Re: Call for evidence launched into national preparedness and resilience - Committees - UK Parliament

[Robert Chris]

Hi Barbara

Attached is my submission.  Thanks for drawing this to my attention.

I have no great expectations for its impact.  But, as ever, if you throw enough mud at the wall, some sticks!

Regards

Robert

On 01/04/2026 20:27, Barbara Sneath wrote:

Dear Both,

You may be interested in submitting a response to this call, and to sharing this opportunity with others. 

Best wishes,

Barbara 

Call for evidence launched into national preparedness and resilience - Committees - UK Parliament https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/832/national-resilience-committee/news/212523/call-for-evidence-launched-into-national-preparedness-and-resilience/

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Robert, thanks for sharing your lucid commentary.  I have two comments. 

 

1. You state “GHG emissions continue to rise, albeit at a somewhat attenuated rate, … the growth in emissions is abating.”  This is incorrect.  Mauna Loa data shows the growth in emissions is NOT abating, as indicated by the upward curve of this trend line.

 

 

 

2. You say “No attempt is made here to detail the policies needed to provide adequate protection against … harms that might emerge from climate change.  They are too extensive…” In this context I was surprised that you did not mention the potential of sunlight reflection to mitigate climate change, as an entirely plausible way to remove system heat.  It might have been a good opportunity to welcome ARIA’s research as a contribution to UK national resilience.  I don’t see what you mean by “too extensive”.  The needed policies can be easily summarised as reflecting sunlight, removing heat, removing greenhouse gases, and adapting to catastrophe.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

--
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/7f27d425-3b35-46e3-a826-dbc0218d55ff%40gmail.com.

[Robert Chris]

Hi Robert

Referring to your numbered points:

1. You're confusing emissions and atmospheric concentration.  The rate of increase of emissions has been declining although it's still positive, so total emissions are still increasing.  Because they're still increasing faster than natural sinks are extracting them from the atmosphere, the atmospheric concentration continues to icnrease as per your auna Loa chart.

2. This Select Committee is explicitly looking at preparedness and resilience.  It is looking at how to cope with the peril rather than how to avoid it.  That's why I haven't addressed any of those issues.  I do say that in Point 3.  RASoR (as I now prefer to refer to SRM) is a global intervention and is not going to be a resilience response by any single nation, other than perhaps China or the USA.  This exercise is all about the final point you mention, adapting to catastrophe.

My hope (probably a forlorn one) is that if policymakers really did start to think seriously about what they'd have to do to protect their citizens in the event of a full on climate catastrophe, it might galvanise them into doing more to avoid it.  The point I was making by 'too extensive' is that virtually every aspect of government would be radically impacted in such a scenario so there's little point in me trying to spell that out in this submission.  The best I can hope for is that they wake up and get the right people round a table to start planning our preparedness and resilience response.

Regards

RobertC

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert C,

Thanks for sharing your submission with us.  I recognise that your natural pessimism came to the fore for a field day!  I attach my own, more optimistic but much less professional-looking submission, hastily prepared due to personal circumstances.

I agree with Robert T that you omitted the possibility of using cooling techniques to prevent the kind of climate catastrophe that you discuss in a very general way.  The exception to your generality is with the AMOC.  Interestingly you present the AMOC collapse as the most plausible worst-case near-term disaster.  I mentioned AMOC briefly in my own submission, supporting what you say 

15. A collapse of AMOC would drive the Gulf Stream south towards, or perhaps beyond, the Iberian peninsula. The consequence for the UK would be extended Siberian winters and hotter summers. The transition to this new climate could plausibly occur within a decade of the AMOC slowing sufficiently to keep* the Gulf Stream on its current northerly path.

I mentioned four tipping points, of which AMOC was one.  However, I chose as my most plausible worst-case near-term disaster the collapse of a major Greenland glacier, triggering the collapse of other glaciers (Arctic and Antarctic) such as to suddenly raise the sea level by a metre before 2050. This would flood London, so the resilient action is to start preparing for a Thames barrage.

I focus on prevention, since it is the logical thing to do in the circumstance: reducing the need for resilience, not only for the UK but the EU and a host of other populations (hence the possiblity for the collaboration required for SAI deployment).  Resilience of the kind you demand seems quite impossible after reading your thesis!  This makes the case for intervention to prevent catastrophic climate change, whereas I was focussed on intervention to prevent catastrophic sea level rise.  

So actually our submissions are remarkably complementary!

Cheers, John

* Didn't you mean slowing sufficiently to deflect the Gulf Stream water from its current path?

[Robert Chris]

Hi John

All good stuff.  Let's see what HoL make of it.

BTW, where does your 0.35^oC/decade warming come from?

Regards

Robert