Climate Hot Takes 2025

[David Spratt]

Climate Hot Takes 2025 A YEAR IN REVIEW: IMPACTS, INSIGHTS, AND ACTION Read the 2025 review

In a year where we saw record-breaking heat, accelerating emissions, and climate impacts arrive faster and harder than even scientists expected, the gap between political rhetoric and physical reality became impossible to ignore. 2025 has made one thing painfully clear: that accelerating warming, tipping risks and policy failure are now colliding at once. In our latest article, Climate Hot Takes, David Spratt reviews a confronting year and cuts through denial and delay to examine what the science actually tells us about where we now stand. He outlines how global emissions and atmospheric CO₂ continue to rise, how the 1.5°C threshold has effectively been crossed far earlier than expected under the Paris Agreement, and why the idea of a gentle “overshoot” followed by recovery is increasingly at odds with the evidence. The article also explores one of the most alarming developments of the year: new research showing the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation may be far closer to collapse than previously believed, with devastating implications for Europe, Africa, and the global climate system. Alongside this, the review examines how weakening carbon sinks, approaching  tipping points, and the ongoing political protection of fossil fuels are pushing us toward a world of 3°C or more of warming — a level that leading scientists now openly describe as incompatible with a civil, organised society.. Finally, Climate Hot Takes looks at how these realities are reshaping once-taboo conversations about restorative responses, climate cooling and Arctic repair even as Australia’s political debate remains dangerously disconnected from the degree of impacts and risk. Read the 2025 review

[John Nissen]

Hi Albert,

The planet's direction of travel is towards further warming, more weather extremes, and accelerated sea level rise.  This means things are going to get worse and worse for humanity unless and until that direction of travel is reversed.  When it is reversed, we have an opportunity for planetary restoration: restoring the planet to a healthy state.  I am optimistic that this goal can be achieved, not in my lifetime but in the lifetime of the younger generations.  A fifty year plan could get us out of this mess by 2075, starting right away with SAI preparation and deployment.

I was talking to you earlier today.  We have all been looking at the CERES satellite data, which shows a decline in the planet's albedo.  We know that the Arctic's albedo is on the decline, having lost the equivalent of 0.5 to 1.0 W/m2 from snow and sea ice decline.  The GHG side only looks at outgoing thermal/IR/longwave radiation; nothing done with GHGs can affect the reflected outgoing visible/shortwave radiation.  Thus our only means for reversing the direction of travel is through SRM.  And the only SRM technique which is safe, available and powerful enough is SAI.

We advocate starting with SAI to refreeze the Arctic.  As you have pointed out to me, past history shows that ice sheets collapse quite suddenly, with avalanches of giant lumps of ice hitting the water at hundreds of miles per hour, generating megatsunamis and raising the sea level.  London and other major conurbations could go under quite suddenly and without warning.

But Pinatubo has shown we can cool the planet quite simply and cheaply through SAI.  Recent research suggests that the cooling can be done quite safely, with relatively small and manageable side-effects.

So what's stopping us?  The people with most power in the climate scene are those engaged in a battle between emissions reduction and "drill, baby, drill".  SRM, solar engineering, albedo enhancement or cooling intervention (call it what you will) is either ignored, or denigrated as a distraction from emissions reduction, or dismissed as an unnecessary risk, or castigated as an evil violation of Mother Nature.  Whatever the reasons people give, they are not facing up to the reality of the climate crisis which requires the implementation of direct cooling. 

Robert (Tulip) is proposing an Albedo Accord, where countries get together in support of rebrightening the planet.  The funding for SAI, at ten or a few tens of billions of dollars per year, could come from a consortium of countries who are particularly vulnerable to weather extremes or sea level rise.  One or more of the major powers could actually deploy the SAI.

You say that the EU has given up on trying to achieve net zero by 2050, with powerful lobbying from one of the car industries not geared up for electric cars. The EU could substitute the lost ambition with an ambition for SAI deployment, which they could probably fund alone, though not implement alone.  This would be a wonderful example to the rest of the world.

So there is hope for the young people of today.

Cheers, John

On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 4:57 PM Veli Albert Kallio <albert...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Plan B on cooling seems to be the option:

Either you reduce emissions, or we'll reduce the people.

Nuclear winter is excellent way of cooling climate and get rid of emissions (and lot of us European and American people).

Just look at this space, in years to come.

Not very encouraging, nothing progressed from those days when people were clubbing each other over access to water hole.

Such a days we are living - if you know anything about military planning.

Monsoon uncertainties in CO2 rich world and ice free Arctic ahead is already tying India and China closer to Russia over Ukraine crisis.

Arab nations angered by inaction to constrain genocidal and war criminal Israel by USA, complex patterns like a kaleidoscope where pieces shift in multiple ways — with more and more calling for revenge (on perceived and real injustice and climate elements).

Nuclear weapons are prefect weapons of revenge, and perfect way for them to cool the Arctic and re-start monsoons.

---

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of robert...@gmail.com <robert...@gmail.com>
Sent: 19 December 2025 16:45
To: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Climate Hot Takes 2025

 

Hi RobertT

I think your comments about SRM being 'the priority' and 'Decarbonisation without CDR is simply not scalable to climate-relevant impact' need a more nuanced presentation.

It's all about timing.  When you say SRM is now 'the priority' what is this intended to mean with regard to decarbonisation?  Is that not an equal priority?  If not, at what point does it become so?  What do you consider to be the political messaging around decarbonisation?  That it can wait until SRM has cooled surface temperature?  If so, to what level?  Are your comments about mCDR to be taken to mean that there's no need to even engage with reducing our dependence on fossil fuels because mCDR is 'far more feasible'?  I'd agree that calling for an end to fossil fuels is not a Realist carbon action (note the capitalisation) but are you also saying that it's not a realistic option?  If so, in what circumstances might it be, if ever?  If you're not calling for total reliance on SRM, how and when do you envisage decarbonisation being folded into the policy mix?  Would it be wrong to read into your remarks that 'drill baby drill' is fine, so long as it's matched with sufficient SRM and mCDR?  Have you modelled what such a policy mix would look like in terms of the amont of SRM and mCDR require to keep warming below 1.5C?

For me, and many others I imagine, a compelling argument along the lines you are proposing needs convincing answers to these questions.

Regards

Robert

On 19/12/2025 16:10, 'Michael MacCracken' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) wrote:

Hi Robert T--Just a note that I like the thoughtfulness and reasoning of your response.

Mike M

On 12/18/25 5:31 PM, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:

David kindly sent me a personal reply to this email, which showed some misunderstandings that others have also expressed about my views.

 

David’s support for SRM in this article is very welcome, and courageous, but is somewhat buried beneath prior statements proposing a carbon-only climate strategy. The challenge for climate policy is to define an optimal realist path so we don’t burn.  I do not by any means reject carbon action, only the carbon exclusivism that David’s article initially appears to endorse.    I do not believe that calling for an end to fossil fuel use is a realist carbon action.  The polarisation it generates is not worth it. Ocean photosynthesis is a far more feasible main carbon path, but this will require cooperation with the capitalist system, not opposition to it.

 

My response was not entirely negative, as I acknowledged the good points in the article.  It is because David is such a valued thought leader that I want to comment on the detail of his proposed strategy.  I do not see SRM as a silver bullet, but rather as the most urgent task in an effective sequence of responses.  The emerging situation is that decarbonisation can only make minimal contribution, including to reversing acidification.  Decarbonisation without CDR is simply not scalable to climate-relevant impact. What is needed to fix the carbon problem is large scale removal/conversion of atmospheric carbon, which will take decades to become effective, time that we do not have.  Hence the priority for SRM.

 

Opposition to SAI is superficial compared to opposition to decarbonisation. Opposition to SAI is based on fear and ignorance, which can be reversed and overcome by clear explanation, advocacy and funding, whereas opposition to decarbonisation is based on major economic and political and social inertia and interests, which are far more intractable.

 

On Australian politics, I disagree that conservative Liberal Andrew Hastie is a climate denier.  I have not seen him make the same false statements that former leader Tony Abbott makes. Hastie looks at climate through a strategic security/stability lens, which I believe can become amenable to support for SRM and CDR, which I think would be a more effective Australian climate contribution than the current Minister Chris Bowen’s energy sector focus.  Reporting around the Coalition’s 2025 net zero review noted Hastie was framing the dispute as how (and at what cost) climate ambitions are pursued, rather than rejecting the fundamentals of climate change.

 

Compliments of the Season

 

Robert Tulip

 

 

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net
Sent: Friday, 19 December 2025 1:19 AM
To: 'David Spratt' <dsp...@bigpond.net.au>; healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Garrity, Dennis' <D.GA...@cifor-icraf.org>
Subject: RE: [HPAC] Climate Hot Takes 2025

 

Hi David

 

There are a few points in your article that I found unclear in view of your commitment to SRM.

 

It is certainly good to bring the big issues such as AMOC collapse, tipping cascades and accelerating temperature trends to a wider audience.  But I was surprised to see you cite without criticism the false claim that “Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks.”  You go on later to cite the correct conflicting view from Sir David King that ““rapid emissions reduction is no longer sufficient to avoid an unmanageable future for mankind.” 

 

Readers who only see your first point would assume you agree with it.  Especially in view of your claim that “the heart of the climate challenge is ending the use of fossil files. No ifs, no buts.”  There are many ifs and buts about this.  Especially, but if we don’t end the use of fossil fuels, then what?  It is more strongly arguable that the heart of the climate challenge is removing excess heat.  Ending the use of fossil fuels is one factor, but a particularly difficult one, with strongly entrenched and influential opposition, with little prospect of success.  In this context, your language “the heart of the climate challenge” runs the risk of building false hopes in an impractical strategy and sequence, deflecting support from the more effective and urgent path of a main focus on restoring lost albedo.   

 

On your comments on Australian politics, I don’t agree with your claim that “the opposition is at war with the laws of physics and chemistry.”  That is an unjustified partisan slant, true for much of their voter base but not the parliamentary party.  Their main climate policy argument is that cutting Australia’s emissions is far too small to materially affect temperature, which is true.  You could just as easily argue that the government is at war with the laws of physics and chemistry, in view of their denial about physical constraints, climate impact, cost and grid reliability for the proposed renewable rollout.

 

I know Pearls and Irritations is a leftist site, so perhaps you are tailoring your article to the audience there, but it doesn’t help to reinforce delusional echo chambers around mainstream climate mythologies.

 

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/1CC5DD98-C267-4348-BFE1-E9BEF9FC703B%40bigpond.net.au.

--
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/027701dc7029%244bb622f0%24e32268d0%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/023401dc707e%24de687490%249b395db0%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/db0d4fd7-755a-4b34-886a-bea756f8da4e%40comcast.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/39016118-65ff-44aa-8768-234b148ef739%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/FRWPR09MB821578670D99CAACA40FFF5F90A9A%40FRWPR09MB8215.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com.