Radical thinking
Robert Chris
Hi folks
I feel the need to shake things up.
The entire climate change discourse everywhere, including in these groups, is focussed on the global response, albeit that this is then often sliced up into national contributions. The objective of this global response, in the words of the UNFCCC Constitution is to ‘prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’, although when this was written in 1992, it was expected that that could be done by the ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere’.
Since then, emissions have increased by ~70% per year and continue to grow year on year with no sign yet of peaking, greenhouse gas removal (GGR) has been added to the policy mix to bolster efforts to stabilise atmospheric GHGs, although no significant GGR has yet been done and the amount now required suggests that it is implausible for it to be scaled quickly enough to have the climate impact necessary to avert the dangers from anthropogenic interference in the climate system. Albedo enhancement (AE) offers real potential to deliver the UNFCCC objective but it is not on the international political agenda and has been routinely dismissed by IPCC and many influential NGOs. The paradigm shift required for AE to emerge as a realistic policy option is not in sight and probably requires even more severe ravages from climate change before it becomes so, ravages that might happen until the situation is irretrievable.
Each day more bad climate change news confronts us. Whether it’s new climate records or new science showing that the climate is even more fragile than previously thought, there is no escaping from a sense that we continue to be moving backwards, that climate change is advancing faster than we are. At what point do we ask ourselves, what if we can’t stop this, what do we do then? I’d like to ask that question now.
To keep this brief, I’ll make several convenient assumptions. The scenarios I’m considering are those where systemic collapses have begun seriously to disrupt human lives. I’ll leave it to you fill in the blanks but broadly speaking, BAU has become impossible. Supply chains are broken. Large areas of previously inhabited land are uninhabitable. Crops failures are widespread. Starvation, migration, drought, pestilence and armed conflict are rife. Global trade ceases to be able to sustain economic activity at anything like earlier levels. Developing nations are stricken by collapse of their already fragile internal socio-political systems. Developed countries are just beginning to understand how little resilience they have when critical resources are denied them.
Are we not approaching the time when we have seriously to contemplate these scenarios? I think so. It is much easier to predict the vulnerability to collapse of a house of cards but much more difficult to predict when it’ll collapse, and even more difficult to predict precisely how the cards will fall when it does. The way to minimise risk is in advance to build as much resilience into the system as possible. In scenarios where the established geopolitical structures and global supply chains can no longer be relied upon, it will be necessary to look closer to home to fulfil people’s needs.
This is the world of autarky. Is it time for our governments to start preparing for autarky by building up internal systems that are as independent as possible of imported resources and as robust as possible against attempts by others to steal our local resources? In many situations autarkies could be formed with friendly neighbouring states; the EU could be a paradigmatic example. These local agglomerations would have a wider range of local resources making it easier to be self-sufficient.
The sooner we prepare for that brave new world, the less our fellow and future citizens will suffer.
This might not be the version of a healthy planet we were hoping for, but if it’s the best we can get, should we start giving it some thought? Pursuing this might also be a wake up call for the laggards.
Robert
Clive Elsworth
Robert
Increased 70% per year? That seems a lot.
But I think you’re right about problems around the corner. I saw today that Russia is trying to induce famine in Ukraine by destroying their grain export facilities. Food insecurity tends to provoke conflict, so higher grain prices elsewhere will likely cause additional trouble.
It appears we don’t even need a worsening climate for the global situation to deteriorate.
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/9ae046f1-2dfb-0065-ab27-f96dad2fa774%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Sev Clarke
Ye Tao
Hi Clive,
Destroying grain EXPORT facilities does not seem like a logical
way to induce famine domestically; would probably lead to a
deflation of food prices in Ukraine due to surplus supply there.
Just saying...it might be helpful to watch alternative media and
analysts, including Jeff Sachs and Douglas Macgregor.
Ye
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0b5901d9c195%24760b9a20%246222ce60%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.
Robert Chris
I’ve had a couple of responses to my Radical thinking message. They both refer to new technologies that are thought to have great potential. This rather misses the point I was trying to make and suggests that I wasn’t making it sufficiently clearly. Let me try again.
Responses to climate change are demonstrably
failing. It has to be at
least plausible that they
will continue to be inadequate in which event, within a few
decades, the
depredations from climate change will have continued to
accelerate to the point
where it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to
maintain anything that remotely
looks like the lives we currently consider to be ‘normal’. Water and food supply
disruptions will lead
to cascading socio-political challenges that will begin slowly
but gather pace
with time. Security
issues will greatly
limit international trade in basic commodities, including fossil
fuels. People in their
millions will die prematurely. Over
a few generations, the global population
will nosedive. This will
have profound
and destabilising economic consequences that will automatically
deliver massive
reductions in emissions. Atmospheric GHG wil begin to fall by
natural processes, but there'll still be a lot of accumulated
extra energy in the climate system while it re-equilibrates.
That extra energy will continue melting ice, destroying
habitats, causing floods and droughts and heatwaves.
Interventions to slow down or reverse climate change will have become irrelevant long before then, nor are they relevant now when considering how best to prepare for this scenario. The reason is quite simply that any climatically significant intervention has to be undertaken at a scale and urgency both of which will increase with the escalating impacts of climate change. The central point about this scenario is that the same structural weaknesses that have prevented effective action to date, will continue to prevent effective action in the future, so it doesn’t matter how many brilliant geoengineering ideas are available, this scenario is one in which axiomatically they won’t get developed or deployed.
This is a world in which mitigation reverts to its original meaning – lessening the harmful effects of climate change, as opposed to attempting to stop or slow the climate changes that are causing them. These effects will be felt locally because that’s where real people live – in their local communities.
What I am asking you to consider is how best communities can prepare for that world. My guess is that the longer communities spend preparing, the better prepared they’ll be, and the better prepared, the more likely they are to survive. This is a transitional world where the objective is to survive the chaos until a new equilibrium is established. I am increasingly confident that this is the world my grandchildren will be living in.
This is just a scenario. There are many other scenarios examined in the many IPCC reports. There is also a 'climate restoration scenario' in which we bring warming back below 1C. It’s a judgment call as to which scenarios we should be investing resources in preparing for. I’ll leave you with this quote:
[R]ather than
seeking strategies
that are optimal for some set of expectations about the
long-term future, this
approach seeks near-term strategies that are robust—i.e., that
perform
reasonably well compared to the alternatives across a wide range
of plausible scenarios
evaluated using the many value systems held by different parties
to the decision.
In practice, robust strategies are often adaptive; that is, they
evolve over
time in response to new information. Adaptivity is central to
the notion that,
when policymakers consider the long term, they seek to shape the
options
available to future generations. (Lempert et al., Shaping
the next one hundred years RAND Corporation, 2003)
And this question: Is
the future scenario I’m describing sufficiently implausible that
we don’t need
to bother having a strategy for it? Or is it so far into the
future that we don't care that we don't have strategy for it?
Robert
Locally is where things have started to happen. Slide shows a floating mirror prototype made from discarded PET bottles. Currently it requires 5kWh of electrical energy for the process. Dedicated processing facilities would reduce manufacturing energy by orders of magnitude. This could be achieved if bottles were made such that they joined together like LEGO pieces, obviating the need for PET shrinking and HDPE melting processes that consume the 5kWh.
With the current, prototype scale process, CROI reaches 1,000 threshold in about a year of deployment in this region of West Africa.
John Nissen
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/D44AD89C-5DFA-4311-A2EA-E17D6CA1E433%40icloud.com.
Robert Chris
Hi John
I am absolutely not a defeatist. And I am also not a magical thinker. I have no way to predict the future and few people thirty or so years ago did a very good job at predicting where we are today in climate or even climate policy terms. It isn't defeatist to contemplate failure, it's prudent. The notion that we will get this sorted because the alternative is unthinkable is just another form of denial.
My mantra is that the greatest surprise of all would be a future with no surprises. The nature of surprise is that it isn't foreseen. The nature of prudent planning is that you create maximum resilience even for the unpredictable.
If you put all your efforts into pursuing the optimal policy for the most desired future, how do you cope when the future turns out differently, as it always does?
This is not an argument for not doing all the things we talk about to cool the planet. It is an argument that that's not all we should be doing.
All that said, you are right that I do think we will fail to halt and reverse global warming. That is not a prediction. It's my judgement based on the available evidence. Like you, I hope I'm wrong. Unlike you, I fear I might be right and I'd get some comfort from knowing that people were also preparing for that eventuality. This is routine risk management. It's about building redundancy into the system so that as bits of the system fail, alternative pathways are immediately ready to pick up the slack. That's how prudent managers keep complex mission critical systems running 24/7. We do it routinely for telecommunications, for banking, for military preparedness and many other applications. But humanity has never been called on to do it collectively at global scale. We're being tested. And we're being tested in an economic and political context in which redundancy in public services is regarded as wasted resource and is to be stripped out wherever it is found. But less redundancy = less resilience. A major socio-economic paradigm shift is needed and history suggests that that rarely happens until the vested interests' vested interests have been sufficiently undermined for their efforts to cling on to what they have, to be overwhelmed by the forces of change. I don't see that happening yet, at least not at sufficient pace. And if that's not tough enough in an anarchic geopolitical world, the physical and behavioural changes needed in almost every aspect of everyone's lives will be extraordinarily difficult to deliver at the speed and scale necessary. Ditto, geoengineering in whatever form it takes.
It isn't defeatist to recognise the nature of the problem you're facing. However, it is naive to imagine that the problem is amenable to a technological fix. Technology has a vital role, but it is far from being sufficient.
Finally, I want to disagree fundamentally
with the idea that being realistic about our predicament and
embracing the possibility of failure is a self-fulfilling
prophecy. This may be your opinion, to which you are obviously
entitled, but my view is that open
discussions, rather than just scare-mongering, about what
failure really looks like is more
likely to jolt people into realising how serious the problem is,
and spur them to action.
Robert
Herman Gyr
On Jul 29, 2023, at 7:22 AM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
I’ve had a couple of responses to my Radical thinking message. They both refer to new technologies that are thought to have great potential. This rather misses the point I was trying to make and suggests that I wasn’t making it sufficiently clearly. Let me try again.
Responses to climate change are demonstrably failing. It has to be at least plausible that they will continue to be inadequate in which event, within a few decades, the depredations from climate change will have continued to accelerate to the point where it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to maintain anything that remotely looks like the lives we currently consider to be ‘normal’. Water and food supply disruptions will lead to cascading socio-political challenges that will begin slowly but gather pace with time. Security issues will greatly limit international trade in basic commodities, including fossil fuels. People in their millions will die prematurely. Over a few generations, the global population will nosedive. This will have profound and destabilising economic consequences that will automatically deliver massive reductions in emissions. Atmospheric GHG wil begin to fall by natural processes, but there'll still be a lot of accumulated extra energy in the climate system while it re-equilibrates. That extra energy will continue melting ice, destroying habitats, causing floods and droughts and heatwaves.
Interventions to slow down or reverse climate change will have become irrelevant long before then, nor are they relevant now when considering how best to prepare for this scenario. The reason is quite simply that any climatically significant intervention has to be undertaken at a scale and urgency both of which will increase with the escalating impacts of climate change. The central point about this scenario is that the same structural weaknesses that have prevented effective action to date, will continue to prevent effective action in the future, so it doesn’t matter how many brilliant geoengineering ideas are available, this scenario is one in which axiomatically they won’t get developed or deployed.
This is a world in which mitigation reverts to its original meaning – lessening the harmful effects of climate change, as opposed to attempting to stop or slow the climate changes that are causing them. These effects will be felt locally because that’s where real people live – in their local communities.
What I am asking you to consider is how best communities can prepare for that world. My guess is that the longer communities spend preparing, the better prepared they’ll be, and the better prepared, the more likely they are to survive. This is a transitional world where the objective is to survive the chaos until a new equilibrium is established. I am increasingly confident that this is the world my grandchildren will be living in.
This is just a scenario. There are many other scenarios examined in the many IPCC reports. There is also a 'climate restoration scenario' in which we bring warming back below 1C. It’s a judgment call as to which scenarios we should be investing resources in preparing for. I’ll leave you with this quote:
[R]ather than seeking strategies that are optimal for some set of expectations about the long-term future, this approach seeks near-term strategies that are robust—i.e., that perform reasonably well compared to the alternatives across a wide range of plausible scenarios evaluated using the many value systems held by different parties to the decision. In practice, robust strategies are often adaptive; that is, they evolve over time in response to new information. Adaptivity is central to the notion that, when policymakers consider the long term, they seek to shape the options available to future generations. (Lempert et al., Shaping the next one hundred years RAND Corporation, 2003)
And this question: Is the future scenario I’m describing sufficiently implausible that we don’t need to bother having a strategy for it? Or is it so far into the future that we don't care that we don't have strategy for it?
RegardsRobert
On 29/07/2023 12:59, Ye Tao wrote:
Locally is where things have started to happen. Slide shows a floating mirror prototype made from discarded PET bottles. Currently it requires 5kWh of electrical energy for the process. Dedicated processing facilities would reduce manufacturing energy by orders of magnitude. This could be achieved if bottles were made such that they joined together like LEGO pieces, obviating the need for PET shrinking and HDPE melting processes that consume the 5kWh.
With the current, prototype scale process, CROI reaches 1,000 threshold in about a year of deployment in this region of West Africa.
<tHPfutSIFmP8dpgg.png>
On 7/28/2023 4:40 PM, Robert Chris wrote:
Hi folks
I feel the need to shake things up.
The entire climate change discourse everywhere, including in these groups, is focussed on the global response, albeit that this is then often sliced up into national contributions. The objective of this global response, in the words of the UNFCCC Constitution is to ‘prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’, although when this was written in 1992, it was expected that that could be done by the ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere’.
Since then, emissions have increased by ~70% per year and continue to grow year on year with no sign yet of peaking, greenhouse gas removal (GGR) has been added to the policy mix to bolster efforts to stabilise atmospheric GHGs, although no significant GGR has yet been done and the amount now required suggests that it is implausible for it to be scaled quickly enough to have the climate impact necessary to avert the dangers from anthropogenic interference in the climate system. Albedo enhancement (AE) offers real potential to deliver the UNFCCC objective but it is not on the international political agenda and has been routinely dismissed by IPCC and many influential NGOs. The paradigm shift required for AE to emerge as a realistic policy option is not in sight and probably requires even more severe ravages from climate change before it becomes so, ravages that might happen until the situation is irretrievable.
Each day more bad climate change news confronts us. Whether it’s new climate records or new science showing that the climate is even more fragile than previously thought, there is no escaping from a sense that we continue to be moving backwards, that climate change is advancing faster than we are. At what point do we ask ourselves, what if we can’t stop this, what do we do then? I’d like to ask that question now.
To keep this brief, I’ll make several convenient assumptions. The scenarios I’m considering are those where systemic collapses have begun seriously to disrupt human lives. I’ll leave it to you fill in the blanks but broadly speaking, BAU has become impossible. Supply chains are broken. Large areas of previously inhabited land are uninhabitable. Crops failures are widespread. Starvation, migration, drought, pestilence and armed conflict are rife. Global trade ceases to be able to sustain economic activity at anything like earlier levels. Developing nations are stricken by collapse of their already fragile internal socio-political systems. Developed countries are just beginning to understand how little resilience they have when critical resources are denied them.
Are we not approaching the time when we have seriously to contemplate these scenarios? I think so. It is much easier to predict the vulnerability to collapse of a house of cards but much more difficult to predict when it’ll collapse, and even more difficult to predict precisely how the cards will fall when it does. The way to minimise risk is in advance to build as much resilience into the system as possible. In scenarios where the established geopolitical structures and global supply chains can no longer be relied upon, it will be necessary to look closer to home to fulfil people’s needs.
This is the world of autarky. Is it time for our governments to start preparing for autarky by building up internal systems that are as independent as possible of imported resources and as robust as possible against attempts by others to steal our local resources? In many situations autarkies could be formed with friendly neighbouring states; the EU could be a paradigmatic example. These local agglomerations would have a wider range of local resources making it easier to be self-sufficient.
The sooner we prepare for that brave new world, the less our fellow and future citizens will suffer.
This might not be the version of a healthy planet we were hoping for, but if it’s the best we can get, should we start giving it some thought? Pursuing this might also be a wake up call for the laggards.
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/9ae046f1-2dfb-0065-ab27-f96dad2fa774%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/81308d86-e03f-6b93-75ab-e59f19c00550%40gmail.com.
Anderson, Paul
To John first and then a reply to Robert:
John wrote two points:
A. “Robert, you claim to be a realist but actually you are a defeatist. You think that we will inevitably fail to halt and reverse global warming, and we should tell our leaders so.”
PSA: It is not that we will inevitably fail, but that we HAVE ALREADY FAILED because we are the cause of our current situation. AND WE CONTINUE FAILING as a species (or global population) by making things worse while congratulating ourselves on small and insufficient “successes”. And a leader who will say such thoughts will not be an elected leader very long.
B. [John wrote:] “That would be a self-fulfilling prophesy. It's never too late to try: we owe it to our children and grandchildren.”
PSA: Agreed, it is never too late to try. And our grandchildren will say that also as they try under horrible conditions (famine, water shortages, rising sea level, wars, economic collapse, etc.) while looking back at our current times and pointing out how the generations alive today truly FAILED. And their grandchildren (3 to 4 generations from ours) could be saying the same thing about them. FAILED in the past will be the norm while those alive keep trying to survive. SOME will survive, but they will have lives unrecognizable unless compared with impoverished subsistence farmers of the 1800s or earlier lifestyles in harsh environments. Imagine no rock concerts, no professional sports, no easy transportation when and where you want it, no industrially produced “essentials” on shelves in stores that no longer exist to cater to our every desire. Education will decline.
That brings me to Robert’s two good questions, but in reverse order:
2. “Or is it [the bleak future] so far into the future that we don't care that we don't have strategy for it?”
PSA: We do need to care, but we should note that humans know and personally care about 5 generations only, with themselves in the middle. Great grandchildren and great grandparents are rather remote to our lives. And the great-greats are beyond our experience. I cannot realistically imagine the conditions of the surviving humans in the year 2150. They will be trying to not fail at their efforts for survival. Somehow we (collectively all of society) need to care now about having the best strategy, but our collective society is so fragmented that it just keeps failing.
Robert’s other question:
1. “Is the future scenario I’m describing sufficiently implausible that we don’t need to bother having a strategy for it?”
PSA: We must work for a full solution, not for small ways to protect our loved ones in the highly unknown future. Money in the bank will not assure protection / survival. Moving poleward will not assure survival. Nor will building bunkers with food supplies and defensive weapons be useful. We must focus on avoiding / preventing what is coming if we do not act..
Rephrasing the question: What could we do now to help those future generations who will face what is so likely to come because the planet is getting too hot to have sustainability of desired lifestyles? Short response: Be MUCH MORE RADICAL. And blast apart the “moral hazard” roadblock /argument that is used to stifle alternative thinking. We need experimentation NOW for the various types of albedo enhancement. Not crazy mass deployment, but serious pilot efforts.
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: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2023 9:55 AM
To: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Shaun Fitzgerald <sd...@cam.ac.uk>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>; Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Radical thinking
|
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/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxoAVkzsS0PAaXFsMR97z0EkPo0OCC8xN-nL8qaJ2_zsow%40mail.gmail.com.
John Nissen
- global warming is much more dangerous than had been realised;
- global warming and climate change could be reversed with a determined effort;
- reversal may take time and may not be entirely successful, so society will still have to prepare for continued warming, climate change and sea level rise, together with the disruption that these will cause (as Robert points out).
Clive Elsworth
The question for me is: can we bear to discuss and learn the relevant technical subjects that are currently unfamiliar to us?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/SA2PR03MB5932C1187F7F0528C09D09C9DB07A%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.
rob...@rtulip.net
RC: on your point that “the same structural weaknesses that have prevented effective action to date, will continue to prevent effective action”.
That is far from likely. Capitalism is motivated by profit. Its leading thinkers can rapidly come to the view that a stable climate is needed for trade security and social licence to operate, and therefore we need solar geoengineering. This simple message has not been articulated with enough clarity, due to the confusion produced by the assumption that cutting emissions is the main climate agenda.
Rather than “structural weaknesses”, the main blockage is ideological ignorance, which can readily dissolve when confronted with compelling facts.
Rather than dwell on negativity, constructive faith in the ability to create a viable future should be the psychological focus as a basis for hope and organisation.
As Buckminster Fuller said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Regards
Robert Tulip
From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Robert Chris
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 1:42 AM
To: John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Shaun Fitzgerald <sd...@cam.ac.uk>; Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>; Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
--
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/a334b99b-fabb-cee6-3c7e-a12b3127d7dd%40gmail.com.
Robert Chris
Hi Robert
Of course, ideological ignorance is a
plausible explanation for the historical blockage. It isn't an
explanation that I find convincing. There's plenty of research
that shows that, at least in our private behaviours, knowledge
that those behaviours might cause us harm is not a sufficient
driver for those behaviours to be abandoned, if we also consider
that they offer us benefits that we'd be reluctant to
sacrifice. The behaviour of the fossil fuel sector over the
last several decades is precisely that being played out in the
public domain. There is simply no way you can argue that the
key players were ignorant of the basic science over that
period. This is the so-called information deficit model - see here
for a paper on its application to climate change.
I also fundamentally disagree that the blockages are not structural. It's past midnight and this is too big a question to explain in detail here, but suffice to say that our current predicament is not the result of one or two bad actors, it's a systemic feature of capitalism that has been supercharged by the Reagan/Thatcher turn to more or less global neoliberalism.
I am also deeply disappointed by your and others' claims that I am 'dwelling on negativity'. I am all for exhorting the troops to fight to win, but any good general will also be reflecting on what might go wrong. The failure to do that means that when things don't turn out as you'd like, as they so often don't, you're totally unprepared for what you are then confronting. I regard a failure to reflect on the negative to be nothing short of reckless. A maxim to live by is that when faced with choices with uncertain outcomes, so long as you can cope with the downside, you can let the upside look after itself. That requires you to think about what could go wrong and make sure you know how you'll handle it.
Buckminster Fuller's remark is one of those
clever constructions that sounds good but has little substance,
and what substance it has is not relevant to devising and
implementing effective global scale responses to climate
change. If, on the other hand, you feel it has a profound
message, the old model that needs replacing is capitalism, at
east in its current form. I look forward to hearing how you
propose to render that obsolete on a climate-relevant timescale.
Robert
Herman Gyr
he clothed himself in sackcloth and put ashes on his head. This act was only permitted to someone lamenting the loss of his dear child or his wife. Clothed in the habit of truth, acting sorrowful, he went back to the city, intent on using to his advantage the curiosity, malignity and superstition of its people. Within a short time, he had gathered around him a small crowd, and the questions began to surface. He was asked if someone was dead and who the dead person was. Noah answered them that many were dead and, much to the amusement of those who were listening, that they themselves were dead. Asked when this catastrophe had taken place, he answered: tomorrow. Seizing this moment of attention and disarray, Noah stood up to his full height and began to speak: the day after tomorrow, the flood will be something that will have been. And when the flood will have been, all that is will never have existed. When the flood will have carried away all that is, all that will have been, it will be too late to remember, for there will be no one left. So there will no longer be any difference between the dead and those who weep for them. If I have come before you, it is to reverse time, it is to weep today for tomorrow's dead. The day after tomorrow, it will be too late. Upon this, he went back home, took his clothes off, removed the ashes covering his face, and went to his workshop. In the evening, a carpenter knocked on his door and said to him: let me help you build an ark, so that this may become false. Later, a roofer joined with them and said: it is raining over the mountains, let me help you, so that this may become false.1 |
The whole quandary of someone who predicts catastrophe, as well as the ingenious way of getting out of one's predicament, is inscribed in this magnificent parable. The prophet of doom is not heard because his word, even if it brings knowledge and information, does not fit with the beliefs of those to whom it is addressed. It is often said that if we fail to act in the face of catastrophe it is because our knowledge is uncertain. Yet, even when we know something for sure, we are unable to believe what we know. As to the existence and consequences of global warming, scientists have known where things stand for over twenty-five years and have told us so. They are preaching in the desert. Their predictions are doubtless tainted with considerable uncertainty, but that is not the reason why we do not budge.”
https://www.wisdomportal.com/ReneGirard/MourningTheFuture.htmlTo view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/b6066adf-9063-48b8-4946-1923ec70d979%40gmail.com.
rob...@rtulip.net
RC: please let me clarify. It is arguable that not only the oil companies but also the IPCC have been “ignorant of the basic science over that period.”
The “basic science” is not just the anthropogenic causes of global warming, which are of course well known by massive consensus. It also includes the far more controversial and difficult topics of the economics, sociology and engineering needed to assess response scenarios that could achieve desired results. On that score, the deliberate exclusion of albedo enhancement has grossly distorted the consensus view of basic science, producing the false conclusion at COP27 that emissions must halve by 2030 to stay below 1.5°C.
Climate Action Tracker produced a range of scenarios for COP27, all fully informed by consensus science, and assuming no action to increase albedo in their 1.5°C compliant paths. They are shown in the graph I have made below. What they reveal is that the most likely scenario, extrapolating current trends, termed “Policies and Actions – High”, would not see CO2e fall below 50 Gt/y until 2085, six decades away. What is most likely without action on albedo is that the world will continue on this dangerous trajectory until political and economic collapse force a revision. The CAT “optimistic” scenario would require massive expensive difficult and risky economic and social transformation against strong opposition, and still would see GHGs rising at half the current dangerous rate in 2050. It is generally recognised that the “pledges and targets” scenarios are a pack of lies and spin based on electoral calculations rather than any practical plans.
As you have observed, just knowing the cause of global warming does not inspire vested interests to reform, much as was noted in your recent conversation about the causes of the end of whaling. The “ideological ignorance” is not about carbon, it is about albedo. There certainly are structural economic barriers to action on carbon, but the only barriers to action on albedo are in people’s minds.
The gap to stay below 1.5 can only be filled with solar geoengineering. This is basic science. Action on carbon will take a much longer than the UN is suggesting.
The “old model that needs replacing” is not capitalism, it is the sclerotic IPCC consensus that excludes action on albedo. A focus on establishing an International Albedo Union to assess how we can best brighten the planet presents an optimistic pathway that can dissolve the political blockages in a cooperative and constructive and effective scientific way.
Regards
Robert Tulip
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/b6066adf-9063-48b8-4946-1923ec70d979%40gmail.com.
Ye Tao
Roberts, no need to argue when you are talking about different
timescales. Disposing of capitalism is analogous to reducing
atmospheric CO2; both are essential for long-term survival (beyond
2100), but neither can possibly be achieved in this universe given
its basical physical laws and emergent ones governing societal
function.
Let's instead focus on making sure that we educate people and
governments about the efficacy and co-benefits of local solar
radiation optimization. Even for advocates of SAI, your best bet
to get people and governments to accept SRM as a viable policy
alternative is through successful MEER projects.
YE
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/03c601d9c2a2%248b90e680%24a2b2b380%24%40rtulip.net.
Ye Tao
I need to specify "neither can possibly be achieved" within the
next years, which seal our fate.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0ca7a4de-1173-cf9a-a516-daf027aa4057%40rowland.harvard.edu.
Robert Chris
Well said, Ye. I've awoken this morning to RobertT's clarification and came to the exact same conclusion. Albedo enhancement is a necessary sticking plaster, or perhaps tourniquet would be a better metaphor. There is no doubt that in the short term it is needed to keep the patient alive. But, in the longer term the underlying cause of human influence on the climate system has to be moderated. I don't envisage a time when humans will be able actively to manage the entire climate system by engineering out the accumulating emissions from unending economic growth. Albedo enhancement cannot be a permanent panacea to offset the impact of those emissions.
The policy question that needs to be answered is how AE and continuing emissions work together to determine the future rate of warming and then, hopefully, cooling. The time difference in their surface cooling impacts and the regional climate impacts of a climatically significant amount of AE, make this a non-trivial question. We need to be aware that when we talk about 1.5C or 2C or more of warming, and corresponding amounts of cooling, we're talking in terms of global 24 hour averages. Those averages might be well constrained but that doesn't mean that local weather patterns will be, and it is local weather patterns that determine habitat, human experience and agricultural yields. So yes, AE is necessary in the short term but we should not lose sight of the fact that for AE to cool the planet sufficiently, it will need to be supported by a whole stack of other social policy interventions to maintain human health and economic well-being. That immediately takes us back into the domain of economic policy and geopolitics which have been the source of the continuing blockages in climate policy, and maybe a reason why that continues.
A further consideration is that if, as we
agree, smoothing off the environmentally unacceptable rough
edges of capitalism is a long term project, the sooner it starts
the better. To argue that the impact of such changes will occur
only after several decades so we don't need to worry about them
now, is to do what we've been doing with climate policy for
decades, pushing the problem and its costs onto the shoulders of
future generations. That reopens the moral debate abut each
generation's responsibility for planetary stewardship.
The bottom line for me is that all these
issues are intertwined in a complex web. While policy response
are generally focussed on one issue, we need simultaneous policy
responses across the board. We have to approach these questions
in parallel not serially. Our determination to get AE onto the
agenda should not be at the expense of maintaining pressure on
emissions.
Robert
Robert Chris
Hi Ye
I hadn't seen this addendum before I sent my reply to your earlier email.
If you can state so categorically that
neither (significant AE cooling and significant changes to
capitalism's environmental impact) can possibly be
achieved within the next years, which seal our fate, What is that
fate? Is this the defeatism that I was charged with? What should
we be doing now to lessen the rigours of that forthcoming fate for
as many people and other life forms that we can?
Robert
Ye Tao
Hi Robert C, you are not defeatist; you were simply providing projection based on empirically observed past data. AE cooling most certainly can be achieved in time. I was saying that CO2 reduction cannot.
Top-down disposal of capitalism is unlikely without a global war that destroys the industrial base necessary for any form of AE cooling. Our hope lies in the bottom-up creation of coops, worker-owned social businesses, catering to life essentials, and preserving the supply chains necessary for AE. Hopefully the bottom-up transition happens in large-enough numbers and rather rapidly to keep economic functions as the power of the ultra rich wane together with global total energy consumption.
Ye
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/b8eefea1-69ba-1c3c-99f8-18db243a34ec%40gmail.com.
Robert Chris
Hi Ye, I'm glad that you think that cooling can be 'delivered in time'. Can you say a little more about the undesirable future you want cooling to be in time to avoid?
I'd also be interested in your views on my
concerns about our focus on global average metrics obscuring
impacts on lived experience that may still be seriously
disrupted, and how this should inform our approach to cooling.
Robert
Ye Tao
Hi Robert C,
Well, the 'undesirable future' would involve everything you
enumerated before: supply chain collapse, loss of homes and
habitat, famine, diseases, unmanageable migration, conflict, etc.
These are ongoing processes that will increasingly dominate the
local news in the coming decade.
Global average resembles nothing that people are experiencing on
the ground. There are regions experience cooling, and there are
regions where excess rain is the issue, not warming or drought.
Climate impacts are thus functions of location and time. That is
why we need to enable diverse, fast-on-off local responses with a
versatile tool kit. If COVID-enabled weather and climate studies
taught us anything, it is that that GHG mitigation delivers no
local benefits beyond cleaner air; it exacerbates extreme heat,
drought, and flood without AE. SAI also cannot deliver
customized local responses, too slow to respond to extreme events,
and thwarts local attempts to become energy self-sufficient. So
it is up to MEER, MCB, and perhaps large-scale sea-ice restoration
to populate the diverse tool kit.
Spacial heterogeneity extends to regional scales, making it important to coordinate and focusing available global resources on key regions like the Arctic and glaciers where impact are already advanced, and consequences of further exacerbation, deadly. That is why I think one of the most important discussion currently ongoing is the potential for sea-ice restoration.
Ye
rob de laet
Ye Tao
Hi Rob,
1) That Sir David King correctly points out the biological
potential of the ocean does not lead, as a logical conclusion, to
that ecosystem stressed by current and intensifying anthropogenic
drive can reverse its downward trend without anthropogenic
assistance. On the contrary, a total stop to human activities
would most certainly bring about a rapid increase in EEI, doubling
down on what we have witnessed since 2020 lockdowns and maritime
fuel regulations.
2) "Humans have reduced living biomass on the planet roughly by half, from 1100 Gt to 550 Gt" does not seem correct. For the simple fact that primary production has been providing partial, order 1 Gton/year carbon sequestration as an ecosystem service, suggest an increase in total living biomass. There certainly seems to be a roughly halfing of vertebrate biomass, but most of the biomass is not animals. Please point me to the relevant references so I can learn more.
3) Left alone, total land surface area suitable for reforestation via agricultural abandonment will shrink due to intensifying drought and fire.
Ye
Robert Chris
Ye, am I confusing something here, I seem to
recall that primary production is of the order of 100GtC/yr, not
1GtC/yr? Or was that a typo?
Robert
Tom Goreau
Rob is right, we’ve destroyed about half the biomass in the world, but obviously there are no good pre-human measurements. It is true that there is a small increase in global biomass at this time, largely because of reforestation of abandoned agricultural lands in Europe, and North America.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/af2f11e2-15d5-70b5-9b7e-7ba82e56e010%40rowland.harvard.edu.
Ye Tao
Hi Robert,
I am talking about NET flux. The total land sequestration flux
is about 3 Gton carbon per year. I don't know how that divide
into living biomass vs detritus. I think order 1GtC/yr going
into living biomass is a good guesstimate.
Seems many are confused, apparently. I bet Peter F's proposed 50
Gton per year OIF drawdown rate is from assuming that
respiration, which is also order 100GtC/yr, would magically stop
working.
Ye
Robert Chris
Got it! I misread what you'd written. I
now see that you were talking about 1GtC/yr of carbon sequestration,
not 1GtC/yr of C drawdown from primary production.
Robert
Ye Tao
Hi Tom,
A doubling compared to current biomass is a lot of mass! Is that
based on the assumption that current agricultural land were mostly
forested at carbon densities comparable to or above the current
global average? To me it feels on the larger side since only 1/3
of land surface area has been converted, and total ocean biomass
perturbation is likely proportionally smaller.
Any papers to suggest?
Thanks
Ye
H simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
Tom Goreau
There are dozens of books and papers on the subject (don’t have handy here), that have estimated the loss of biomass from very different points of view.
Bill Ruddiman’s books are the best introduction to how land use changes affect the atmosphere, which came from studying deep sea sediment cores.
On top of that you need to remember that we have lost about half the soil carbon wherever forests have been converted to farmland or pasture land, and soil has 2-6 or so times more carbon than biomass!
Almost all grasslands were once forests whose recovery was prevented by systematic re-burning to “manage” wildlife.
In particular we’ve destroyed around half the wetlands, whose soil carbon is richest.
To get a grasp of historic changes in forest biomass everywhere you have to compare the very first accurate descriptions with the second, because the second described a landscape already largely destroyed or well on the way.
And in some places, such as Europe or China, the first written descriptions are way too late; who documented the great forests that covered most of Europe or China before they were burned down, long before Plato’s time when they were only a folk myth marked by dried up springs, whose goddesses had lost their homes?
For example the world’s richest soil, the Chernozem (“black earth”) of the Ukraine, the world’s richest soil, is black with biochar from the ashes of a vast forest whose memory is lost.
But we can infer a lot of that prehistory by integrating the right marine and lake sediment records, a vast field of interdisciplinary field of its own.
Tom Goreau
Here’s a 30 kilometer long reflective paradise of greenhouses in Almeria, Andalusia, Spain:
From:
planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 10:33 AM
To: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>, healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, Shaun
Fitzgerald <sd...@cam.ac.uk>, Sir David King <d...@camkas.co.uk>, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [prag] Re: Radical thinking
--
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/89D1C2A7-754B-43A7-AFE5-576B598CF828%40gmail.com.
Ye Tao
Thanks! I will check out Ruddiman's work.
The soil part would make sense if we are talking about total
terrestrial surface carbon loss: biomass+soil organic carbon.
Given a 0.3-0.4
tonC/hectare-year soil accumulation rate, scaling to global
reforestation by banning agriculture would provide 1-2 GtonC/year
global soil carbon sequestration rate (5E9 hectare of agricultural
land). The Anthropogenic problem of CO2(atm) is one which nature
would require centuries to solve, long after the perpetrators will
have died out.
Ye
Ye Tao
Hi Herb,
This inadvertent field experiment offers tantalizing hints that it may be possible to build local oasis that remain agriculturally productive even as sounding land masses 'Venusiforms. I think our closest shot at eventually "colonizing Mars" would be to race towards preserving as many and as large as possible of these local oasis, and attempt to merge them by lateral expansion in an actual Terra(re)forming program.
I was not able to find in situ temperature time series of the
inadvertent experiment and was not able to reach the lead author
on some of the publications. That is why we are hoping to setup a
hectare scale experiment in the near future to more rigorously
compare before and after air temperatures at 3 vertical heights
and on the order of 100 locations within and outside of the
perturbation area.
Ye
--
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/89D1C2A7-754B-43A7-AFE5-576B598CF828%40gmail.com.
rob de laet
Ye Tao
Hi Rob
1) totally agree with the need to transition to an regenerative
agriculture-focused civilization. But that transition would prove
impossible without local solar radiation optimization.
2) It is wrong to cite and consider the 120 Gton primary production in isolation. Until the 117 Gton of respiration could stopped, we are left with 3 GtonC to work with.
3) Micromanagement of small plots of land in one's backyard will have no measurable global impact.
Ye
rob de laet
Ye Tao
If we could mobilize all 8billion to start manage our per capita 0.5 hectare of agricultural land, then humanity would truly have a bright future!
Cheers,
Ye
Ye Tao
Local solar radiation optimization is the most versatile
tool local communities small and large can count on and that they
can maintain on their own in a general decline. What I shared is
an example for protection against drought and heat which are
already causing SHTF situations worldwide.
Ye
I’ve had a couple of responses to my Radical thinking message. They both refer to new technologies that are thought to have great potential. This rather misses the point I was trying to make and suggests that I wasn’t making it sufficiently clearly. Let me try again.
Responses to climate change are demonstrably failing. It has to be at least plausible that they will continue to be inadequate in which event, within a few decades, the depredations from climate change will have continued to accelerate to the point where it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to maintain anything that remotely looks like the lives we currently consider to be ‘normal’. Water and food supply disruptions will lead to cascading socio-political challenges that will begin slowly but gather pace with time. Security issues will greatly limit international trade in basic commodities, including fossil fuels. People in their millions will die prematurely. Over a few generations, the global population will nosedive. This will have profound and destabilising economic consequences that will automatically deliver massive reductions in emissions. Atmospheric GHG wil begin to fall by natural processes, but there'll still be a lot of accumulated extra energy in the climate system while it re-equilibrates. That extra energy will continue melting ice, destroying habitats, causing floods and droughts and heatwaves.
Interventions to slow down or reverse climate change will have become irrelevant long before then, nor are they relevant now when considering how best to prepare for this scenario. The reason is quite simply that any climatically significant intervention has to be undertaken at a scale and urgency both of which will increase with the escalating impacts of climate change. The central point about this scenario is that the same structural weaknesses that have prevented effective action to date, will continue to prevent effective action in the future, so it doesn’t matter how many brilliant geoengineering ideas are available, this scenario is one in which axiomatically they won’t get developed or deployed.
This is a world in which mitigation reverts to its original meaning – lessening the harmful effects of climate change, as opposed to attempting to stop or slow the climate changes that are causing them. These effects will be felt locally because that’s where real people live – in their local communities.
What I am asking you to consider is how best communities can prepare for that world. My guess is that the longer communities spend preparing, the better prepared they’ll be, and the better prepared, the more likely they are to survive. This is a transitional world where the objective is to survive the chaos until a new equilibrium is established. I am increasingly confident that this is the world my grandchildren will be living in.
This is just a scenario. There are many other scenarios examined in the many IPCC reports. There is also a 'climate restoration scenario' in which we bring warming back below 1C. It’s a judgment call as to which scenarios we should be investing resources in preparing for. I’ll leave you with this quote:
[R]ather than seeking strategies that are optimal for some set of expectations about the long-term future, this approach seeks near-term strategies that are robust—i.e., that perform reasonably well compared to the alternatives across a wide range of plausible scenarios evaluated using the many value systems held by different parties to the decision. In practice, robust strategies are often adaptive; that is, they evolve over time in response to new information. Adaptivity is central to the notion that, when policymakers consider the long term, they seek to shape the options available to future generations. (Lempert et al., Shaping the next one hundred years RAND Corporation, 2003)
And this question: Is the future scenario I’m describing sufficiently implausible that we don’t need to bother having a strategy for it? Or is it so far into the future that we don't care that we don't have strategy for it?
RegardsRobert
On 29/07/2023 12:59, Ye Tao wrote:
Locally is where things have started to happen. Slide shows a floating mirror prototype made from discarded PET bottles. Currently it requires 5kWh of electrical energy for the process. Dedicated processing facilities would reduce manufacturing energy by orders of magnitude. This could be achieved if bottles were made such that they joined together like LEGO pieces, obviating the need for PET shrinking and HDPE melting processes that consume the 5kWh.
With the current, prototype scale process, CROI reaches 1,000 threshold in about a year of deployment in this region of West Africa.
On 7/28/2023 4:40 PM, Robert Chris wrote:
Hi folks
I feel the need to shake things up.
The entire climate change discourse everywhere, including in these groups, is focussed on the global response, albeit that this is then often sliced up into national contributions. The objective of this global response, in the words of the UNFCCC Constitution is to ‘prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’, although when this was written in 1992, it was expected that that could be done by the ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere’.
Since then, emissions have increased by ~70% per year and continue to grow year on year with no sign yet of peaking, greenhouse gas removal (GGR) has been added to the policy mix to bolster efforts to stabilise atmospheric GHGs, although no significant GGR has yet been done and the amount now required suggests that it is implausible for it to be scaled quickly enough to have the climate impact necessary to avert the dangers from anthropogenic interference in the climate system. Albedo enhancement (AE) offers real potential to deliver the UNFCCC objective but it is not on the international political agenda and has been routinely dismissed by IPCC and many influential NGOs. The paradigm shift required for AE to emerge as a realistic policy option is not in sight and probably requires even more severe ravages from climate change before it becomes so, ravages that might happen until the situation is irretrievable.
Each day more bad climate change news confronts us. Whether it’s new climate records or new science showing that the climate is even more fragile than previously thought, there is no escaping from a sense that we continue to be moving backwards, that climate change is advancing faster than we are. At what point do we ask ourselves, what if we can’t stop this, what do we do then? I’d like to ask that question now.
To keep this brief, I’ll make several convenient assumptions. The scenarios I’m considering are those where systemic collapses have begun seriously to disrupt human lives. I’ll leave it to you fill in the blanks but broadly speaking, BAU has become impossible. Supply chains are broken. Large areas of previously inhabited land are uninhabitable. Crops failures are widespread. Starvation, migration, drought, pestilence and armed conflict are rife. Global trade ceases to be able to sustain economic activity at anything like earlier levels. Developing nations are stricken by collapse of their already fragile internal socio-political systems. Developed countries are just beginning to understand how little resilience they have when critical resources are denied them.
Are we not approaching the time when we have seriously to contemplate these scenarios? I think so. It is much easier to predict the vulnerability to collapse of a house of cards but much more difficult to predict when it’ll collapse, and even more difficult to predict precisely how the cards will fall when it does. The way to minimise risk is in advance to build as much resilience into the system as possible. In scenarios where the established geopolitical structures and global supply chains can no longer be relied upon, it will be necessary to look closer to home to fulfil people’s needs.
This is the world of autarky. Is it time for our governments to start preparing for autarky by building up internal systems that are as independent as possible of imported resources and as robust as possible against attempts by others to steal our local resources? In many situations autarkies could be formed with friendly neighbouring states; the EU could be a paradigmatic example. These local agglomerations would have a wider range of local resources making it easier to be self-sufficient.
The sooner we prepare for that brave new world, the less our fellow and future citizens will suffer.
This might not be the version of a healthy planet we were hoping for, but if it’s the best we can get, should we start giving it some thought? Pursuing this might also be a wake up call for the laggards.
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/9ae046f1-2dfb-0065-ab27-f96dad2fa774%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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/81308d86-e03f-6b93-75ab-e59f19c00550%40gmail.com.