Robert Chris and other readers,
On neoliberalism, its homo economicus assumptions can only work effectively under well designed state regulation to deliver rule of law. It is possible to change the law to incentivise action on planetary cooling and other public goods. My view is that an international system of radiative forcing credits can offer the best basis and motivation for well-regulated investment in cooling technologies in ways that can harness the good points of neoliberalism and mitigate its harm. Stabilising the climate requires a return to net zero heating against the Holocene baseline. Action to reduce the positive warming forcing from GHGs is essential, but is far slower than action to build the negative forcing effects of albedo to equal and oppose and largely neutralise heating through direct climate cooling. A new albedo industry can be built when governments recognise that correcting the planetary heating imbalance by targeting zero RF is a main and proper objective of climate policy. Investment would then be funded by government guarantee of payment for demonstrated albedo increase, or equivalent cooling effect, within a context of scientific analysis to guide safe and effective implementation. The government guarantee is the basis of RF credits, which could then expand into private finance with a far stronger empirical basis than carbon credits. The polarisation of climate politics is at an impasse, with neoliberals retreating into denial and nuclear because they cannot see a response to the decarbonisation logic. Our discussions have amply proved that decarbonisation is a flawed strategy with no hope of preventing tipping points. That makes climate a world security problem that can only be fixed with higher albedo. Cutting the Gordian Knot of the climate impasse needs the quick cooling focus that can be delivered by RF credits. On your point about economic growth, my view is that RF credits offer capacity to shift the economy to a sustainable approach. RF credits will base climate policy in planetary science, by restricting climate subsidies to actions that actually cool the planet or pay for loss and damage. RF credits will also importantly show that long term addition to carbon stock and flow through technologies such as biochar and algae has strongly measurable RF impact that will promote investment in them. The beauty of converting CO2 into useful products is that it generates a cyclic economy, providing a basis for continued emissions to be eventually overbalanced and outweighed by the scale of carbon conversion. A carbon mining industry could extract a hundred gigatonnes C per year, limited only by the planetary boundaries of Earth System Sensitivity, with scale of operation constrained by the need to prevent a new Ice Age. Ice Age scale is around a trillion tonnes C removal, and is so big that there is enormous scope to commodify CO2 with RF credits in ways that will deliver sustained economic growth and climate repair. The profit motive governing the relationship between capital and labour presents no intrinsic barrier to climate repair, but it requires a strong state able to regulate business. Your point, RC, that “On a finite planet never ending growth is the definition of unsustainability” is a common trope. The ocean has a billion cubic kilometres of water that our economy has barely started to use for climate repair, taking advantage of the massive natural area, energy and resources at sea. Ocean technologies have massive profitable growth potential. As well, if growth is targeted through RF credits at actions that actually repair and restore and regenerate the natural system, by converting CO2 into useful products, alongside brightening, then there is no reason why long term growth cannot be sustained. A forest can grow forever as long as its complex adaptive system is stable. An economic shift to recognition of planetary goals can equally be sustained forever in ways that enhance prosperity, peace, biodiversity and equality. I see no reason except their own prejudices and inertia why the neoliberal capitalist community cannot evolve to get on board with this vision, while recognising that their history of disrespect for conquered peoples means their views and actions should be treated with suspicion. A main incentive for them is to reduce the costs and upheaval of emission reduction. In my work managing the chaplaincy at the Australian National University, I am building a multi faith community <https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/fostering-belonging-support-in-a-multi-faith-community> . I see these values as integral to work on climate change, and hope there will be more opportunities for discussion, including during my visit to the UK in May and June. On whether 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds are economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime, the answer is obviously no. The Nationally Determined Commitments approach has failed and needs a rethink, through an International Climate Organisation. A completely different approach from the Paris Accord, grounded instead in Radiative Forcing Credits for albedo enhancement and carbon conversion, is the only way to slow dangerous warming. Best Regards Robert Tulip From: 'Robert Chris' <robertgch...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 4:37 AM To: rob...@rtulip.net; 'H simmens' <hsimm...@gmail.com>; da...@desjardins.org Cc: rpbai...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering' <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' <healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime? Hi RobertT, 'It may be possible'. I wonder. Neoliberalism extols the primacy of markets in the allocation of resources. Neoclassical economics is mostly about the behaviour of Homo economicus, and idealised human who always acts rationally to optimise his/her wealth. Steve Keen has pretty convincingly debunked both these mythical viewpoints in relation to climate change. I'm a Chartered Accountant/CPA not an economist so this is where I venture into shark infested waters. I'm hoping that those more knowledgable will be able to rescue me if I stray too close to danger. Capitalism is at the heart of the problem. Here let me be clear that I'm talking about the relationship between capital and labour in which those with capital invest it with view to making a profit and purchase labour from those without capital to do the work necessary to generate the profits. That is a gross oversimplification but hopefully sufficient for now. I'm not talking about trading for a profit or free markets or many other economically relevant factors, just the relationship between capital and labour. Capital will only be invested in projects expected to make a profit. Making a profit implies growth because without growth demand is limited and commercial activity becomes at best a zero sum game. Note that in the last several decades, GDP growth has become the single most important measure of economic performance. Growing GDP is good. Shrinking GDP is bad. In effect, capitalism is structurally dependent on growth. On a finite planet never ending growth is the definition of unsustainability. In a message just received, you comment 'Trying to take down capitalism in order to fix the climate makes no sense. Far better to seek constructive partnerships with industry for cooling.' I think this is confused. It begs the question as to who is the master, the capitalists or those seeking constructive partnerships with them. I could accept the first sentence if in the second you replace 'seek' with 'enforce'. To close, capitalism won't be dismantled and replaced by something else, it'll gradually morph into something more appropriate for the needs of the future; that's how it emerged from feudalism and mercantilism. The critical issue right now is that capitalists are mostly motivated by short term profits and not by the need to accelerate AE R&D if they consider that not to be the best way they can generate profits. If governments enforced a regime in which companies were obliged to act in a climate responsible manner, things could be very different. But they don't for all manner of reasons that I won't go into here. Regards Robert On 09/04/2023 20:32, rob...@rtulip.net <mailto:rob...@rtulip.net> wrote: It may be possible for the current Western neoliberal neoclassical worldview to adapt to the need for climate stability. From: planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com <mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com> <mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com> <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Robert Chris Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2023 12:13 AM To: H simmens <mailto:hsimm...@gmail.com> <hsimm...@gmail.com>; da...@desjardins.org <mailto:da...@desjardins.org> Cc: rpbai...@gmail.com <mailto:rpbai...@gmail.com> ; geoengineering <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <mailto:healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> <healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>; via NOAC Meetings <mailto:noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com> <noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <mailto:healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com> <healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <mailto:planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com> <planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime? Herb, thanks for the further explanation. David, the two statements are totally consistent. Your confusion is unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical worldview. But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and move on Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward.. Regards Robert On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote: Another way to articulate what Robert said is to quote Keynes: “Anything we can actually do we can afford.” Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve a goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and politically mediated. It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to the climate crisis: Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that goal- Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature increases to well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to well below 1° C Herb Herb Simmens Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future @herbsimmens On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins <mailto:da...@desjardins.org> <da...@desjardins.org> wrote: On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris <robertgch...@gmail.com <mailto:robertgch...@gmail.com> > wrote: David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically realistic. So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote. I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/57c56292-e259-2407-2de1-12675f26db9c%40gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/57c56292-e259-2407-2de1-12675f26db9c%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/033d01d96b5e%248a47cf00%249ed76d00%24%40rtulip.net.
