Ted Nordhaus: Why I Oppose Solar Geoengineering
Clive Elsworth
Does someone have time to put a comment on Substack for this: Why I Oppose Solar Geoengineering, How the climate catastrophist horseshoe could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, Ted Nordhaus Jul 15, 2026
https://substack.com/home/post/p-207089019
Clive
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 15, 2026, at 10:41 AM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk> wrote:
Does someone have time to put a comment on Substack for this: Why I Oppose Solar Geoengineering, How the climate catastrophist horseshoe could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, Ted Nordhaus Jul 15, 2026
https://substack.com/home/post/p-207089019
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/047601dd1467%24f2ed2e00%24d8c78a00%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.
br...@chesdata.com
I asked ChatGPT for a rebuttal (but have not “fact checked” it)
Bruce Parker
====================================================================
The strongest counterargument is not “geoengineering will save us,” but that Nordhaus mischaracterizes both the climate risk trajectory and the role of solar geoengineering research. Below is a draft article.
Why Ted Nordhaus Is Wrong About Solar Geoengineering
The real climate catastrophe is not geoengineering — it is unmanaged planetary change
Ted Nordhaus’s recent essay, “Why I Oppose Solar Geoengineering,” presents an important challenge: technologies capable of altering Earth’s climate must be approached with caution, humility, and rigorous governance. But his central argument rests on a flawed premise: that the greatest climate danger comes from exaggerated perceptions of climate risk rather than from the rapidly changing Earth system itself.
Nordhaus argues that climate change has so far produced limited societal harm, that human adaptation has outpaced climate impacts, and that solar geoengineering risks creating a self-fulfilling climate catastrophe through premature deployment and eventual termination shock.
This argument underestimates the magnitude of the climate problem, misunderstands the purpose of geoengineering research, and frames a false choice between adaptation, emissions reduction, and climate intervention.
The real debate should not be geoengineering versus decarbonization.
The real question is:
How do we stabilize a rapidly warming planet after humanity has already altered the Earth’s energy balance at a planetary scale?
1. Past resilience does not guarantee future safety
Nordhaus is correct that human societies have demonstrated extraordinary adaptability. Over the past century, improved agriculture, infrastructure, medicine, forecasting, and economic development have dramatically reduced vulnerability to climate hazards.
But this historical success does not prove that future warming impacts will remain manageable.
The argument confuses two different things:
- Human adaptation capacity
- The magnitude and speed of environmental change
Humans can adapt to many changes. But adaptation has limits.
A city can build seawalls. Farmers can change crops. Communities can improve flood defenses. But adaptation becomes increasingly expensive when multiple systems are stressed simultaneously:
- extreme heat,
- water scarcity,
- crop failures,
- ecosystem collapse,
- sea-level rise,
- wildfire expansion,
- biodiversity loss,
- migration pressures.
A wealthy society may adapt to a 1-meter sea-level rise. It is much harder to adapt to simultaneous failures across food, water, energy, and ecological systems.
Climate risk is not merely about whether humans survive. It is about whether the complex global systems supporting billions of people remain stable.
2. Nordhaus understates the speed of Earth system changes
Nordhaus repeatedly contrasts modern warming with natural temperature variations and argues that humans experience larger changes from season to season or geography.
This comparison is misleading.
A person traveling from Honolulu to Anchorage is not the same as the planet itself warming.
Human societies are adapted to local climates. A tropical farmer cannot simply relocate to Alaska. Entire ecosystems cannot migrate overnight. Agricultural systems, water systems, and infrastructure are built around historical climate conditions.
The critical issue is not only the amount of warming.
It is the rate of change relative to the ability of biological and social systems to adjust.
The climate system is already showing rapid changes:
- Arctic sea ice decline,
- Greenland ice loss acceleration,
- ocean warming,
- coral reef degradation,
- permafrost instability,
- shifts in precipitation patterns.
These are not theoretical future risks. They are measurable changes occurring today.
3. Nordhaus creates a false dichotomy: adaptation versus intervention
A major weakness of the essay is the assumption that because adaptation has worked historically, aggressive climate intervention is unnecessary.
This ignores the physical reality of the climate system.
Humanity has already changed atmospheric composition:
- carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm to over 420 ppm,
- greenhouse forcing has increased,
- Earth’s energy imbalance has increased,
- ocean heat content continues rising.
The question is not whether humans should “interfere” with climate.
We already have.
The choice is not:
Natural climate versus engineered climate.
The choice is:
Unmanaged human-driven climate change versus deliberate management of a climate system we have already altered.
4. Solar geoengineering is not a replacement for emissions reduction
Nordhaus correctly criticizes simplistic geoengineering arguments that imply humanity can avoid decarbonization.
But serious advocates of solar geoengineering generally do not argue this.
A realistic climate stabilization strategy requires three parallel approaches:
1. Rapid emissions reduction
Humanity must transition away from fossil fuels.
2. Carbon dioxide removal
Because CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for centuries, reaching net zero emissions is not enough. Atmospheric CO₂ must eventually decline.
3. Temporary climate cooling
Solar radiation modification may reduce warming while the slower processes of decarbonization and carbon removal occur.
This is not an escape from responsibility.
It is analogous to using emergency medicine while treating the underlying disease.
A patient with a heart attack does not reject surgery because lifestyle changes are also necessary.
5. Termination shock is a reason for governance, not abandonment
Nordhaus’s strongest argument concerns termination shock.
If humanity deployed solar geoengineering and then suddenly stopped, temperatures could rise rapidly.
This is a legitimate concern.
But the conclusion does not follow.
The existence of a risk does not mean the technology should be ignored.
Nuclear power has accident risks.
Air travel has crash risks.
Medicine has side effects.
The solution is not abandoning research. It is developing:
- monitoring systems,
- international agreements,
- deployment limits,
- transparent decision processes,
- long-term commitments.
The worst possible outcome is not researching solar geoengineering.
The worst possible outcome is reaching a point where societies desperately deploy poorly understood interventions because they have no alternatives.
6. The “fake emergency” argument misunderstands climate thresholds
Nordhaus argues that climate advocates exaggerate current impacts and that there is no clear emergency threshold.
But complex systems rarely provide convenient warning signs.
The planet does not come with a dashboard light that says:
“Emergency begins now.”
Many Earth systems contain thresholds and feedback loops.
Examples include:
- ice-sheet instability,
- rainforest degradation,
- permafrost carbon release,
- ocean circulation changes.
Waiting until damage is unmistakably catastrophic may mean waiting until prevention is impossible.
A responsible society prepares before the emergency, not after.
7. The greatest geoengineering risk may be refusing to study it
Nordhaus worries that geoengineering could become a political shortcut.
That risk exists.
But banning or stigmatizing research creates another danger:
A future climate crisis in which desperate nations act without knowledge, preparation, or governance.
Research does not mean deployment.
Research provides:
- better climate models,
- improved understanding of regional effects,
- better risk assessment,
- informed international discussions.
The choice is not:
“deploy geoengineering” versus “do nothing.”
The choice is:
“understand the technology before a crisis” versus “enter a crisis blind.”
8. The climate movement should abandon both denial and magical thinking
There is a legitimate criticism of climate discourse: some advocates have communicated risk poorly, sometimes implying that every weather event is caused solely by climate change.
But the opposite error is equally dangerous:
assuming that because humanity has adapted in the past, future risks are automatically manageable.
Both extremes fail.
Climate change is neither an apocalypse tomorrow nor a harmless inconvenience.
It is a long-term planetary management challenge.
Conclusion: The goal should be planetary stabilization
Ted Nordhaus is right about one thing:
Solar geoengineering is not a simple solution.
It carries risks.
It requires unprecedented international cooperation.
It must never become an excuse to delay emissions reduction.
But rejecting research because a technology could be misused is not wisdom. It is surrender.
Humanity has already become a planetary-scale force. We have altered the atmosphere, oceans, and biosphere.
The responsible response is not pretending we can return to an untouched Earth.
The responsible response is to develop a comprehensive climate stabilization strategy:
- eliminate greenhouse gas emissions,
- remove excess carbon dioxide,
- restore natural systems,
- and investigate carefully controlled methods of reducing excess planetary heating.
The choice facing humanity is not between “nature” and “engineering.”
We are already engineering the climate.
The choice is whether we do so recklessly through continued emissions—or deliberately, cautiously, and transparently in order to restore planetary stability.
Possible title alternatives:
- Ted Nordhaus’s Climate Mistake: Why Geoengineering Research Is a Necessity, Not a Catastrophe
- The Real Climate Risk Is Not Solar Geoengineering — It Is Entering the Future Without It
- Beyond the Ecomodernist Debate: Why Climate Stabilization Requires More Than Decarbonization
- The Climate Horseshoe Reversed: Why Fear of Geoengineering Could Increase Climate Risk
I would also suggest a second version aimed specifically at Breakthrough Institute readers, because Nordhaus’s audience is likely to respond better to an argument framed around risk management, systems engineering, and technological realism rather than environmental urgency.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/74C80C8D-6D7E-43C0-86AB-11C8345737B0%40gmail.com.
Robin Collins
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0daa01dd1478%24b486ff40%241d94fdc0%24%40chesdata.com.
br...@chesdata.com
Robin –
I asked ChatGPT:
explain ways to convince those who do not take current climate change seriously to take it seriously
Reply:
Convincing people who do not take current climate change seriously is not primarily a matter of giving them more scientific facts. Research on risk communication shows that people interpret information through their existing values, experiences, trust networks, and perceptions of fairness. A successful strategy should therefore combine evidence, relevance, credibility, and practical solutions.
For someone skeptical of climate urgency, the goal is usually not to make them agree with every climate claim. The goal is to move them from:
“Climate change is exaggerated or not a serious concern”
to:
“Climate change is a real risk worth managing.”
Below are approaches that are more likely to work.
1. Start by acknowledging what they are right about
Many people who resist climate warnings are reacting to real concerns:
- Some climate predictions have been overstated.
- Some activists have used alarming language that feels disconnected from daily life.
- Weather events are influenced by many factors, not only climate change.
- Energy transitions involve economic costs.
- People have adapted successfully to many environmental challenges.
Beginning with:
“You are right that humans are remarkably adaptable and that some climate claims have been exaggerated.”
creates credibility.
Then add:
“The question is not whether humans can adapt. The question is how much adaptation will cost and whether multiple stresses could overwhelm our ability to adapt.”
This avoids triggering defensive reactions.
2. Shift the discussion from “catastrophe” to “risk management”
Many skeptics reject climate change because they hear:
“The world will end.”
They compare that statement with their personal experience:
- They are still driving.
- Their community is functioning.
- Economies are growing.
- Weather disasters have always occurred.
A better framing is:
“Climate change is not about whether civilization ends tomorrow. It is about increasing risks and costs over decades.”
A useful analogy:
Nobody argues that hurricanes are impossible to survive, so therefore hurricane preparation is unnecessary.
Climate change is similar:
- reduce the hazard,
- improve resilience,
- prepare for uncertainty.
3. Explain that climate risk is about probabilities, not predictions
Many skeptics expect climate science to predict exact outcomes.
They ask:
“Where is the failed prediction?”
But climate science is not a weather forecast.
It is closer to insurance modeling.
A homeowner does not buy insurance because they know their house will burn down.
They buy insurance because:
- the probability is not zero,
- the consequences are large,
- prevention is cheaper than recovery.
Climate risk works similarly.
The question is not:
“Will climate change destroy civilization?”
The better question is:
“How much additional risk are we willing to impose on future generations?”
4. Use observations rather than future predictions
Future projections are easier to dismiss.
Current measurements are harder to ignore.
Examples:
Atmospheric CO₂
- Before industrialization: about 280 ppm
- Today: over 420 ppm
This is a physical measurement, not a model.
Ocean heat
Over 90% of excess heat from greenhouse forcing goes into the oceans.
This is measured by thousands of ocean instruments.
Arctic changes
The Arctic is warming several times faster than the global average.
These are observations, not political claims.
5. Connect climate change to things people already care about
Climate change is often presented as an environmental issue.
That limits the audience.
More persuasive frames include:
National security
- military bases threatened by sea-level rise,
- geopolitical instability,
- resource competition,
- climate migration.
Economic risk
- infrastructure damage,
- insurance costs,
- agricultural disruption,
- energy system vulnerability.
Health
- heat mortality,
- air quality,
- disease expansion.
Local concerns
People care more about:
“Will my electric bill rise?”
than:
“Will global mean temperature rise 2°C?”
6. Avoid blaming individuals
Messages like:
- “stop flying,”
- “stop eating meat,”
- “change your lifestyle”
often create resistance.
Many people hear:
“You are the problem.”
A better approach:
“The problem is an energy system built around fossil fuels. Individuals cannot solve this alone; technology and policy must change the system.”
This is more consistent with engineering reality.
7. Emphasize solutions, not just threats
Fear without solutions creates denial.
People disengage when they believe:
“Nothing can be done.”
A better message:
“We have multiple tools, and the challenge is deploying them fast enough.”
Tools include:
- renewable energy,
- nuclear energy,
- efficiency,
- grid improvements,
- carbon removal,
- ecosystem restoration,
- possibly carefully governed climate intervention.
8. Use trusted messengers
People rarely change beliefs because of opposing groups.
A conservative farmer may trust:
- another farmer,
- a military leader,
- an engineer,
- a business executive,
more than an environmental activist.
A successful climate communication strategy uses many messengers:
- scientists,
- economists,
- national security experts,
- faith leaders,
- local officials,
- business leaders.
9. Explain why adaptation alone is insufficient
This is probably the strongest response to the Nordhaus argument.
Acknowledge:
“Yes, adaptation has worked.”
Then explain:
“But adaptation has always occurred within a climate envelope. The concern is pushing that envelope faster than societies and ecosystems can adjust.”
Examples:
A farmer can adapt to a warmer climate.
But adaptation becomes harder when:
- heat increases,
- rainfall becomes less predictable,
- groundwater declines,
- pests expand,
- insurance disappears.
The issue is not one problem.
It is multiple interacting problems.
10. Use the “three questions” approach
A useful conversation framework:
Question 1:
Do you agree humans are increasing greenhouse gases?
Most people say yes.
Question 2:
Do you agree greenhouse gases trap heat?
Most people say yes.
Question 3:
Do you think increasing heat-trapping gases creates zero risk?
That is the key question.
It moves the discussion away from politics and toward risk management.
11. Avoid exaggeration
Ironically, the most effective argument against climate skepticism is credibility.
Avoid statements like:
- “Every disaster is caused by climate change.”
- “We have only a few years left.”
- “Civilization will collapse soon.”
Instead:
“Climate change is a long-term risk multiplier. It increases the probability and severity of certain problems.”
This is scientifically stronger.
12. A message that may work with Nordhaus-style skeptics
For an audience like Ted Nordhaus’s, I would avoid apocalypse language entirely.
A stronger argument is:
“The question is not whether humanity can adapt to climate change. Humanity can adapt to many things. The question is whether adaptation alone is the cheapest and safest strategy after we have already increased atmospheric greenhouse gases by 50%, altered the Earth’s energy balance, and created risks that may unfold faster than institutions can respond. Responsible societies manage risks before they become emergencies.”
The key communication principle
The most persuasive climate message is probably:
“Climate change is not a prediction of doom. It is a large-scale risk management problem. Smart societies reduce risks, prepare for uncertainty, and use every available tool.”
That framing can appeal both to people concerned about climate change and to people who distrust catastrophic messaging.
Clive Elsworth
Bruce
Good response from ChatGPT. I have two comments:
1. The feedback loops it mentions are not the strongest most dangerous ones, which (according to Jim Hansen) are:
- Water vapour – itself a strong greenhouse gas,
- Tropical/Subtropical cloud albedo loss, induced by ocean warming,
- Sea ice loss,
2. The termination shock he and many others are so afraid of (e.g. UNEP) is already under way – from the loss of the accidental cooling by cloud brightening from aerosol pollution, as measured and reported on by the IPCC for many years. And why is he so afraid of a cloud cooling influence being applied, when it went unnoticed by most people for decades, apparently without any detriment other than its health effects? These people have it the wrong way round: They think nothing of the loss of cloud reflectivity by warming oceans and pollution clean-up that is accelerating climate warming and are afraid of the cooling influence that has held back – and is still holding back – even faster warming.
Nordhaus’s post could be a useful tag to hang our responses on, rather than us having to promote our triad out of the blue. After all, everyone loves to watch a fight.
So, I’d say amend your ChatGPT response as you see fit and post it ASAP.
Clive
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0daa01dd1478%24b486ff40%241d94fdc0%24%40chesdata.com.
Robin Collins
br...@chesdata.com
Clive –
I added some comments in yellow per your suggestions. Not sure how to comment on “why is he so afraid of a cloud cooling influence”.
TO EVERYONE – This is NOT my text, it’s ChatGPTs’s – feel free to annotate it as you see fit.
Bruce Parler
A termination shock is already under way – from the loss of the accidental cooling by cloud brightening from aerosol pollution (e.g., the recent reduction in shipping emissions, the reduction of aerosols as the most polluting coal-fired power plants are shut down, etc.) , as measured and reported on by the IPCC for many years.
- Water vapour – itself a strong greenhouse gas
- Tropical/Subtropical cloud albedo loss, induced by ocean warming,
- Sea ice loss,
Waiting until damage is unmistakably catastrophic may mean waiting until prevention is impossible.
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 15, 2026, at 4:01 PM, br...@chesdata.com wrote:
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0e5801dd1494%24b174f390%24145edab0%24%40chesdata.com.
Paul Gambill
My earlier email suggested that what is needed is a sophisticated and nuanced response to Ted’s post.What AI provides is certainly helpful but it doesn’t capture those points where Ted is correct and it doesn’t in my view sufficiently address several of his misconceptions.Paul Gambill however, addresses Ted’s essay with exactly the level of nuance and discernment necessary to expose the weaknesses of his arguments.Thank you, Paul!
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/EE9316BE-FA29-40FA-B3E8-180C794715EE%40gmail.com.
Robin Collins
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/EE9316BE-FA29-40FA-B3E8-180C794715EE%40gmail.com.
rob...@rtulip.net
Here is a comment I just made at Paul Gambill’s Substack post.
Thank you Paul, Nordhaus fails to appreciate that if humanity is collectively too stupid to deploy the global infrastructure required to maintain climate stability, that means we are too stupid to sustain a global civilization. The success of the Montreal Protocol in ending the use of ozone depleting substances is an excellent model for the successful collaboration between business, science and government required to establish an Albedo Accord, initially through business lobbying to convene a coalition of first mover nations. The Montreal precedent cannot work for carbon, which is a wicked problem, but it can work for albedo governance. Reflectivity has fallen by 2% this century, from 100 to below 98 w/m2 on CERES data, and shows every indication that this dangerous slide into planetary darkening is accelerating, with the rate of decline doubling each decade. As you note, nothing we do about carbon can reverse this trajectory on a practical time scale. I really liked your point from Irvine that cooling infrastructure should be made robust against opposition. We cannot afford to go back into the Dark Ages, but that would be the effect of following Nordhaus's advice.
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Robin Collins
Sent: Thursday, 16 July 2026 9:31 AM
To: H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Cc: br...@chesdata.com; Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk; healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Ted Nordhaus: Why I Oppose Solar Geoengineering
Excellent essay.
My earlier email suggested that what is needed is a sophisticated and nuanced response to Ted’s post.
What AI provides is certainly helpful but it doesn’t capture those points where Ted is correct and it doesn’t in my view sufficiently address several of his misconceptions.
Paul Gambill however, addresses Ted’s essay with exactly the level of nuance and discernment necessary to expose the weaknesses of his arguments.
Thank you, Paul!
rob...@rtulip.net
Bruce, your comment from ChatGPT illustrates the immense potential for AI to rapidly enhance the climate policy debate to articulate workable solutions. This potential has to be embraced, not shunned.
The AI view you shared presents a mostly coherent and informed strategy. However, I believe there are deeper problems that this AI response does not cover. I think it overstates the potential of carbon action and understates the potential of albedo action. Carbon action, such as the UN call to halve global emissions by 2030 through transformation of every sector of the world economy, is perceived within business and security communities as unrealistic and even irrelevant. Major industries and their government allies and voters will continue to block rapid decarbonisation.
That means the transition strategy has to be reversed, putting rebrightening the planet first, as a way that business can come on board with a stabilisation agenda, and recognising that effective carbon action requires fundamental review of currently promoted strategies. For example, ocean biomass protection might well be able to achieve more cooling impact than energy sector reform.
So I disagree with the AI statement ““The problem is an energy system built around fossil fuels.” While true in the long term, that framing does not support a practical short term cooling strategy. Fossil energy is projected to remain at the current level or higher for several decades. Efforts to slow that growth are marginal to controlling heat. A better frame, designed to shift the Overton Window for public policy, is to say that the problem is that planetary heating is a danger to economic stability. That offers a way to generate the resources needed to rapidly govern the safe reversal of albedo decline as the most immediate and tractable climate policy lever.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0df401dd148b%2407d62fb0%2417828f10%24%40chesdata.com.
Clive Elsworth
Nice response Paul.
Could you or someone put a comment on Ted’s article, with a link to your response?
That way more people will see it, including, hopefully Ted.
We don’t want your good effort going to waste.
Ted’s article: https://www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/why-i-oppose-solar-geoengineering/comments
Your article: https://www.inevitableandobvious.com/p/why-i-support-stabilization-research
(I must pay to comment on Ted’s article.)
Clive
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/6a580418ca5eed6a93000051%40polymail.io.
Paul Gambill
--
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/6a580418ca5eed6a93000051%40polymail.io.
--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.
Dan Miller
“A +4°C future is incompatible with an organized global community,is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’,is devastating to the majority of ecosystems,and has a high probability of not being stable.” (4ºC will lead to 5ºC, etc.)
rob...@rtulip.net
I see Ted Nordhaus has accepted Paul’s invitation. That should be an interesting conversation.
I felt Paul gave away too much ground with his statement “most of us working on this are trying to move away from emergency framing entirely. It's neither helpful nor accurate, and it's hard to measure.” The issue here is that action to restore albedo actually is an emergency, since the longer we wait the harder it will be to do. The 2% loss of planetary reflectivity this century, with the rate doubling every decade, provides a helpful integrated measure of the climate emergency.
Emergency framing is essential to work out how to mitigate the massive risk that Earth systems could prove to be more fragile and sensitive than we assume. The proper response is to say that businesses should be alarmed about the commercial risk their industries face from heat, and should take emergency measures to advocate for action to stabilise the climate.
The problem is that emergency framing is now used with an unworkable theory of change, the idea that emission reduction alone could mitigate global warming. Perhaps the most important emergency is the social complacency about albedo loss.
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: Friday, 17 July 2026 12:22 PM
To: Paul Gambill <pa...@paulgambill.com>
Cc: Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk; H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>; br...@chesdata.com; healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Ted Nordhaus: Why I Oppose Solar Geoengineering
Hi Paul:
Thanks for responding to Ted.
I don’t think the situation is nuanced. Ted thinks +3ºC of warming is manageable and wants to spend more effort on adaptation than mitigation (see below). This is a form of climate denial and is very dangerous. Climate scientist Kevin Anderson said in 2010 of +4ºC of warming:
“A +4°C future is incompatible with an organized global community,
is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’,
is devastating to the majority of ecosystems,
and has a high probability of not being stable.” (4ºC will lead to 5ºC, etc.)
When I interviewed Kevin a couple of years ago, he said, based on what we know now, the above probably applies to +3ºC warming.
While Kevin (and most other climate scientists) may be wrong about the dangers of +3ºC warming, it is irresponsible to assume it is not a catastrophic risk given the vast evidence that it is.
It’s not just adjusting to higher temperatures and making large areas of the Earth uninhabitable, allowing 3ºC of warming means there is a likelihood of passing major tipping points including AMOC collapse.
We would never accept that level of risk in other parts of our lives. Why should we accept it when it comes to the ability for society to function?
I guess this puts me in the “climate catastrophism” category. While I’m open to the debate whether being honest about the risks we face is the best way to engage the public, I do think we should avoid optimism bias and be realistic about risk. Flying in an airplane is one of the safest things you can do and that is because the industry takes risk management seriously. I think we should apply at least that level of risk management to our ability to keep living on the Earth in an organized community.
When looked at this way, SRM is a risk management strategy. It’s not that SRM is without risk, it’s just that the risks posed by SRM are much smaller than the risks posed by not doing SRM.
Since Ted does not view the risk of climate change as being a big deal, of course he thinks SRM is risky. But, in my opinion, TED is not someone who is qualified to opine on such maters given his “lukewarmer” status.
Dan
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/EEFB65D7-8A39-4555-910A-F21D9AA2B82D%40gmail.com.
Sander Epema
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/01c401dd1596%247c70ae20%2475520a60%24%40rtulip.net.
Ron Baiman
--
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/047601dd1467%24f2ed2e00%24d8c78a00%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.
--