The trouble is, decarbonising has become a diversion from the discussion required of the scale of the problem. Decarbonising has a physical limit of removal of about 15 Gigatons of carbon per year, and a practical limit in recent times that is negative, with emission rates growing. I think it is unrealistic to expect emission efficiencies to deliver more than about three GTC per year, which as a main strategy would just continue the remorseless trajectory to catastrophic collapse.geo wrote:I see decarbonizing as a baby step to acknowledging that something needs to be done.Robert Tulip wrote:. . . .The background issue here, which is still not acknowledged by the climate action movement, is that emission reduction is marginal to climate safety. Decarbonising the economy is far too small, slow, costly, risky and divisive to be a primary effective strategy against the catastrophic scale and speed of the looming climate apocalypse.
Meanwhile, carbon removal has potential to scale up rapidly to 100 GTC/y. Just at the 80/20 Pareto ratio, we should expect carbon removal to deliver 80% of the climate solution with 20% of the effort, and the converse for emission reduction, 20% of the solution with 80% of the effort. So the task is to shift focus to the most efficient solution and promote public debate about the strategic rationale for climate investment.
This ‘critical mass’ concept here may not be so important, just in terms of popular opinion. The US government could work with oil companies to mobilise large scale profitable investment in carbon removal, but that may not be a climate solution welcomed by a critical mass of environmental activists.geo wrote:There will always be those ahead of the eight ball, and those who are behind it. We need to reach critical mass before we can collectively take meaningful action.
Albedo enhancement is an emergency response, as proposed by Keith. My view on a good solution to help stop the Arctic from melting is pumping sea water onto the ice, as could possibly be done using the methods in my winning 2015 MIT water-energy nexus tidal pump proposal.geo wrote: But how bad will things have to get before we embrace something like Dr. David Keith's wizard proposal? Also say goodbye to the stars, because dimming the sun will also dim the faint light from the stars. Perhaps not a catastrophic loss in itself, but just one of many concessions we would have to make to maintain our dominion of the planet. We would likely need many other wizard fixes as well.
More broadly, the vast heat entering the world ocean, at the rate of about four Hiroshima bombs of energy per second, has a powerful melting effect. The wizardry needed is to convert this excess energy to work.
This is why Trump needs a Nixon in China moment, to see that geoengineering offers a climate solution that can be delivered in cooperation with fossil fuel industries in a way that the Republican base can accept. I doubt he could be re-elected without It is possible to be pro-corporation and pro-environment. But Trump’s latest idiocy in removing water regulation illustrates a dangerous record of insanity.geo wrote: Also, there is no way Trump will ever take action to combat climate change. He has worked very hard to weaken environmental laws and transform the GOP into a pro-corporation party at all costs. In this area, at least, he has been quite consistent.