Hi RobertT
Your post below is a very helpful summary of what needs to be done. It
also puts front and centre the question of political feasibility. Below
are several extracts from your post. I shall not comment on each but
the Executive Summary is that the nature of the changes you are saying
are necessary 'to slow dangerous warming' are, to put it mildly,
non-trivial. Some of them run counter to the neoliberal Zeitgeist (e.g.
state regulation, government guarantees that would require increased
taxation). Some require extended periods of consistent large scale
industrial investment (e.g. building a carbon mining industry, ocean
technologies, commodifying CO2). Others require a radical change in
worldview (e.g. recognising that AE is even necessary, and the
neoliberal capitalist economy evolving into something that it isn't
currently). Almost all require the major economies to move in unison.
Some assume new global governance beyond the UNFCCC and a recognition of
the importance of cooling. The idea of RF credits assumes the design of
such a structure for global application.
That's quite a lot of fundamental change. How long do we have to make
those changes and scale them to be effective at slowing warming? My
guess is that we have a lot less time than almost any single one would
require and almost certainly not enough time for enough of them to be
climatically significant.
One particularly scares me - ocean technologies have massive profitable
growth potential. Having screwed the lithosphere, cryosphere,
atmosphere and the biosphere, you're now expecting us to exploit the
hydrosphere at scale and speed in some environmentally friendly way that
assumes that capitalists will not see it as yet another bonanza-like
free resource.
There's a stack of commentary in this thread that suggests that worthy
as your vision is, it is simply unachievable. Tom Goreau and Mike
MacCracken have remarked about their experiences with politicians on the
front line of climate policy. The video clip from the NYT that Herman
Gyr flagged is a brilliant (and humorous) explanation of the economic
realities. The simple fact is, as Partha Dasgupta explains, that all we
need do is to pay for what we use, including the cost of righting the
environmental degradation our economic activities cause. What he does
not say in the clip is that we also have to pay for what we've already
used. This whole debate comes down to one about the distribution of
those costs - who is to bear them. The global warming challenge is how
to solve that question fast enough. Sadly, I don't have an answer to
that and I very much doubt that anyone else has or will have soon enough
to make a difference. That's why, to be brutally frank, it's good to be
in your late 70s. You see, at heart I'm just another slimy neoliberal
just concerned mostly about me!
* well designed state regulation
* change the law to incentivise action on planetary cooling
* 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
* government guarantee is the basis of RF credits, which could then
expand into private finance with a far stronger empirical basis than
carbon credits
* 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
* A carbon mining industry could extract a hundred gigatonnes C per year
* there is enormous scope to commodify CO2 with RF credits in ways
that will deliver sustained economic growth and climate repair
* ocean has a billion cubic kilometres of water that our economy has
barely started to use
* Ocean technologies have massive profitable growth potential
* 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.
* 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.
Regards
Robert
On 10/04/2023 07:42, [email protected] wrote:
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' <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2023 4:37 AM
*To:* [email protected]; 'H simmens' <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
*Cc:* [email protected]; 'geoengineering'
<[email protected]>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition'
<[email protected]>; 'via NOAC
Meetings' <[email protected]>; 'Healthy Climate Alliance'
<[email protected]>; 'Planetary Restoration'
<[email protected]>
*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, [email protected] wrote:
It may be possible for the current Western neoliberal neoclassical
worldview to adapt to the need for climate stability.
*From:*[email protected]
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> *On Behalf Of
*Robert Chris
*Sent:* Sunday, April 9, 2023 12:13 AM
*To:* H simmens <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]
*Cc:* [email protected]; geoengineering
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>;
healthy-planet-action-coalition
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; via
NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>; Planetary
Restoration <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*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
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris
<[email protected]> 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
[email protected].
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 [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/bdec5eaf-4653-e407-895d-2a4c3ae4bf2d%40gmail.com.
