Thanks RC, good response. The challenge for humanity to slow dangerous warming is to define and agree a critical path in engineering and politics.
This requires firstly agreement that albedo enhancement is the critical immediate task. The carbon responses are slower and can be deferred. The political challenges are of course immense, but unless they are engaged there is no hope. A critical path is a gradual and incremental program logic based on a theory of change. Each step becomes possible as previous steps are sufficiently advanced. My rough suggestion for a critical path to 2050 is as follows. Cutting GHGs, for example by large oceanic industries to make biochar and other useful carbon stores from algae, will take much longer to have temperature effect than Albedo Enhancement, so CDR can be the subject of research for years before implementation. Brian Von Herzen has already significantly advanced marine carbon conversion through his Marine Permaculture project, including XPrize funding. A critical path in politics requires that blockages be identified and mitigated. My call for a new Bretton Woods Conference on climate cooling through Albedo Enhancement would advance this step by presenting AE as an objective that can be agreed by governments. This requires that AE be formulated in a way that does not include unacceptable conditions, such as linkage to unwanted economic reform. The proposal for a system of Radiative Forcing Credits can meet this criterion by ensuring compatibility with government economic policies. The main attractive features are that RFCs would cost much less than decarbonisation and be far more effective in meeting climate goals. Deferring emission reduction would be an incentive for those wishing to reduce the cost and upheaval and risk of decarbonisation. However, justifying this against the weight of climate opinion is a major challenge. The intellectual focus should be recognition that emission reduction and CDR cannot replace the cooling effect possible with AE. Regards Robert Tulip From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of 'Robert Chris' Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 2:11 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 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] <mailto:[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' <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 4:37 AM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; 'H simmens' <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; 'geoengineering' <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>; 'Planetary Restoration' <mailto:[email protected]> <[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Robert Chris Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2023 12:13 AM To: H simmens <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; geoengineering <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>; via NOAC Meetings <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration <mailto:[email protected]> <[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 <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/bdec5eaf-4653-e407-895d-2a4c3ae4bf2d%40gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/bdec5eaf-4653-e407-895d-2a4c3ae4bf2d%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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/027101d96c16%242a728990%247f579cb0%24%40rtulip.net.
