding Risk-Risk analysis, see here:
rob...@rtulip.net
Dan, the reason why intentional geoengineering is banned while accidental geoengineering is accepted is basically down to the corrupt influence of the climate action movement.
The UK Royal Society estimated in its 2009 Geoengineering Review that SAI is 1000 times better value for money than decarbonisation as a cooling method.
Just taking that as a rough order of magnitude estimate, it is a bizarre scandal that climate action has been largely defined as the path that is ~1000 times more expensive while excluding all testing of the path that is ~1000 times cheaper.
Follow the money. Climate stabilisation should be about removing heat. Unfortunately, this basic principle has been obscured by the corrupt insistence that climate funds go to subsidising energy transition rather than to cooling.
The thinking appears to be that if money went to cooling it would expose the scientific innumeracy of renewable energy as a climate response. Therefore cooling must be demonised.
What is needed now is to decouple climate action from energy policy, recognising that decarbonisation is marginal to slowing the grave security threats of tipping points.
That will also enable a sound policy on carbon, since the same corrupt reasoning is used to prevent ocean iron fertilization. It would be better than our rent seeking, therefore it must be prevented at all costs.
Unfortunately, the tribal psychology of liking your friends and hating your enemies has been exploited to insist that climate action is a wholly owned subsidiary of the political left. This partisan instinct has to be defeated in order to develop a coherent and workable climate stabilization strategy.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0AFDCAB3-45A3-4EDD-8C56-06CE892CC8F8%40gmail.com.
robert...@gmail.com
Dan
No issues with the thrust of what you're saying. I'm simply arguing that the trolley problem somewhat trivialises it.
The trolley problem is a notional set up designed specifically to abstract confounding details that are always present in real world situations, enabling clearer focus on a narrow question. In the case of the trolley problem that question concerns the moral dilemma at the heart of the consequentialist/deontological argument as to whether the right moral behaviour is always determined by securing the best outcome, or whether the means by which that outcome is achieved also has moral significance. In brief, do the ends always justify the means?
In the real world, the challenge presented by FF pollution and its harms can't be separated from the considerable benefits that FF have conferred on humanity and the disruption, and likely widespread harm, that their rapid retirement would entail. The real world is a messy place. This messiness is not reflected in the trolley problem.
It also ignores, as I mentioned previously, that their is not a simple mapping of good personal behaviour onto good public behaviour. This is simply because the public is hugely diverse and it is rarely possible to please all the people all the time. That routinely introduces tough trade off decisions for those responsible for public policy. None of that is reflected in the trolley problem.
In making a public omelette, someone has to decide whose eggs to break. Pareto optimal outcomes arise only by pure chance.
Finally, I totally agree that it's not just about future people. I was merely pointing out that it is also about them, something that is often forgotten. As I recall, their interests weren't openly considered in your discussion of climate change from a trolley perspective.
As you so often explain with such clarity, there are more than sufficient robust arguments in favour of reducing absorbed solar radiation. The trolley problem isn't needed.
Robert
Michael MacCracken
Hi Bruce--I think that might b a useful thing to do?
Mike
Dan Miller
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Hi Dan, Robert,
the resistance against SAI has a rational background.
SAI does not address the true reason for global warming (GW). The cause of GW is an oversupply of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) to the atmosphere. Solving the problem requires
- Reduction of input
- Removal of the current stock of GHG
Whoever I talk to, they immediately agree to this reasoning.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/5484012A-D4B7-42D9-B677-66DD6020D348%40gmail.com.
H simmens
Dan, this is a powerful framing. Whether we label it a classic trolley problem or simply an immense, ongoing human tragedy, you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding the moral blindness of our current status quo. If anything, pointing to the "8 million deaths" actually underestimates the sheer scale of the human life dividend we reclaim by stopping this accidental, tropospheric pollution. In public health terms, those 8 million premature deaths represent a staggering 150 to 170 million years of human life collectively cut short every single year—decades of life stolen in an instant from individuals and families.
By cleaning up our economy and moving necessary cooling interventions out of the lower atmosphere where we breathe them, we aren't just shifting numbers on a spreadsheet. We instantly restore an average of over a full year of life expectancy to every single person on Earth (and 3 to 4 years in heavily hit regions), while immediately eliminating a massive global crisis of chronic illness and pediatric asthma.
Your point exposes the profound hypocrisy of the opposition: they tolerate a devastating, lethal cost right now simply because it is deemed "accidental." And more importantly because there are immense profits and many millions of jobs dependent upon the carbon combustion complex.
Herb
Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
“A wonderful achievement, a SciencePoem, an Inspiration, a Prophecy, also hilarious, Dive in and see"
Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
On Jul 10, 2026, at 9:59 AM, oswald....@hispeed.ch wrote:
Robin Collins
Jesper Pedersen
Hi Oswald and HPAC,
Thank you for your email Oswald.
Another major driver of global warming is land desiccation. When land areas dry out, the air becomes warmer and less humid, which drastically reduces cloud formation. A key benefit of evapotranspiration is that solar energy is absorbed as latent heat rather than sensible heat. This concept is thoroughly explored in the video, "Rehydrate the Earth," by Anastassia Makarieva and Michal Kravčík
This is also explained in this video Rehydrate the Earth, by Anastassia Makarieva and Michal Kravcik: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFUUrL2iAos
Globally, annual monocrops cover roughly 15 million km2 (about 3% of the Earth's surface). This severe footprint disrupts local hydrological cycles. Transitioning these regions into tree-covered areas would significantly cool the planet, but it raises a vital question: how can we scale agroforestry to maintain global food security?
Due to lost evapotranspiration, natural precipitation patterns are broken, forcing farmers to rely heavily on artificial irrigation. This issue is compounded by urban stormwater runoff. Interestingly, large-scale irrigation can act as a localized form of SRM.
This aligns with my proposal to use wind-turbine-mounted humidifiers powered by wind energy for "cooling by fogging." Once the air is dry, and cool down the air immediately to the wet bulb temperature. I noticed that Southern Cross University is actively conducting field trials on marine fogging and cloud brightening to reduce thermal stress. I have attached some relevant evaporative cooling materials and project images for your review.
I can see Southern Cross University are doing more field trials of “cooling by fogging” see also attached evaporative cooling relevant material and also latest field trials images from Southern Cross University.
Ocean water can be cooled by up to 10 C, using evaporative cooling according to the journal from University of Florida from 1993.
Feel free for questions or comments, thanks.
Med venlig hilsen/ Best regards
Jesper Pedersen
Owner
JP ClimaTec ApS
Phone: +45 44144715
Mail: j...@innochiller.com
www.jpclimatec.com
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/001201dd1074%24544ce840%24fce6b8c0%24%40hispeed.ch.
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Hi Robin,
this is an answer to Dan who says that resistance against SAI is as simple as the trolley problem. It is not, there is very good reasons for resistance against SAI.
If I had to choose between SAI and GHG removal, I would choose the latter. IPCC scientists appears to hold similar opinions.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
Robin Collins
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Dear Robin,
as stated earlier I am not against SAI. However I just don’t think it will happen in my lifetime (I am 65 years old). GHG removal with geoengineering (not DAC and similar nonsense) is much less controversial, so why not do this. It might actually make it on the agenda of IPCC within the next 10 years.
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
Glenn Weinreb
There are several phases to SAI (stratospheric aerosol injection): (1) R&D, (2) low-level experimental operations, and (3) construction leading to full-scale operation.
The first phase would cost billions of dollars and take multiple years. So, the question is, “Should we do SAI R&D at the billion-dollar level?”
Also, there is the issue of harm with SAI. It is possible we would observe harm as we move forward with SAI, and need to stop. This is a risk.
Also, many years of carbon dioxide emissions are bad, and the easiest way to deal with this is to do R&D to make green energy cost less.
Best Regards, Glenn Weinreb
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/000f01dd107b%243fa5b870%24bef12950%24%40hispeed.ch.
Robin Collins
Clive Elsworth
For anyone like me who’s wondering what the trolly problem is, see below:
The classic trolley problem is a famous ethical thought experiment that explores the tension between two major schools of moral philosophy. First introduced by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967, the scenario is designed to test our moral intuition regarding right, wrong, and responsibility.
The Scenario
Imagine you are a bystander standing next to a track switch lever.
· A runaway trolley is barrelling down the main track.
· Tied down on the track ahead are five people who will surely be killed if the trolley continues its current path.
· If you pull the lever, you can divert the trolley onto a side track.
· However, there is one person tied down on that side track who will be killed instead.
The Core Question: Do you pull the lever to actively kill one person to save five, or do you do nothing and allow five people to die?
The Ethical Clash
The reason this problem is so enduring is that it forces a direct collision between two massive ethical frameworks:
· Utilitarianism (Consequentialism): This perspective argues that the most moral action is the one that produces the best overall outcome—the greatest good for the greatest number. From a purely mathematical standpoint, saving five lives at the cost of one is the correct choice. A strict utilitarian would pull the lever.
· Deontology (Duty-Based Ethics): This perspective argues that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the consequences. Under this framework, killing an innocent person is fundamentally wrong. By pulling the lever, you actively intervene and become directly responsible for that one person's death, whereas doing nothing means the trolley's original trajectory causes the tragedy.
Most people feel an immediate instinctive urge to save the five, but feel a deep psychological friction when they realize they must actively choose to doom someone else to do it.
Clive
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/8F460BA7-17AC-43D8-AF52-2107BE7BF233%40gmail.com.
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Dear Robin,
actually I do not think so. We should rather invest the same amount in GHG removal.
I spent the last 5 years learning, thinking and writing about the pros and cons of GHG removal and I think it is really possible.
Joshua Sarnoff
Robin Collins
Robin Collins
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Robin,
I said that HPAC should propagate not only SRM but also the 2nd leg. I did NOT say that I personally support the triad. HPAC and I are not the same entities.
I do not agree that the investment in SAI could be the highest priority. I rather think that it would create divisions and civil unrest, so my answer here is NO. It will not work - politically. I do however acknowledge that it would probably work technically.
GHG removal works both technically as well as in politics, that’s why I prefer it.
Dan Miller
Joshua Sarnoff
Dan Miller
Robin Collins
robert...@gmail.com
Thank you Joshua.
These musings are important to me because they really help me clarify the issues at hand. I've just reread Dan's email below and as a result have largely jettisoned the response I'd already written. Let me see how well I have now understood what's going on here.
Dan's central claim is summarised in his first sentence: 'the Trolley Problem does a great job in explaining the resistance to SRM'. I had previously paid too little attention to the words 'explaining the resistance'. I had, perhaps a little hastily, taken him to be claiming that the trolley problem did a great job in justifying the deployment of SRM. That's not the same thing at all.
On reflection, I agree with him that the trolley problem does a good job in explaining resistance to SRM. I reach that conclusion on the basis that it pinpoints the moral dilemma that arises when one has to do harm to achieve a supposedly greater good. Crucially however, the trolley problem doesn't help in resolving that dilemma, it simply serves to highlight it.
The case for SRM has to rest on its own merits in a thorough risk/risk analysis. Very few people will be active influencers engaged in that aspect of policymaking. The trolley problem is unlikely to feature in their professional analysis. However, if they conclude that on balance SRM should be pursued, they will have to consider how best to overcome public resistance that can in part be explained by individuals' indecision when faced with the kind of trade-offs presented in the trolley problem.
All this said, I wouldn't get too hung up on these moral questions, however fascinating they may be. Throughout human history we've routinely cut people's lives short in all manner of ways from pagan practices of human sacrifice to warfare in all its ancient and modern guises. The quest for global peace and goodwill seems as far from delivering its prize today as it's ever been. Climate change is just the latest chapter in a continuing story of learning by doing and sometimes not demonstrating the communal wit to make our choices very wisely.
But don't lose heart. This is extremely unlikely to be the final chapter.
Robert
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Dear Robin,
my point is: SAI will not happen. I am not saying it should not happen, or it does not work.
GHG removal is just the easier way out of GW, and it will happen.
All of this is just opinions…
Oswald
Dan Miller
https://youtube.com/live/p2496OB1EmI
Michael MacCracken
Dear Oswald--The problem is that the expense and time to do what you are suggesting will not stop, much less reverse, global warming and sea level rise at levels that are not catastrophic. Sometimes tourniquets are just necessary even if not the perfect option.
Mike MacCracken
Robin Collins
Michael MacCracken
Glenn--I agree that R&D to make green energy cost less is important, but that does not stop global warming. The technology has to actually replace all the existing technology and that takes a lot more time and cost than SAi which can actually reduce the warming instead of just stop it from increasing.
Mike
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/05c901dd107d%24e66bbe00%24b3433a00%24%40manhattan2.org.
Joshua Sarnoff
Michael MacCracken
Are no other options available? For example:
1. Sacrificing yourself to save all the others, something that would see is the option that the military and police might take?
2. Throwing the switch and seeking to quickly untie or free that one person, that attempt being easier than freeing all five?
3. Throwing the switch for the first set of wheels and then back again before the second set of wheels, seeking to derail the train? Or throwing something else on the tracks to seek to derail the train.
I would also note that in the situation for climate change, there are also lots of other people around to help with doing things--indeed, most people seem to have faith in a team of people trying to hold the train back from sliding so fast down the hill--but pretty clearly that is not working and we need to get their attention to what lies ahead, which they don't seem to be able to see clearly as they seem most focused on what is happening behind the train instead of looking around the train and down the tracks ahead.
Mike MacCracken
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Hi Robin,
yes I disagree. We can reduce methane to pre-industrial levels within 20 years. That’s 0.5 °C of cooling. If we would do that we could stop GW. But that’s not all. We can reduce CO2 and we can create additional cloud cover. All in all we can cool the climate, with GHG removal.
Regarrds
Michael MacCracken
Dear Oswald--Have you and your colleagues been able to do or have done any confirming studies, such as in large enclosures (so not just in a lab-sized experiment) or done by with model simulations? Have there been experiments indicating that the aerosols you propose to use will remain active as long as would be needed for your proposal to be effective, especially given that methane will continue to be emitted--can the approach really keep the methane concentration as low as you are suggesting?
And, incidentally, have there been studies that indicate if some minimum methane concentration is needed--or could one go down to preindustrial or even below with no problems?
Regards, Mike
Glenn Weinreb
The next step with SAI is R&D. In theory, $10M would be spent before $100M, and $100M before $1B. In other words, a funding source could get this started at a lower level, and push forward. There are roughly 200 nations with billion-dollar sized budgets, and 100 foundations with billion-dollar sized endowments, so money exists. We should be thinking about how to make it easy for them to get involved, without wasting money (which is a concern of theirs).
With SAI R&D, the limiting factor is money. If a funding source wanted to move forward, they could do so. Some nations can and will block SAI experiments conducted from their soil, yet not all nations. In other words, researchers would need to identify nations supportive of SAI field experiments. At this time, SAI (i.e. R&D) is limited by money. Later, during low-level experimental operations, large governments would probably exert influence over others. When and if this occurred, support would probably be needed from one of the big three to press forward (i.e. USA, Europe, China).
SAI entails three primary risks:
• Harm Risk refers to the possibility that we detect harm as we build up SAI, and need to stop.
• Conflict Risk refers to the possibility that nations fight over SAI in some way.
• Timing Risk refers to the possibility that we do not get it set up in the needed time.
How do we get through this given these risks? I don’t know.
If we did SAI to cancel global warming for 10 years (set global warming rate to 0C/decade), and then stopped SAI, the warming rate would return (i.e. 0.3C/decade). However, if we did SAI for 200 years and then stopped when the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere was 1200 ppm, for example, (instead of todays 430), then the warming rate would be 6 times higher than what we have today (i.e. 2C/decade). This is referred to as “termination shock” and it would be bad. Reference: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a5129d9-0b34-83ea-a2f1-135e161171a3
In other words, reducing CO2 emissions is also important.
A surge in R&D for cost-effective (< $25/ton CO2) direct air capture (pull CO2 out of atmosphere) would be helpful. For example, an additional $10M could be put into ocean iron fertilzation R&D. Yet what might they do? The following document explores this question.
Proposed Ocean Iron Fertilization $10M Research Fund
https://www.ma2life.org/g/film/ocean_iron_fertilization_ai.pdf
Global climate models are not predicting observations, which means they are not accurate. They will probably be improved over the next 5 years, and when that happens they will say SRM is needed, and SRM R&D will become more acceptable.
Before that happens, any funding source with deep pockets can push SAI R&D forward, if it wants.
Best Regards, Glenn Weinreb
Dan Miller
 | |
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Dear Mike,
there is no need for such experiment because the process of atmospheric methane oxidation happens in nature as we speak. We would not introduce anything new to nature, we would only enhance a natural process by adding more catalyst in form of ferric chloride (FeCl3) to the air above subtropic oceans.
The most recent development in science regarding methane oxidation has been described by CNN. Thanks to Maarten von Herpen and his team!
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/30/climate/hunga-tonga-volcano-eruption-methane
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas whose atmospheric sink remains uncertain, and emerging strategies to enhance its removal will require quantification and monitoring to verify any hypothetical future methane removal. Here we present satellite quantification of enhanced atmospheric methane oxidation, based on TROPOMI observations of a short-lived intermediate in methane oxidation, HCHO. We find a high HCHO enhancement of up to 12 ppb±10% at 30 km altitude, in the plume from the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption, persisting for ten days or more and also explaining its low BrO levels. Total methane oxidation is 900±220 Mg/day, suggesting at least 330 Gg of volcanic methane was injected into the stratosphere. The observed methane oxidation requires an estimated on-going primary production of 2-5 Gg Cl per day that appears unexplained by known mechanisms. We show that chlorine production by iron-chloride photochemistry in sulfate-coated volcanic ash is a plausible mechanism, even outside the marine boundary layer. This method of measuring methane loss using formaldehyde can be sufficiently sensitive to quantify the impact of hypothetical future enhanced atmospheric methane oxidation approaches.
Press release here: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1127102
Link to the paper here: https://www.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-72191-4
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
Clive Elsworth
Oswald
You say: “That’s 0.5 °C of cooling” in 20 years.
Does that mean that in 20 years the global average temperature would be:
- nearer 1.0 °C ?
- around 0.5 °C less than it otherwise would have been without your proposed intervention?
Either way, can you show us your workings please?
Clive
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Hi Clive,
to answer your first question: We define «cooling» as less than it otherwise would have been.
The decline of methane over 20 years would be gradual, compare graph.
Underlying figures:
- Goal: Remove ~ 300 MT of CH4 / yr to reduce methane levels from 1.9 ppm to 0.7 ppm in 20 years.
- 40 - 60 planes/drones at full capacity.
- 20 years at full capacity.
- Another 80 years at 2/3 capacity
- Molar mass CH4 : ~16 g/mol, FeCl3: ~160 g/mol. 1 FeCl3 == 10 CH4.
- 78 catalytic cycles per hour (Wittmer, Zetsch 2017).
- Atmospheric residence 21 days = 210 hours * 78 = 16.380 catalytic cycles per molecule FeCl3.
- 300 MT * 10 / 16.380 ~ 183.000 T/yr of FeCl3 over 20 yrs.
- 1 T CH4 equivalent to 25 T CO2.
- 300 MT * 25 ~ 7.5 GT of CO2. / yr.
- Cost ~ 3 billion $ / yr.
- Cost per T CO2e : ~ 0,50 $
- Works best over subtropical oceans, where precipitation is low (white and blue areas on map).
Oswald Petersen
Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
Michael MacCracken
Hi Oswald--Interesting quantifications. A couple of things:
1. How do you get a 21 day lifetime for the particles? The areas that you indicate for injection (which do shift location through the year and likely due to ENSO, but anyway) are rain free because the air is descending and then getting drawn into zones with precipitation. Are these particles somehow hydrophobic?
2. You don't mention the altitude of planned injection--if you want a long lifetime, you might inject into lower stratosphere. But then is question becomes how changes in methane concentration might affect the stratosphere.
3. Aside from noting that injecting SO2 and sulfate into the lower atmosphere is also just adding to what Nature is doing, my real question relating to SO2 injection is that the lifetime of resulting sulfate particles in the troposphere is maybe 7-10 days, so well less than 21 days. Are there other aerosols in the troposphere that can be used to justify a 21-day lifetime (e.g., emissions of anything from jet aircraft, etc.).
4. How much would the proposed particle loading affect the background aerosol loading? Over 21 days, the particles will be widely spread in the atmosphere, assuming the particles survive going through precipitating systems.
5. It would sure be nice if simulations could be done in atmospheric chemistry model simulations, just to check all the possibilities that tend to get overlooked when one is focused on just one set of processes.
Best, Mike
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/001701dd1118%24fa966330%24efc32990%24%40hispeed.ch.
Tom Goreau
Most sea salt aerosols are rained out of the atmosphere in a few days!
Only those injected directly in the upper troposphere, or that are very small, might last a few weeks.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/f639fb33-e04e-44a9-a809-dc20437fd4f7%40comcast.net.
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Hi Mike,
compare answers below
Oswald
Von: 'Michael MacCracken' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Juli 2026 16:42
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch; Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk; 'Robin Collins' <robin.w...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Dan Miller' <dann...@gmail.com>; robert...@gmail.com; 'H simmens' <hsim...@gmail.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: Re: AW: [HPAC] We might investigate SRM geoengineering -Mann
Hi Oswald--Interesting quantifications. A couple of things:
- How do you get a 21 day lifetime for the particles? The areas that you indicate for injection (which do shift location through the year and likely due to ENSO, but anyway) are rain free because the air is descending and then getting drawn into zones with precipitation. Are these particles somehow hydrophobic?
The dry ferric chloride particles we would emit are hygroscopic and will turn into little droplets quickly. 21 days is an estimate, which is based on the fact that
- Particles are around 200 nm in size
- Emission point is around 2.000 m above the ocean
- You don't mention the altitude of planned injection--if you want a long lifetime, you might inject into lower stratosphere. But then is question becomes how changes in methane concentration might affect the stratosphere.
Right. We prefer a lower altitude, right above the MBL. But this is a variable we can work with.
- Aside from noting that injecting SO2 and sulfate into the lower atmosphere is also just adding to what Nature is doing, my real question relating to SO2 injection is that the lifetime of resulting sulfate particles in the troposphere is maybe 7-10 days, so well less than 21 days. Are there other aerosols in the troposphere that can be used to justify a 21-day lifetime (e.g., emissions of anything from jet aircraft, etc.).
The atmospheric residence duration (ARD) depends largely on altitude and particle size. It is highly likely that average ARD can be extended to 2 months or more, if we could go higher.
- How much would the proposed particle loading affect the background aerosol loading? Over 21 days, the particles will be widely spread in the atmosphere, assuming the particles survive going through precipitating systems.
The locations we prefer would have very little background aerosol loading. This is true west of South America and Southern Africa.
- It would sure be nice if simulations could be done in atmospheric chemistry model simulations, just to check all the possibilities that tend to get overlooked when one is focused on just one set of processes.
So true. Do you know someone who could do this? Spark is looking at it with Geophysical Sciences of Chicago, but it would be good if more scientists would get involved.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/f639fb33-e04e-44a9-a809-dc20437fd4f7%40comcast.net.
robert...@gmail.com
When it comes to climate, leaders, the media, and the public are not acting morally or rationally. That’s the way it is. We need to figure out how to move forward given those constraints!
Hi Dan
This comment in your message below strikes at the heart of the climate conundrum. You present ‘leaders, the media, and the public’ as ‘not acting morally or rationally’. You claim this to be a statement of fact – ‘That’s the way it is.’ In fact, it is far from being a fact. It is a matter of opinion that depends critically on what one considers to be moral and rational action. These two concepts are culturally diverse so there is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement about what’s moral and rational.
Carving out the climate as a separate subject of interest, apparently disconnected from other subjects of interests like housing, food supply, justice, education, national security, and so on, implies that there are no trade-offs, that moral and rational climate action need not give rise to immoral and/or irrational action in any other sphere of public interest. I’d like to suggest that that simply isn’t true. The climate cannot be disaggregated in this way; it has to be understood in the context of the entire spectrum of those policy matters for which leaders, the media and the public are more widely concerned. It’s inescapably messy.
To claim that people are behaving immorally and irrationally is a sweeping, and in my view wholly unjustifiable generalisation. By and large our political leaders are people with good intentions, the media mostly seek to communicate the truth as they see it, and the wider public, well, they are all over the place given the degree of diversity across almost every dimension both within and between nations. Clearly there are exceptions everywhere; occasionally a Hitler emerges, but remember that even he was democratically elected to power. But what about Trump and Netanyahu? You'd struggle to get a definitive answer as to whether they act morally and rationally.
Our economic system places a responsibility upon corporate leaders to generate profits by the legal exploitation of their business models. If their businesses generate social harms alongside the benefits they deliver, they cannot be regarded as acting immorally or irrationally for failing to institute the regulations and controls necessary to limit those harms (tobacco, fossil fuels, construction, medicine etc.). Their task is to make a legal profit; it’s not their responsibility to change the law. Maximising their profits is their moral and rational path to serving their customers, their employees, their pensioners, and their shareholders through dividends and capital growth.
We shouldn’t blame the fossil fuel sector for doing precisely what it’s been created to do, namely generating the energy to support our burgeoning well-being. The state imposes tight regulation on many industries (e.g. aviation, construction, transport, medicine etc.) to limit their potential to do collateral harm alongside all the benefits they confer. It could be regarded as both moral and rational for states to impose light regulation on the fossil fuel sector because that’s the best way to maintain the production of energy at the lowest cost. Some might argue that the fossil fuel sector acts immorally by using its economic power to subvert public policies it considers might reduce its profitability. But surely, any immorality rests primarily with the politicians not with the industrialists. And perhaps, we can drill down further and claim that ultimately, any blame rests with the public that has failed to elect politicians with higher standards – it was Jefferson who observed that ‘The government you elect is the government you deserve.’ This illustrates both the trade-offs and the complexity that defy simplistic approaches to climate change policymaking.
Does anyone really believe that those being accused of immoral and irrational climate behaviour are likely to see the light and change their ways accordingly? If only it were that simple! Indeed, if it were that simple, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
The fundamental reason that I now regard it as likely, and becoming more so with each passing day, that a widespread climate induced societal and ecosystem collapse, what I refer to as COCAWKI, will happen in the not too distant future, is precisely because I see no way that we can overcome in good time the structural problems that are preventing a timely and effective response to climate change. The climate is changing faster than our priorities, and we are rapidly running out of road.
Finally, I must emphasise that my concern is not that we don’t have the means to avert COCAWKI. I believe that there has never been a time, including today, that we lacked the capacity to act in a timely and effective manner. The problem is that we can’t come to terms with the trade-offs and that is the primary source of the dithering that is hastening COCAWKI. Morality and rationality will always be important in interpersonal relations. But if morality and rationality are your guiding precepts for global climate policy, get ready for a rough ride. We can’t press Pause on global warming while we argue about what’s moral and rational, a debate already well-established before the Ancient Greeks, and still unresolved.
RobertC
Robin Collins
No one anticipated the French, Russian or Iranian revolutions, nor the Arab Spring, end of the Cold War, etc
- We often don’t say what we really believe; we don’t know what others think (even harder in closed societies)
- change is still possible because dissent is brewing quietly; it can also be dangerous to speak out: social movements can be just under the surface.
- Response thresholds vary. Some are ready to act early without prompting [leadership] but can be isolated. Some need a little prompting [cautious]. A larger number move when the first two move [band wagon]. Some will never move [neutral, supporters of status quo]
- Interdependencies: conditions are ripe when the early movers move and then the others follow. If this doesn’t happen, change doesn’t happen.
- This is why large social movements are hard to predict. We don’t know what peoples’ actual preferences are; we don’t know what will move them; social interactions are unpredictable.
- We can poll and use online observations or otherwise we may never know because of inherent complexity.
- Things change often by a random events that could not be predicted in advance.
- That should encourage us to never stop doing the right things, and prodding without let up … because something may work.
- Much less likely (or even impossible) to “work” without our advocacy.
H simmens
The historical and current consensus among investigative journalists, climate historians, and legal scholars entirely validates that the fossil fuel industry did not just aggressively maximize profits; they actively engineered a multi-decade campaign of strategic deception to delay public policy.
Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway documented this explicitly in Merchants of Doubt, showing how the oil industry hired the exact same PR firms and scientists who spent the 1970s and 80s arguing that tobacco didn't cause lung cancer.
Would you defend the cigarette companies and their behavior which directly led to millions of people dying and suffering as a result of their duplicity?
The carbon combustion complex systematically manufactured doubt, suppressed the remarkably accurate findings of their own internal scientists (who predicted today's warming trends with astonishing precision as early as the late 1970s), and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to shift the blame onto individual consumers via concepts like the personal "carbon footprint. They corrupted national legislatures throughout the world. We see it today with Donald Trump demanding $1 billion in campaign contributions and whether he got all that or not he’s now systematically dismantling the renewable energy industry.
That’s not to deny that the inherent energy density of fossil fuels has led to a miraculous absolutely miraculous increase in human population and well-being throughout the world. So they’ve been selling a pretty damn impressive product whose dark side we have only begun to experience in recent decades.
But let’s not give what appears to be a free pass to the industries that have corrupted politicians and influenced public opinion for one purpose, and one purpose alone - to allow the fossil fuel companies perhaps a few more decades of multi billion dollar profits before the world collapses.
Herb
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
“A wonderful achievement, a SciencePoem, an Inspiration, a Prophecy, also hilarious, Dive in and see"
Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
On Jul 11, 2026, at 1:23 PM, Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Josh:
Joshua Sarnoff
One quick response to your statement Robert that "To claim that people are behaving immorally and irrationally is a sweeping, and in my view wholly unjustifiable generalisation. By and large our political leaders are people with good intentions, ...”
Ron Baiman
On Jul 9, 2026, at 4:02 AM, oswald.petersen via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Hi Robert,
unfortunately we are not able to “frame” a discussion. The concept of SAI will be discussed as “dimming the sun”, if we like it or not.
What I miss in HPAC is discussions regarding the 2nd pillar of the triad. It is still possible to remove the GHG which cause global warming, methane and CO2. But HPAC concentrates on only one solution. I agree that the third pillar, emission reductions, is widely accepted and needs no further enhancement by HPAC.
GHG removal is a building stone of IPCC strategy. It can start regionally, without the UN security council discussing it. It is way cheaper than SAI and could start tomorrow.
Why not use it?
Regards
Oswald
Von: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von robert...@gmail.com
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Juli 2026 23:05
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch; 'Robin Collins' <robin.w...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'H simmens' <hsim...@gmail.com>; Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: Re: AW: [HPAC] RE: We might investigate SRM geoengineering -Mann
Oswald,
This framing of 'dimming the Sun' is misleading and unhelpful. What is required is a reduction in absorbed solar radiation. And it is required because there is no longer any plausible intervention in the carbon cycle (including methane) that can now prevent GMST from rising to and remaining for an extended period at a catastrophic level. The SRM moniker is a major problem. It needs a new name, perhaps RASoR or something that names what it is in the same way that CDR does - CO2 removal.
That said, I do agree with you that the likelihood of SRM/RASoR being done at sufficient scale sufficiently soon to make a material difference is remote. The geopolitics are the problem, not the technology.
Imagine two slippery slopes A and B. You don't know which kind of slope you're on until you get to the end. Only then do you find out whether you're about to smoothly slide to a halt or fall off a cliff.
<image001.png>
<image002.png>Regards
Robert
On 08/07/2026 21:11, oswald....@hispeed.ch wrote:
Hello Robin,
I do not think that dimming the sun’s radiation is an option which can be seriously considered. I am not saying that it would not work, but it would certainly be vetoed in the UN security council, and also it would provoke huge unrest in the religious part of the world’s population. It is, politically, a dead horse.
Of course just my 2 cents…
Oswald
Von: Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Juli 2026 20:39
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch
Cc: robert...@gmail.com; H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: Re: [HPAC] RE: We might investigate SRM geoengineering -Mann
Osward
to the contrary, if it will take 20 years, then it must be more urgently pressed for. 20 years is a long time.
Pressing for SRM does not undermine "focus on less provocative methods for the near future". It only highlights the importance of fast-tracking SRM research. You seem to think this research is not a priority?
Robin
On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 2:26 PM <oswald....@hispeed.ch> wrote:
Hi Robert,
SRM won’t be done for at least another 20 years, no matter what strategy is employed.
It would be more fruitful to focus on less provocative methods for the near future.
Oswald
Von: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von robert...@gmail.com
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Juli 2026 20:02
An: Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com>; H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Cc: Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: Re: [HPAC] RE: We might investigate SRM geoengineering -Mann
A lot of time and effort goes into arguing about why some NGOs, media outlets and academics are so anti-SRM. Is this because we think that if they were pro-SRM it would get done? Is it the case that generally what NGOs, the media and academics are in favour of becomes government policy? Should we be more focussed on how climate policy is actually made, who are the effective influencers, what are the effective arguments, how does it differ from nation to nation, and so on?
The logic for policies to avert a climate catastrophe hasn't changed much in the last 30 years, even if a lot of detail has been added. If that logic hasn't worked so far, why not and why should we expect anything to change anytime soon? If the argument is that the suffering hasn't yet been sufficient to trigger action at sufficient scale, how much suffering is necessary to trigger that action? Might a more effective path to action perversely be to accelerate and extend climate harms?
I'm just wondering whether we're asking the right questions of the right people? Everyone's in their comfort zone. Is that a place from which it's likely we'll provoke into action whoever needs provoking?
Regards
RobertC
On 08/07/2026 18:27, Robin Collins wrote:
Typo (error correction again): should be:
So, I’m [not] sure he’s changed his tune as late at April this year.
Robin
On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 1:25 PM Robin Collins <robin.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here’s a very recent lecture by Mann (April 8, 2026).
Skip to ~22 minutes through to ~ 29 minutes
https://youtu.be/s8u-_Vx1yKA?si=p_ZOq9WQaONlpt18
While it is true that some argue that with geoengineering we don’t need to transition away from fossil fuels, this is mostly a caricature of what most SRM advocates believe. Listen also how he describes SRM options as if they were naive and impossible. “What could possibly go wrong?” He asks rhetorically.
“I have argued against it out of precaution”… there’s even a hefty bit of red-baiting…
This is a very dishonest review of how SRM would fit into the mix to address the crisis, imho. So, I’m. It sure he’s changed his tune as late at April this year.
Robin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/922fb22f-bf29-427e-9fed-c030e35c47eb%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/ff14f051-0588-4720-8ef7-d235316a96f3%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/005a01dd0f81%24a88f3be0%24f9adb3a0%24%40hispeed.ch.
Ron Baiman
On Jul 9, 2026, at 10:53 AM, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:
Not to mention coral reefs, which were deliberately sacrificed for political reasons rather than admit that bleaching was caused by global warming. Many more ecosystems will follow…..
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef AllianceChief Scientist, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Phone: (1) 857-523-0807 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
On the Nature of Things: The Scientific Photography of Fritz Goro
Coral Reef Natural History From Beginning To End (in preparation)
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer
“The Earth is not dying, she is being killed” U. Utah Phillips
“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies” Noam Chomsky
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <bme...@earthlink.net>
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2026 at 11:50
To: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: [HPAC] RE: We might investigate SRM geoengineering -MannYes but, we are in the midst of tipping collapses as we speak.
Our filming of warming effects across North America this summer season were to revisit the central Rockies with the epically unprecedented drought that the Colorado Forest Service says will kill all of the ponderosa pine on the front range from beetle attack in the next few years. This is baked in because of drought stress that persists even without drought in long-lived vascular species, and where drought is now driven by heat and associated nonlinear evaporation regardless of precipitation. (Zhuang 2024)
What we have found across North America is that on average, all earth systems are degrading from current warming and degradation does not stop unless the degradation forcing is removed before the point of no return where the systems is so degraded it cannot self-restore even if the degradation forcing is removed. These tipping collapses are projected to become irreversible by mid-century with the result of risk of loss millennia of stored carbon in quantities ten times greater than all emissions humans have ever created.
A plan starts with a mission and our current climate mission is faulty as it does not stop already activated tipping element collapses because it does not remove the forcing that began their degradation, because... it does not adequately address risk. The warming amount that our climate culture uses for targeting adequate climate pollution mitigation is not the issue. It is the risk of irreversible Earth systems collapses that are now set in motion with tipping activation and ongoing degradation from current warming.
The first part of the plan then is to adopt an emergency restoration mission because of current warming, where time is short to the baked in point of no return where tipping elements (on average) are at risk of driving warming far beyond what humans have already done and could possibly do with even vastly increased emissions. The mission revolves around loss and reversal of Earth systems services that our global culture relies upon not only for survival, but for money.
The second part is to implement emergency solutions as we do in any emergency. First we act to address the emergency with the tools at hand, then once emergency mitigation is launched, we address root causes. Emergency implementation of shovel ready solutions includes temporarily pausing IMO sulfur fuel regulations, then looking to the rest of the world's sulfur fuels content regulations and relaxing those rules too. It's an emergency. If we do not act, the point of no return is on us where never-before experienced economic forcings are realized. It's not the warming per se, it's the way tipping elements respond in time frames that are not something our culture has ever experienced. This loops back in to part one - change of mission.
The risk of mortality from relaxing air pollution regulations must be compared to the risk of emissions of millennia of stored carbon with Earth systems collapses beyond the point of no return, not with simple further warming from our current climate culture, as this philosophy does not robustly include feedbacks that are driving tipping responses. In plain English, our current further warming culture cannot stop ongoing degradation of Earth's ecologies where their collapses are now baked in with the result of the release of millennia of stored greenhouse gases. The challenge then is to change the mission, so that restoration is the focus, in time frames that matter to tipping.
Once part one and two are launched, then we proceed to some iteration of Glenn's plan as emergency response suggests - First we must address the emergency, then we prevent it from happening again.
I led a stakeholder team in developing a restoration emergency response as requested by the City of Austin Climate Program during their development of Austin's latest climate plan in 2021. Not much has changed with this plan since, except tipping publishing has significantly advanced, and the IMO regs and continuing sulfur reductions in Europe, China and India, (with aborted response by tRump in the US.)
Climate Emergency Response
The Urgent and Immediate Response Needed to Reverse Activated Climate Tipping With a Safe, Sustainable and Equitable Target of Less Than 1.0˚C Warming Above Normal
September 2021
https://climatediscovery.org/Climate_Emergency_Response_Austin_September_2021.pdfMeltOn
Ps. Follow us on Instagram, linked below, for observation of the effects of warming in the Central Rockies from unprecedented drought with our summer filmwork. We originally were going to look at the beetles, but now it looks as if we will be chasing fires (or being chased by them).
Zhuang et al., Anthropogenic warming has ushered in an era of temperature-dominated droughts in the western United States, Science Advances, November 6, 2024.
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.adn9389
Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
On 7/9/2026 8:54 AM, oswald.petersen via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) wrote:
Dear Robert,
we all are concerned about global warming.
I do however not see a catastrophe coming up. Climate developments are slow, inch by inch, and politics are even slower in their reactions. It will get hotter, then next year might be cooler, and our politics go forward and backwards with it. The problem with our system is it does not work well with long term developments, since politicians are concerned about the next election. Considering this it is actually quite amazing that we have made so much progress with abandoning fossil fuels.
China is more apt to develop long term strategies. Solutions may come from there. They are in the lead with Wind&Solar, as well as EVs, and they will be in the lead with GHG removal. They have no hesitation to interfere with the weather, making rain with silver iodide particles, so why not remove methane with FECL3. It will happen eventually.
Regards
Oswald
Von: robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9.
Juli 2026 13:16
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch; 'Robin Collins' <robin.w...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'H simmens' <hsim...@gmail.com>; Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [HPAC] RE: We might investigate SRM geoengineering -Mann
Hi Oswald
Are you not concerned by the great likelihood that a climate induced catastrophe can no longer be averted without reducing absorbed solar radiation?
That isn't to say that reducing emissions and GHG aren't also necessary. It is to say that they're most unlikely to be sufficient.
Regards
RobertC
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/002401dd0faa%247354fef0%2459fefcd0%24%40hispeed.ch.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/a5cb0de6-f0ee-4742-ade7-7af570999f79%40earthlink.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
Ron Baiman
On Jul 10, 2026, at 4:15 PM, 'Michael MacCracken' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/69143741-ef44-4ef1-a02e-b30c7acf4711%40comcast.net.
robert...@gmail.com
Hi Dan
One needs to be careful in these exchanges because it’s not possible to do a complex argument full justice in these bite-size chunks. We need to be generous to each other by not filling in the blanks in others’ contributions by making assumptions about what we think they would have said had they filled them in themselves.
The two key points I was trying to make, and clearly didn’t succeed, are first that human actors are not the only agents operating in the climate change space. And second, to the extent that they are actors, they do not act as independent agents uninfluenced by other actors, human and non-human, that also have agency. What emerges from these many interactions and interdependencies is rarely the product of a simple linear rational process.
To be clear, what I mean by ‘a simple linear rational process’ is one where one or more individuals analyse a problem, explore alternative solutions to it by examining the available relevant evidence and performing some kind of risk analysis, and then adopt the solution(s) considered most appropriate in all the circumstances.
Parents might do that when choosing schools for their children. But as the issue at hand affects more people's lives, covers a greater geographical area, has fewer relevant precedents on which to draw, and has significant dimensions affecting future generations, that simple approach ceases to work. This failure arises primarily because of the vastly increased diversity of interests at stake, many of which will be conflicting, and the increasing uncertainty in both the reliability of the available evidence and conjectures about how the future might unfold in one scenario rather than another. In brief, what’s moral and rational isn’t uniquely defined for all.
While it may be ‘self-evident that allowing the collapse of civilization and triggering a mass extinction is neither moral nor rational’, no one is making a decision to allow or not allow such a collapse. The argument is about how likely such a collapse really is and how likely does it have to be for us to do some or all of the radical things some people claim are necessary to avoid it (including many of the things on your list). The actual questions and decisions are all in the detail. In the detail there’s lots of opportunity for reasonable differences of opinion, even operating with the Golden Rule.
In these complex scenarios, everyone’s individual behaviour can be both rational and moral by their own standards relative to their own interests and worldview, but the difficulty of drawing all these diverse and competing threads together results in the system as a whole producing something seriously suboptimal. Perhaps the UNFCCC COP process is the paradigmatic example of such a system failure.
Short of a world government with the coercive power to impose its edicts, I have no idea how to overcome this structural weakness. But since I regard the advent of such a global power to be infeasible any time soon (irrespective of whether one considers it desirable or not), I conclude that we’re stuck with a system that, as we say in the UK, is not fit for purpose. It must follow that either that system jolts itself into concerted effective action, of which there’s presently little sign, or it collapses (if we're right about the imminence and scale of the climate threat).
I hope it is clearer now that I’m not arguing that the tobacco and FF executives didn’t act immorally, I’m arguing that whether they did or not is largely irrelevant. We can’t rewind history. Who knows whether, had the climate research done by Exxon in the 1970s not been suppressed and misrepresented, that we’d be in any different situation from where we now are. There are many reasons why policymakers might have ignored the evidence in the same way that the US public and governments have routinely failed to act on evidence that supports the case for gun control. Rationality and morality are certainly factors in determining public policy but they are not determining factors.
RobertC
Hi Robert:
First, when I say “leaders, the media, and the public are not acting morally or rationally”, I speaking of those groups as a whole regarding the climate crisis, and I’m not saying that every single person is immoral or irrational on every subject.
I think it should be self evident that allowing the collapse of civilization and triggering a mass extinction is neither moral nor rational.
You claim, for example, that fossil fuel companies are just doing what they designed to do. But their own scientists told them 50 years ago that continuing to burn fossil fuels would lead to global catastrophe. They chose to implement a program of disinformation and political influence to deceive the public and political leaders about the dangers of fossil fuels. I would call those actions immoral and irrational from a society perspective (though some may claim they were being rational from a personal greed perspective).
When I say people (collectively) are irrational regarding climate action, I mean that quite literally. I came up with a list of 20 policies that would address climate change and they are all doable but almost none are being implemented (certainly at the time I first wrote them down). So this got me to thinking why we do not seriously address climate change. So I came up with another list:
This list scares as much as all those temperature prediction graphs do. I agree with you that we could address climate change, but I am concerned that we won’t because we are irrational collectively.
Dan
When it comes to climate, leaders, the media, and the public are not acting morally or rationally. That’s the way it is. We need to figure out how to move forward given those constraints!
Hi Dan
This comment in your message below strikes at the heart of the climate conundrum. You present ‘leaders, the media, and the public’ as ‘not acting morally or rationally’. You claim this to be a statement of fact – ‘That’s the way it is.’ In fact, it is far from being a fact. It is a matter of opinion that depends critically on what one considers to be moral and rational action. These two concepts are culturally diverse so there is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement about what’s moral and rational.
Carving out the climate as a separate subject of interest, apparently disconnected from other subjects of interests like housing, food supply, justice, education, national security, and so on, implies that there are no trade-offs, that moral and rational climate action need not give rise to immoral and/or irrational action in any other sphere of public interest. I’d like to suggest that that simply isn’t true. The climate cannot be disaggregated in this way; it has to be understood in the context of the entire spectrum of those policy matters for which leaders, the media and the public are more widely concerned. It’s inescapably messy.
To claim that people are behaving immorally and irrationally is a sweeping, and in my view wholly unjustifiable generalisation. By and large our political leaders are people with good intentions, the media mostly seek to communicate the truth as they see it, and the wider public, well, they are all over the place given the degree of diversity across almost every dimension both within and between nations. Clearly there are exceptions everywhere; occasionally a Hitler emerges, but remember that even he was democratically elected to power. But what about Trump and Netanyahu? You'd struggle to get a definitive answer as to whether they act morally and rationally.
Our economic system places a responsibility upon corporate leaders to generate profits by the legal exploitation of their business models. If their businesses generate social harms alongside the benefits they deliver, they cannot be regarded as acting immorally or irrationally for failing to institute the regulations and controls necessary to limit those harms (tobacco, fossil fuels, construction, medicine etc.). Their task is to make a legal profit; it’s not their responsibility to change the law. Maximising their profits is their moral and rational path to serving their customers, their employees, their pensioners, and their shareholders through dividends and capital growth.
We shouldn’t blame the fossil fuel sector for doing precisely what it’s been created to do, namely generating the energy to support our burgeoning well-being. The state imposes tight regulation on many industries (e.g. aviation, construction, transport, medicine etc.) to limit their potential to do collateral harm alongside all the benefits they confer. It could be regarded as both moral and rational for states to impose light regulation on the fossil fuel sector because that’s the best way to maintain the production of energy at the lowest cost. Some might argue that the fossil fuel sector acts immorally by using its economic power to subvert public policies it considers might reduce its profitability. But surely, any immorality rests primarily with the politicians not with the industrialists. And perhaps, we can drill down further and claim that ultimately, any blame rests with the public that has failed to elect politicians with higher standards – it was Jefferson who observed that ‘The government you elect is the government you deserve.’ This illustrates both the trade-offs and the complexity that defy simplistic approaches to climate change policymaking.
Does anyone really believe that those being accused of immoral and irrational climate behaviour are likely to see the light and change their ways accordingly? If only it were that simple! Indeed, if it were that simple, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
The fundamental reason that I now regard it as likely, and becoming more so with each passing day, that a widespread climate induced societal and ecosystem collapse, what I refer to as COCAWKI, will happen in the not too distant future, is precisely because I see no way that we can overcome in good time the structural problems that are preventing a timely and effective response to climate change. The climate is changing faster than our priorities, and we are rapidly running out of road.
Finally, I must emphasise that my concern is not that we don’t have the means to avert COCAWKI. I believe that there has never been a time, including today, that we lacked the capacity to act in a timely and effective manner. The problem is that we can’t come to terms with the trade-offs and that is the primary source of the dithering that is hastening COCAWKI. Morality and rationality will always be important in interpersonal relations. But if morality and rationality are your guiding precepts for global climate policy, get ready for a rough ride. We can’t press Pause on global warming while we argue about what’s moral and rational, a debate already well-established before the Ancient Greeks, and still unresolved.
RegardsRobertC
On 11/07/2026 04:03, Dan Miller wrote:
Hi Josh:
Based on your involvement in climate policy, you may be interested in my episode on Why Climate Policies Fail.
Ron Baiman
On Jul 10, 2026, at 2:02 PM, 'Michael MacCracken' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Are no other options available? For example:
1. Sacrificing yourself to save all the others, something that would see is the option that the military and police might take?
2. Throwing the switch and seeking to quickly untie or free that one person, that attempt being easier than freeing all five?
3. Throwing the switch for the first set of wheels and then back again before the second set of wheels, seeking to derail the train? Or throwing something else on the tracks to seek to derail the train.
I would also note that in the situation for climate change, there are also lots of other people around to help with doing things--indeed, most people seem to have faith in a team of people trying to hold the train back from sliding so fast down the hill--but pretty clearly that is not working and we need to get their attention to what lies ahead, which they don't seem to be able to see clearly as they seem most focused on what is happening behind the train instead of looking around the train and down the tracks ahead.
Mike MacCracken
On 7/10/26 11:19 AM, Clive Elsworth wrote:
For anyone like me who’s wondering what the trolly problem is, see below:
The classic trolley problem is a famous ethical thought experiment that explores the tension between two major schools of moral philosophy. First introduced by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967, the scenario is designed to test our moral intuition regarding right, wrong, and responsibility.
The Scenario
Imagine you are a bystander standing next to a track switch lever.
· A runaway trolley is barrelling down the main track.
· Tied down on the track ahead are five people who will surely be killed if the trolley continues its current path.
· If you pull the lever, you can divert the trolley onto a side track.
· However, there is one person tied down on that side track who will be killed instead.
<image001.png>
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/a46acfe8-cbfc-4279-ac95-121f5d1f249c%40comcast.net.
Michael MacCracken
Hi Oswald--I am not aware of any particles that have a 21 day lifetime. Water vapor (not a particle, of course) has a lifetime of about 10 days, so there is a lot of water vapor coming in and out of the atmosphere, and a lot of potential to take aerosols out. There was a case back in the 1980s where some debris particles from a Chinese atmospheric nuclear test did not get rained out until the air was over Pennsylvania, but particles get cleaned out pretty quickly or the air would be quite dirty. Air just does not stay in the regions you are mentioning as your preferred injection locations. Sort of too bad there is not some way to keep it somewhat lofted (I wonder if the ferric chloride might be combined with black carbon to make the particle, somehow in a way that might promote self lofting in sunlight). Are there possibly tracer particles that could be made so they behaved like the ferric chloride particles--so maybe an isotopic variant that would fortuitously be easy to sample and distinguish. It would sure be helpful to your cause if you could figure out a way to get a handle on the lifetime as this seems to be a crucial issue.
Best, Mike
Dan Miller
Michael MacCracken
Hi Herb--On the perspectives of the fossil fuel industry, my experience has been that, at least when they are not venturing into misinterpreting the science and publicizing it, their defensible perspective is that fossil fuel combustion provides of order 80% of the world's energy, which is absolutely essential to human health and well-being, and it is safe, reliable, available at all time and has been relatively inexpensive and continues to be so due to it having so much infrastructure in place--and before the world takes action to rule it out, the science needs to be of very, very high confidence.
Now, we would suggest that the risks of calamity with continuing and especially expanding reliance on fossil fuels are growing in terms of climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidity are growing rapidly and, especially with renewables becoming the lowest cost source of electricity, are simply too great and the precautionary principle enshrined as the world's choice in the UNFCCC is the decision framework that the world community should be using, and that is fine, but I think it important to agree that the fossil fuel industry had a legitimate point of view, and in addition to the scientific community having a tradition of seeking high confidence, the legitimate fossil fuel perspective did the same and reinforced that view.
Now, no question that the fossil fuel industry went beyond the points it had a responsibility to contribute to consideration of the decision framework, but that was not its sole position--it has had a legitimate point to make. So, yes, no free pass for the abuses (e.g,. funding those who tried to corrupt the legitimate scientific position, the precautionary principle, etc.), but the fossil fuel perspective of its essential nature is one that does need to be addressed by more that smearing everything they say.
Mike M
Dan Miller
 | |
oswald....@hispeed.ch
Hi Mike,
4 arguments:
- most particles are emitted from the ground, and henceforth their lifetime is shorter than particles emitted from high altitude. If a particle released from the ground has e.g. 7 days lifetime, our particles would have that same remaining lifetime once they come close to the ground, with all the former lifetime added.
- SO2 particles in the stratosphere are supposed to remain airborne 1-2 years. Why not allow the same for ferric chloride? We do have that handle on the lifetime you mentioned, by adding altitude. However we have better conditions in the MBL, because there is more HCl in the air.
- Our particles will form droplets of 200 nm average size, which is extremely small. Nanoparticles behave in the air like the air itself, their weight does not cause them to sink.
- “PM2.5 particulates can stay suspended in the atmosphere for days to weeks and can travel hundreds or even thousands of miles away from their original source.” Compare https://www.clarity.io/blog/how-far-can-air-pollution-travel
Regards
Oswald Petersen
Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“
Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
Lärchenstr. 5
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
Tel: +41-71-6887514
Mob: +49-177-2734245
robert...@gmail.com
Hi Dan
Great. So you're going to pull the lever! First, let me say I'm really pleased this is just a thought experiment and not real life! Second, let me ask you how you'll feel when, having pulled the lever you later discover that the five were all convicted of war crimes, and in the country where this is happening, the appropriate judicial punishment is death by being run over by a railcar (more efficient than guillotine!). And you also discover that the other guy wasn't actually tied to the track but was a hiker who'd stumbled as he crossed the track, fallen and knocked himself out and, moreover, it was your brother?
Thought experiments are great intellectual devices for focussing one's attention on challenging issues, but they have severe limits when it comes to informing action in the real world.
For me, the major question that emerges from this thread is the significance of morality in addressing the threats from climate change. My observations, limited as they are, suggest that morality is a big issue for intellectuals to debate but of relatively minor importance (but not none) for those engaged in the Realpolitik of public policy and global climate policy especially. There are two reasons for this.
First, to start a negotiation by claiming that the other's position is immoral (or insufficiently moral) is a fancy way to say that they're bad people. That just isn't a good place to start a process intended to reach some mutual agreement. Second, morality is more about personal than collective behaviour. (I'd be interested in Joshua's views on that. I think it was Dworkin, but it might have been Amartya Sen, who made a distinction between morality and ethics in this regard.). In public policy it is often impossible to treat everyone with equal moral concern. There are often inescapable conflicts that create losers as well as winners. Often the identity of the losers may not be apparent at the time the decisions are being made; this is particularly so with climate change. So, if morality is to be a determining factor of public policy, the likely outcome is no effective public policy. I think morality has to be added in around the edges to soften the negative impacts that policies create, as they arise. Again I refer you to Parfit's Non Identity Problem.
Consider population. It has grown eightfold in 200 years. What if, despite our best efforts, we simply aren't able to find a way to make the global economy sustainable with a population of 8+bn? Might there be a moral case to reduce the population to 4bn or 2bn, or to whatever level it would be sustainable? This is a stupid question because no one is ever going to make and implement a policy deliberately to cull humans at scale (I hope!). But even though it might be a stupid question, it might well be the future reality as 'the system' takes control and forces that population reduction on humanity (I changed 'us' to 'humanity' here because we can't be sure who the 'us' will be when that enforced culling occurs).
When reflecting on that question, don't get sidetracked by the likely fact that Earth could probably sustain a human population much greater than 8bn. What actually comes to pass is rarely the most positive perceived future. The real world is messy and generally suboptimal. If it weren't, we wouldn't be where we are today. Furthermore, it would be off-the-scale optimism to assume that humanity is on the verge of getting everything right.
As to irrationality, your observation about the low level of acceptable risk in aviation in contrast to what we are being forced to accept in relation to the climate can be explained by reference to the adaptive cycle (see below). The aviation regulations emerged in parallel with the growth of the aviation sector so the relative power of the industry and the state was throughout, very much in favour of the state. The industry didn't have a dominant economic position to protect. For the fossil fuel industry, I believe (I haven't done the research, so this might be wrong) that industry established economic dominance well in advance of the need emerging for the kind of regulations now being considered. As a consequence, the balance of power between the industry and the state favours industry who are focussed on conserving what they have accumulated.
You might be interested to know that my views here are rooted in complex adaptive systems theory that I discovered in my PhD research. I won't get into that here other than to observe that the theory holds that such systems have a four phase adaptive cycle that goes through Regeneration, Growth, Conservation and Collapse (sometimes referred to as Reorganisation, Exploitation, Conservation and Release). The transitions through the cycle are driven by changes in the three dimensions that measure key aspects of the system's internal dynamics. These are Potential, Connectedness and Resilience. Collapse occurs when efforts to conserve accumulated capital diminish growth and undermine connectedness between elements within the system, causing a reduction in the system's resilience making it increasingly vulnerable to external shocks. It becomes what is referred to as 'an accident waiting to happen'. This is a very brief outline that is not intended to be comprehensive. By all means critique it, but not before you learn more about it than is presented in this short paragraph.
If anyone is interested in learning more about this, a good place to start is Chapters 2 and 3 of Gunderson and Holling's book Panarchy. Chapter 4 of this book is entitled 'Why Systems of People and Nature Are Not Just Social and Ecological Systems' and it is headed by this anonymous epigraph:
RobertC
