REMINDER HPAC meeting today at 4:30 PM EDT with Dr. David Keith
H simmens
The Healthy Planet Action Coalition will host a public question and answer session with Dr David Keith, Director of the Harvard University Solar Geoengineering Program.
Meeting link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09
Meeting Time: Tuesday 4 April, 4.30pm EDT
Information about Dr Keith: https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/people/david-keith
HPAC is pleased to present this opportunity for conversation with one of the leading climate policy analysts working today.
4.30 pm Tuesday EDT = 6.30 am Wednesday 5thAustralia AEST and 9.30pm Tuesday 4th UK BST.
https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/
rob...@rtulip.net
The recording of this discussion between Dr David Keith and the Healthy Planet Action Coalition is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwvlPQWl8Q
Here is my summary of Professor Keith’s answers to questions.
He began by mentioning his recent move to the University of Chicago to lead a Climate Systems Engineering Initiative. Support from geophysical sciences and other areas includes many faculty wanting to work on this topic including in solar geoengineering, cryosphere, carbon removal, geophysical models and public policy.
The first question was on the relation between solar geoengineering and carbon dioxide removal. Dr Keith said the risk of CO2 in the atmosphere requires a combination of CDR and SG with decarbonisation and adaptation, but cutting emissions only stops things getting worse. Reducing temperature over centuries is better by CDR, but over decades favours SG regarding costs and risks.
On tipping points, Dr Keith said they exaggerate the science. Most are far in the future and uncertain. The notion of planetary boundaries is profoundly false.
He is extremely keen on field testing of SG. Models have uncertainties that can be studied by observation and experiment.
On a question on CO2 outgassing from the ocean, Dr Keith said models calculate how much CO2 returns to the atmosphere from the ocean when CO2 is removed, with about half emitted CO2 still in the atmosphere.
On carbon capture, Dr Keith said companies can only make money by demonstrated engineering results. He founded a carbon capture company that now has 170 employees.
For SG the problem is different – knowing atmospheric effects by science. The biggest issues are trust and results. Incentives are similar to other social objectives, based on confidence in estimates driven by open science. SG is cheap, needing government and philanthropic funds.
On a question about heat decline after net zero emissions, in view of ocean heat, he said papers on long term warming are available.
He questioned the need to start cooling just at the poles, in view of ratio of sulphur to radiative forcing, impacts, ethics and economics, looking instead to biggest effects on hottest places. Cooling the world with sulphate aerosols can deliver global effects.
He questioned the hysteresis of sea ice, and did not answer a question if we could stabilise the Arctic on a time scale to prevent loss of summer sea ice. Assumptions about time scale vary. He does not see a time scale of years for SG research. There are strong arguments for beginning slow deployment soon, but climate is slow moving. He does not see strong evidence for Antarctic tipping points, and sees a disconnect between climate scientists and student’s views of the climate crisis. Tipping points are vastly over-emphasised. It is easier in social experiments to get agreement when you have a sharp threshold, but climate has a huge spread of uncertainty about non-linearities.
It is hard to detect surface temperature response signal from SG testing, although radiative response can be detected. Uncertainties on radiative forcing, effects of descending aerosols on the upper troposphere, size distribution of particles, chemical effects, organics in aerosols, can be tested for stratospheric response to infer radiative forcing.
He said hearing questions respectfully, explaining facts and separating facts from values can engage people.
A small group oppose SG, but mainstream climate groups are careful in their views and mostly take middle positions. Most support research. It is important not to overstate opposition, in view of strong interest in research. The Non Use Agreement see they are losing out.
The Global Overshoot Commission is the highest level political group ever to engage these topics, with four former heads of government involved. Leader conversations engage high uncertainty, with SG alongside war and epidemic and economic crisis. We will not get international unanimity, but coalitions of countries are plausible for international architecture.
There is no simple answer to the safe CO2 threshold. Saying we want to go back to Holocene CO2 levels is not a widely shared view. The planet can survive with higher CO2. Many differing viewpoints exist, with differing values about the safe CO2 threshold.
Acid rain is proportional to sulphur, which previously had concentrated emissions of one hundred million tonnes, compared to one or two million tonnes of sulphur for SG, clearly indicating acid rain is not a big risk.
The biggest political problems are to get a stable agreement, and that SG will reduce the pressure to cut emissions. Moral hazard is the biggest underlying concern.
On SCOPEX, what happened in Sweden was not a problem with what the Sami said, but that the Swedish Government told the balloon operator to stop, even though it was legal. There is less opportunity in the US for government to stop something that is legal and permitted. The scientific utility has been undersold. The question is of considering a whole set of things to move forward.
The Sami Council strenuously avoided talking to the SCOPEX project. Part of their view was related to mineral exploration disputes with the government. The project sought consultation but was politically outmanoeuvred.
The short life time of methane differs from CO2. Methane contributes to feedback.
Dr Keith provided these answers to audience questions over one hour. The meeting continued for another half hour.
Recording is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwvlPQWl8Q
Regards
Robert Tulip
Hugh Hunt
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 4:40 PM
To: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/2f0201d967d4%24f0c7bd90%24d25738b0%24%40rtulip.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Ron Baiman
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/LO4P265MB39018AE86DF67E20E0301B00B0909%40LO4P265MB3901.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
Robert Chris
Just watched the David Keith recording. Well done to all. Sorry
the time zones kept me away.
The biggest takeaway for me was his position on tipping points. He said:
The idea that we can just know that there's some accurate planetary boundary where we're safe inside and it's dangerous outside, I think is a profoundly false idea. It's one that keeps reoccurring because it's so rhetorically effective. It'd be great if it was true. It doesn't happen to be true [pause for reflection] to our knowledge. I mean I should say that maybe it is true and we're wrong, but there isn't evidence that it is true in a away that's coherent and clear.
This is central because it sets the timescale for action.
Responding to a possible crisis a long way off clearly requires a
different policy regime from one appropriate to an imminent
crisis. Yet again, timing is at the heart of everything. This is
such a fundamental point that so long as the Establishment view
cleaves to it, there is almost no likelihood of any meaningful
progress focussed on dangers perceived by a few rebels to be more
immediate. We need to give more attention to this issue. [Please
don't pick me up on the 'few rebels', it's just a light hearted
comment to try and lift the tone in an otherwise dark narrative.]
This quote also illustrates the conservative precautionary framing evident throughout the IPCC that has been in large measure responsible for it generally being behind the curve. The UNFCCC Constitution Art 3.3 states that the less conservative interpretation of the precautionary principle is to be adopted where serious or irreversible harm is at stake. We might want to reflect on how we can encourage the absence of certainty not to be a reason for not acting when there is a good enough reason to do so. This requires a deep dive into risk management.
The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures.
A second takeaway was his summary dismissal of methane removal. His argument was that given it is so short-lived, why bother removing it when you can just let it decay naturally. I think the folk at Methane Action (as was) could put together a credible and well referenced case to identify the climatic benefits of enhanced atmospheric methane removal (EAMO). Daphne Wysham participated in the session, this is something she might want to take on.
A third takeaway was his throwaway question as to whether
reducing CO2 emissions in line with Net Zero by 2050 is a sensible
policy. He made a couple of remarks about the undesirable impact
of steep CO2 emissions abatement. He didn't detail what these
might be but my impression is that he was referring to the
socio-political consequences of any combination of emissions
abatement and GGR that would produce net zero by 2050. My guess
is that his position on Net Zero by 2050 is closely related to his
relaxed view about the imminent dangers of cascading tipping
events, but this is perhaps worth exploring further with him.
A fourth takeaway was his question as to why one would start with
refreezing the Arctic when most climate harm is suffered by those
living in the hottest places, and these disproportionately are
home to the world's poor. It isn't clear to what extent he has
considered the widespread climate consequences of an exponentially
melting cryosphere and the potential these have for harming those
living far from the polar regions. This is a further area that we
might want to consider in more detail as a key objection to be
overcome. There are also some interesting philosophical arguments
at stake here in the manner to which action should be informed by
(broadly) consequentialism, deontology or virtue ethics. David
seems to be firmly in the consequentialist camp and that position
is vulnerable to challenge.
Finally, there is the moral hazard point. I totally agree with Brian's comment towards the end of the session, that the MH argument falls away when it is recognised that it is not a matter of choice between GHG and albedo management. The problem is getting people to recognise that they are both necessary and if anything, the albedo enhancement, is the more urgent.
Great session and plenty of good stuff to work on for a follow
up. I particularly like David's suggestion of focussing on a
couple of key points and bringing in another voice or two. For
the me the major benefit of this discussion was the way in which
it has obliged us to reflect on some of our assumptions. That
reflection will make us stronger.
Robert Chris
He says “It is hard to detect surface temperature response signal from SG testing.
Half the Thermodynamic Geoengineering entry to the Musk XPRIZE for CDR is a closed system that proves the surface temperature response. The second half is a ocean going platform that will sequester 1000 tonnes of CDR.
From: 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal
Sent: April 6, 2023 10:04 PM
To: 'Carbon Dioxide Removal' <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [CDR] FW: [geo] Re: David Keith HPAC Recording and Summary
Interesting comments on CDR
----
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9CEpvXRauiFDSsY%2BK-42W6rgaeSCLvZVUytyC5tp1QyHQ%40mail.gmail.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/051001d9690e%24689627f0%2439c277d0%24%40yahoo.com.au.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/003601d96915%245043ca70%24f0cb5f50%24%40gwmitigation.com.
Robert Chris
Bruce, the process you describe to explain why systems collapse
is, using different language, entirely consistent with complex
adaptive systems theory. If you're not familiar with Gunderson
and Holling's work, and in particular their seminal text Panarchy,
I commend it to you. Amongst many other insights, it allows us to
understand the politics of climate change as an integral part of
the overall system rather than exogenous to it, and also to
understand that while system collapse might be a painful
experience for those caught up in it, it is also part of a
critical continuous process of renewal.
The story of life on Earth has not be one of monotonic progress.
Indeed, the periodic reversals have been central to the emergence
of Homo sapiens. Evolution didn't have to take the path it did.
We are the product of an accumulation of random events that have
selected certain emergent properties for enhancement and
replication in preference to others.
You mention one fundamental truth about system collapse. Another is that once it is set in train it becomes inevitable. There is a tipping point beyond which the powers of adaptation to the changing circumstances are overwhelmed by the forces unleashed in the collapse. When a house of cards starts falling, there's no way to stop it halfway. Unfortunately it isn't possible to know whether that tipping point has been passed other than retrospectively. On climate change we have to assume we can at least minimise the extent of the collapse and perhaps defer it. Not to do so is to surrender our agency. At some point we will be forced to, but we must keep trying until the house of cards is flat on the table. If we get our response to climate change wrong the next major collapse will merely be somewhat sooner than it might otherwise have been. Some might see that as an opportunity in the making.
Now I'm going to look at your website.
Robert
Robert -- excellent pull from the UNFCCC on the Precautionary Principle. This principle is widely used by those with moral hazard thinking as a reason to NOT do anything other than emissions reductions. Sierra Club's new climate policies have a section devoted to "Avoiding the Moral Hazard."
I want to add some context to the concept of tipping. It is clear Keith believes as some of the science recites, that tipping is one big thing that creates a state change of our climate at some point in the future. Yeah, maybe so; likely so -- but tipping is much more. Keith's work is profound and very likely to be of very large importance for saving our world as we know it, but I am confused by his position on tipping concepts.
Tipping is the climate response to collapsing Earth systems as well as whatever overarching climate bifurcation concepts that exist. Many of our Earth systems have these responses and when activated they can influence the speed and extremeness of other systems tipping responses in a cascade. (Lenton 2019) And as per Lenton 2019, more than half of known tipping systems are now active. So why does a system collapse and what happens when it does so?
When the evolutionary boundary conditions of a system change, that system collapses so it can re-evolve with new species and mechanisms that are tolerant of the new boundary conditions. When this happens, environmental services of the system are first degraded, then eliminated and often reversed. The results are natural feedback emissions that compound the warming problem. When these collapses are rapid, as in forest collapses from acute events such as fire, drought and insect attack, the responses and cascades are rapid creating abrupt climate change also known as climate tipping. Permafrost thaw and arctic sea ice are other examples of a systems that exhibits tipping responses that can abruptly affect our climate.
The fundamental truth about systems collapse is of primary importance to our new era of climate change. This truth is that once a collapse begins, it does not self-restore unless the perturbation to the system that caused the collapse to begin is removed. This is the flaw of our climate culture today that is based on slow and reticent science and a compromising consensus, where it is deemed safe to warm further, even when Earth systems collapses have begun.
So there are myriad climate tipping systems and responses that contribute nonlinearly to the concept of climate tipping. It is not one "thing" and a significant body of climate literature as well as almost all consensus reporting does not yet grasp the importance of systems collapse -- that once begun do not self-restore unless our climate is restored to within the evolutionary boundaries of our Earth's systems.
One further - Hansen's body of work deeply considers Earth systems evolution and their responses to evolutionary boundary conditions. This is why he considers 350 ppm CO2 (the upper boundary of the Holocene) as the upper limit of our previous climate and the limit that once beyond, if not returned to within the boundaries of our Earth systems evolution quickly (too long of an overshoot period), Earth systems collapse with untenable futures.
My work (the work of my nonprofit) at ClimateDiscovery.org has been reporting on the primary literature on evolutionary boundaries and systems collapse with climate change impacts since we were founded in 2005. In 2007 I began filming and in 2021 we launched ClimateChangePhoto.org, that chronicles our work documenting climate change-caused collapse impacts across North America. If you haven't yet, please visit ClimateChangePhoto.org. It is complete with explanations of all photos with galleries on Beach, The Beetles, Fire and Permafrost, and it is counterintuitively quite beautiful. Even the gallery on fire and the Paradise and Coffey Park fires: in fire there is rebirth. But what struck me so profoundly putting this site together was the beauty in these collapse events across our most treasured landscapes that are so rare our civilization has never witnessed them.
Steep trails,
Bruce
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
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/72563e84-dfab-5492-4fb3-ec842935d66d%40gmail.com.
Anderson, Paul
Robert,
Your concluding sentences are worth emphasizing: I read it in reference to the need for Earth Cooling that is nature-based (“ice and clouds”).
On climate change we have to assume we can at least minimise the extent of the collapse and perhaps defer it. Not to do so is to surrender our agency. At some point we will be forced to, but we must keep trying until the house of cards is flat on the table. If we get our response to climate change wrong the next major collapse will merely be somewhat sooner than it might otherwise have been. Some might see that as an opportunity in the making.
It only becomes an opportunity if we can cause some action on all three: decarbonization, carbon removal, and cooling with ice and clouds.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Robert Chris
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 3:31 AM
To: Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <bme...@earthlink.net>; healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [CDR] FW: [geo] Re: David Keith HPAC Recording and Summary - Robert Chris comments
|
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important |
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/5238e6f7-8037-8f10-48a5-3527ad632617%40gmail.com.
Ron Baiman
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/SA2PR03MB59325732B0E39218D8009AD1DB979%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.
Robert Chris
Paul, combining decarbonisation, carbon removal and cooling is indeed an opportunity. However, it isn't the one I was hinting at. Unless the collapse is absolutely total, and in the case of global warming, Earth becomes literally uninhabitable, there is always a rebirth, a regeneration, a renewal. That's the opportunity I was thinking of. What Schumpeter referred to as creative destruction but perhaps on a grander scale than he was contemplating.
The point I keep trying to make here is that, yes, of course we
must try to avert and minimise the rigours of global warming. But
we shouldn't look upon our possible failure to do so as THE END.
That is extremely unlikely. The material losses that might be
suffered will be painful for those affected but time is a great
healer. Very little of the actual stuff owned by our ancestors is
owned by us today, and very little of what we own will be anything
other than landfill or a museum relic for those a century ahead.
What is of real value is mostly immaterial and that will endure.
Maybe not for 8 billion people, but there's no magic about that
number.
Robert
Clive Elsworth
Robert
I think a 10C rise won’t come close to supporting 8 billion, probably lucky to have 8 million, living in places like Antarctica.
I prefer to think of it like we’re the crew of the Star ship Enterprise and it has accidentally strayed near a black hole. The officers denied it at first and now they are pleading for the engineers to invent and build new rocket motors that can provide the escape velocity needed – without using up too much fuel.
But it’s worse than that. We tell people methane and black carbon can be removed from the atmosphere by enhancing a natural process, but despite successful tests carried out in 2014/15 there’s still very little interest from chemists or funding to develop our ideas. However, fortunately there is some now, and we see the next few years as potentially quite exciting. Perhaps John Cleese captured peoples’ state of mind in the film Clockwise when he says (words to the effect): “It’s the hope that I can’t stand.”
Clive
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/f82475ee-55de-2970-7d1f-9b10ceea5354%40gmail.com.
Anderson, Paul
Robert, Subject/Thread changed because it is no longer about David Keith.
Thank you for so clearly stating that there could be what appears to many people as an apocalypse or “collapse of life as we know it” (COLAWeKI). And more importantly, that such a collapse could actually be an acceptable inevitable “new beginning”. I can be supportive of your scenario. In some future after the COLAWeKI, any human who is alive then will face life at whatever that situation might be, including, for example, no manufactured shoes or boots. For that person, the “good live of the 2020s” will be as remote as life before the American Civil war is to us. [Note: When including the letter e from the word We, the term COLAWeKi can be pronounced.]
But with some cynicism I would say that for you to even suggest that such a new beginning could be acceptable could be the ultimate moral hazard, that is, que sera, sera, what will be will be. Why bother to fight climate change? It’s not my problem. Whoever is around in 2150 will just deal with the situation. “What? Me worry” (Alfred E. Newman, Mad Magazine)
A full discussion of these prospects is not possible here or anywhere. Too many unknowns. Too much heating and melting and changed climate/weather to counteract. Too much possible social disorder (wars, greed, inertia of lifestyles, selfishness, economic chaos, starvation, etc.) to overcome if we want to even consider trying to save society.
On the positive side: So many of us are trying hard to not have the climate catastrophe. So much good science and technology available if we could find the political will. And so much money and efforts, but unfortunately not in the hands of the right people (if we could only know what is “right”).
To write much more now is premature. Let Robert and others chime in. Clive Elsworth already has, including this:
I think a 10C rise won’t come close to supporting 8 billion, probably lucky to have 8 million, living in places like Antarctica.
I prefer to think of it like we’re the crew of the Star ship Enterprise and it has accidentally strayed near a black hole. The officers denied it at first and now they are pleading for the engineers to invent and build new rocket motors that can provide the escape velocity needed – without using up too much fuel.
But it’s worse than that….
Maybe 8 million, or 80 million or even 800 million of our descendants could be alive in 2150 or 2200, with the total population continuing to shrink. Human society would have lost its ability to be “modern”. Insufficient skilled people and materials to be to make machinery or maintain digital services. All gone. Shortages of everything. To grow food is the only “livelihood” of those who live. [But not for you and me. We will all be dead, after having had rather nice lives. But quite wasteful lives.]
These are scary thoughts, and no politician would touch such topics and expect to ever be elected. The “Greater Depression of 2035” or the “Nuclear incident of 2057” or the “Taiwan war – aka WWIII of 20??” or the “Antarctica collapse after decades of sea level rise” that triggers the abandonment of low coastal sites. There will be no
“bailout” or “recovery packages”. The governments of affluent countries will be broke. And “tax the rich” is not an option for escape when it is too late.
To end on a positive note, I believe that we can stimulate efforts about the three essential action areas: decarbonization, carbon removal, and nature-based global cooling (with ice and clouds). My carbon removal work is described in my “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” (2023) at www.woodgas.com/resources . Check out Part Two about Kenya biochar with current 100 t CDR/yr to grow to a million t CO2 removal (CDR) per year in one country with one waste biomass. Gigatonne prospects are discussed. But I cannot get anyone with funding to pay attention to it even for the first 1000 t CDR/yr. That is why Robert’s comments ring so true to me. (see yellow highlights by me in Robert’s message below.)
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com see Resources page for 2023 “Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar” and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Robert Chris
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 2:09 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>; Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <bme...@earthlink.net>; healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [CDR] FW: [geo] Re: David Keith HPAC Recording and Summary - Robert Chris comments
|
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important |
Paul, combining decarbonisation, carbon removal and cooling is indeed an opportunity. However, it isn't the one I was hinting at. Unless the collapse is absolutely total, and in the case of global warming, Earth becomes literally uninhabitable, there is always a rebirth, a regeneration, a renewal. That's the opportunity I was thinking of. What Schumpeter referred to as creative destruction but perhaps on a grander scale than he was contemplating.
The point I keep trying to make here is that, yes, of course we must try to avert and minimise the rigours of global warming. But we shouldn't look upon our possible failure to do so [PSA>>] END. That is extremely unlikely. The material losses that might be suffered will be painful for those affected but time is a great healer. Very little of the actual stuff owned by our ancestors is owned by us today, and very little of what we own will be anything other than landfill or a museum relic for those a century ahead. What is of real value is mostly immaterial and that will endure. Maybe not for 8 billion people, but there's no magic about that number.
[PSA>>] Yellow highlights added by Paul Anderson who adds: If knowledge and skills are part of the immaterial real value, they can be lost when schools fail and supply chains stop delivering essential “goods”
.
rob...@rtulip.net
RC, you are too sanguine about collapse. In noting painful material losses, we should understand these could include war and famine and death and plague affecting everyone and everything on Earth. Such disruption would also destroy technology and capacity to rebuild.
The only factor that can make a difference to climate collapse is planetary brightness. Albedo enhancement, with related cooling technologies such as Cirrus Cloud Thinning and Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, provides the only lever that can mitigate tipping points in time.
Carbon based methods are too small, slow and contested to make any immediate difference to climate change. Decarbonisation and carbon stores such as biochar are marginal to the heat problem while emissions continue to rise.
A paradigm shift is needed to recognise the security imperative to enhance albedo to ease immediate climate risks. I would like to see more discussion of the nature of this paradigm shift, whether it can be restricted to cooling technology or whether brightening the planet should be directly linked with economic and political reforms. My view is that getting money and support for refreezing the Arctic should largely be decoupled from justice campaigns except for those directly affected such as Indigenous peoples of the north. Otherwise, by integrating cooling and justice we hold the planet hostage, saying we prefer climate collapse to albedo increase.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/f82475ee-55de-2970-7d1f-9b10ceea5354%40gmail.com.
Douglas Grandt
My view is that getting money and support for refreezing the Arctic should largely be decoupled from justice campaigns except for those directly affected such as Indigenous peoples of the north. Otherwise, by integrating cooling and justice we hold the planet hostage, saying we prefer climate collapse to albedo increase.
<image001.jpg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0f2301d96af9%245ff0fc50%241fd2f4f0%24%40rtulip.net.
Robert Chris
Hi RobertT, I'm not in the slightest sanguine about collapse. This is a value judgment and my comments hitherto are solely concerned with system dynamics. When systems collapse some of the capital they release is redeployed in the renewal and reorganisation phase. You see this happening routinely in all systems and human history is replete with examples of our predecessors shooting themselves in the foot and then recovering to build back better. That's how we got to where we are today. Sometimes it was very messy and a lot of people suffered and died prematurely. There were the Dark Ages. The Black Death. Countless wars. The list is endless. But life in general is extraordinarily resilient and humans are supremely adaptable. The likelihood of human extinction seems to me to be pretty fanciful. If we can adapt to live in the Arctic and the Amazon, we can probably always find niches where we can flourish. Turning Earth into a Mars or Venus seems a collapse too far. But given time and real stupidity ...
So I very much doubt that the kind of climate change we're likely
to see in the coming decades and centuries is even remotely likely
to 'destroy technology and the capacity to rebuild'. Disrupt
certainly, destroy some, certainly, but not everything. It's at
this point that the value judgements become important. It is an
act of extreme arrogance to imagine that what we value in terms of
technology is somehow timeless, or even universally shared by all
the world's population today. As David Keith asked, referring to
Oliver Morton's book, who is the 'we'?
Imagine a world of 2.4 billion, what it was in the year of my birth. That's 70% fewer than there are today. So we could double mean consumption per capita (assuming for the moment that that's a good measure of human well-being) and still reduce overall consumption by a third. True, that might still involve a degree of redistribution from today's most profligate consumers, but, hey, in this brave new world things will be very different and in getting there, most of them (us?) will already have lost most of what they (we?) currently have.
The technology is only important insofar as it enhances human
well-being and that is highly subjective and changes through space
and time. We are busy trying to preserve what we've got because we
believe it has value. It does, but a I suspect a lot less value
than we imagine. I also suspect that a lot of today's technology
will disappear and hardly be missed. We are indefatigably
ingenious and so long as there are humans we'll be inventing new
stuff that the inventors believe will enhance the lives of those
around them at the time. And the inventions that do that will be
replicated and enhanced. That's precisely how complex adaptive
systems operate.
There is an argument that says the sooner climate collapse occurs
the better. It'll probably be less severe, do less damage and be
easier to recover from. I'm not advocating that. It'd probably
not touch me, I'm old enough not to have to worry about it's
impact on me. But even for my kids and grandkids and yours,
wouldn't a less severe catastrophe be better than a more severe
one?
So, to repeat, I'm not remotely sanguine about collapse but I am sanguine about humanity's bright and joyful future, albeit one pockmarked by occasional reversals of fortune.
As for your desire for a paradigm shift, I couldn't agree more.
We are currently on a collision course with nature. Without a
paradigm shift, nature will be dictating the short to medium term
outcomes. I think David Keith has grossly underplayed the risks.
I (we) need to be able to convince him and others in positions of
power and influence if we are to get anywhere with the paradigm
shift.
Robert
rob...@rtulip.net
Doug
To clarify about how climate and justice relate, the IPCC Synthesis Report Headlines include two statements that I challenge.
The headlines include the claim that “rapid and far-reaching transitions across all sectors and systems are necessary to achieve deep and sustained emissions reductions and secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.”
Making a “liveable future” conditional upon “rapid and far-reaching transitions across all sectors and systems” is a guarantee we will not have a liveable future. Such transformative change in use of carbon encounters strong economic and political resistance, making its feasibility nil at the speed proposed. By contrast, increasing albedo requires no systemic change other than to establish cooling governance.
The IPCC headlines also say “Prioritising equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes can enable adaptation and ambitious mitigation actions and climate resilient development.
This causal link between justice and mitigation is absurd. Social justice does not mitigate warming in any real way, especially considering equitable access to energy. Justice is essential to climate adaptation and resilience, for example paying for loss and damage, but does not “enable ambitious mitigation actions.” Inclusion of this illogical claim illustrates the total priority of politics over science within the IPCC. Their only plausible meaning is that justice means putting in left wing governments who will attack the fossil fuel industries. That is not a way to solve the climate crisis.
While social justice is good in itself, integrating it with climate mitigation only makes sense over the long term. The immediate mitigation need is to establish governance for cooling. Building equity into cooling governance is essential, but only equity as regards how cooling is implemented, not some new sort of world communist revolution.
Trying to take down capitalism in order to fix the climate makes no sense. Far better to seek constructive partnerships with industry for cooling.
Thanks
Robert Tulip
Douglas Grandt
On Apr 9, 2023, at 1:27 PM, Rob...@rtulip.net wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/109401d96b08%2496c45560%24c44d0020%24%40rtulip.net.
Clive Elsworth
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/109401d96b08%2496c45560%24c44d0020%24%40rtulip.net.
Tom Goreau
Both communism and capitalism are based on environmental exploitation, the real choice is to be home builders or home destroyers.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
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
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/275310182.3351584.1681064805411%40email.ionos.co.uk.
Robert Chris
It isn't a binary choice between communism and capitalism. Other
economic systems are available or could emerge.
I wonder to what extent the horrendous Soviet record on the
environment is a consequence of Communism rather than its
particular incarnation in the hands of Lenin and Stalin. I don't
know enough about the history to answer that question but it may
well be that there is nothing intrinsically environmentally
unfriendly about Communism. Maybe Communism and environmental
sustainability could be made compatible with different leadership.
Robert