--On 13/11/2023 06:01 GMT rob...@rtulip.net wrote:The political line in Professor Johann Rockstrom’s recent TB Macaulay Lecture is cause for dismay and deserves strong challenge.
From a perspective of global risks, the political vacuity of Rockstrom’s analysis is simply stunning. His failure to engage on the main practical climate solution, higher albedo, reflects a delusional misunderstanding of what is possible. Like his colleague Tim Lenton, Rockstrom brilliantly presents all the data on climate tipping points but then fails to join the dots about how to mitigate these dangerous cascading risks. Taking all measures necessary to slow temperature rise should be the top priority, but Rockstrom completely ignores this urgent problem.
His call for world economic transformation in a context of war, tension and economic fragility is completely unrealistic. His assertion that renewable energy could see exponential growth to anything near net zero is farcical in view of the limited available time, resources, funds, support and skills. If you doubt this, please watch this recent lecture from Simon Michaux to the Sustainable Minerals Institute at the University of Queensland. I get the impression the whole decarbonisation movement would prefer engineers like Michaux should just shut up and go away. This recent interview by Nate Hagens with Arthur Berman is another of many examples of a completely conflicting narrative about the feasibility of cutting emissions.
The political and economic reality is that governments are not going to cut emissions. Relying on carbon action is too small, slow, contested and expensive to be a viable primary climate strategy. Albedo increase has to become the main interim response to stabilise the climate. It is a scandal that Rockstrom et al do not even deign to mention the cooling power of higher albedo. Nor do they seem to consider that the political turmoil that would result from concerted efforts to achieve net zero emissions makes it a non-feasible option. Without cooling technology, all we have to deal with climate change are lip service and the destructive fantasy responses now seen in countries such as Australia. Decarbonising faces massive economic and technical barriers and inertia, whereas the only thing standing in the way of higher albedo is political will.
Scenario planning should include the option of allowing emissions to continue to be driven by market forces while aggressively cutting temperature with higher albedo. The absence of this direct cooling scenario from public consideration reflects the intensely polarised distortion of climate policy. Brightening the planet to cut temperature would deliver far better outcomes across a range of fronts than anything carbon policy can offer, for global stability, security, peace, cooperation, biodiversity, extreme weather, prosperity, food, water, equality, etc. Behind all these looming crises stands the systemic collapse threatened by tipping elements. Net zero heating should replace net zero emissions as the primary climate goal.
The main carbon problems are about temperature, acidification and pollution. Of these, temperature is by far the most serious, as Rockstrom’s work proves. It will be far easier, quicker, cheaper and safer to mitigate temperature rise by brightening the planet than by any carbon action. The policy sequence should be reversed from the current IPCC strategy, to instead make albedo increase the most urgent task. Fixing carbon should proceed on a century time scale, and should not continue to obstruct action to stop warming.
Climate funding should be allocated on the basis of cooling return on investment. David Keith and colleagues have explained that investment of $2 billion in solar geoengineering research could prevent climate damage estimated to cost $10 trillion. That is a benefit cost ratio of 5000 to 1. Rockstrom, Lenton and the whole UN policy consensus remain wilfully oblivious to this basic science. They are standing in the way of the only practical climate policy. Their albedo denial amounts to a crime against humanity and against the planet, preventing action that could forestall suffering and collapse on vast scale.
Robert Tulip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/261b01da15f6%24d6ee4ad0%2484cae070%24%40rtulip.net.
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/409568157.3966058.1699856557596%40email.ionos.co.uk.
