I hope several others will read the book and talk about it. Taylor says he will. It's not a debate between Robert and me. I think that would be a somewhat unequal debate, if you want to know the truth, because Robert is smarter on the science than I am. I mostly have questions, a little like the journalist author of this book, but of course not with his level of knowledge, either. I do admit to a strong values orientation toward the prophets. Mann is absolutely correct that the Borlaug/Vogt comparison isn't just one of different methods toward the end of saving the planet and our own species. It's also fundamentally about what is the good life, because following one man or the other leads to different ways of living.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Governments are correctly pointing out that carbon offsetting must be central to climate policy. An offset is as good as an emission cut in terms of cooling physics, and is often safer, cheaper, and more durable, transparent and politically possible.
No governments, clearly, are thinking of offsets instead of emission reductions, because they will know that increased emissions place a burden on the effectiveness of offsets. You can slow the rate of a bathtub filling by cutting a small hole in it, but if the volume from the faucet is only equal to that flowing out, you're not getting anywhere.
Yet there is furious opposition to this scientific observation from the political left, based on grossly irrational attitudes. A range of psychological neuroses feed into this confusion, such as the idea that what we do as individuals makes a difference to the climate through our personal carbon footprint, and the view that the best way to cooperate is to construct a united political front that sees itself as good, against enemies identified as evil. Both these attitudes are immensely popular, but from a wizard technology perspective of seeking practical ways to cool down the planet, both are profoundly wrong.
It probably makes sense to reduce individual carbon footprints within a national regime that also includes carbon offsets. Can we put all eggs in one basket? If 10 million more homes in the U.S. that are situated favorably switch to rooftop solar, how much carbon emission would be prevented, after accounting for the emissions produced to make the solar panels? I'm just assuming that since the panels might serve for 30 years, the emissions from producing them would be significantly less than the emissions produced by the same homes being heated/cooled by fossil fuels. Then carbon offsets would have less work to do. While individuals are properly anxious about the climate, they aren't neurotic to think that they need to be part of the solution. The personal investment they make I would think will make them support most government initiatives to manage carbon, including offset programs.
To achieve a sustainable global civilization, the world needs to work out how to remove more carbon from the air than total emissions, and then harness the momentum of that process to expand carbon removal to remove the dangerous trillion tonnes of CO2 that now commit the world to sea level rise and the host of other climate risks. Against that monumental necessary task, emission reduction is largely irrelevant. Decarbonisation retains its policy allure due to politics, not science.
Decarbonisation is just too small, slow, conflictual and costly compared to carbon removal. And pointing out that carbon removal is unproven is just stupid, since it is easily provable that decarbonisation alone cannot possibly stabilise the climate, so if we want a secure future it is carbon removal or bust.
Doesn't this assume undemonstrated capabilities for carbon removal? What is the time frame for such worldwide implementation of technologies? Emission reduction is best seen as a way to buy a little more time, decrease sea level rise by a little, while technologies to cool the planet can come on line. In operating this way, we'll achieve the necessary benefit of shoving fossil fuels into a minor place. They are not a long-term solution for energy, anyway.
The world is doing a piss-poor job of reducing emissions, that I'll give you. Does that record indicate that our human aspiration to bring a Western-style level of comfort and security to everyone simply can't be done without putting up more CO2? It's something Charles Mann is grappling with, and if it's true, then I guess you'd be right about removal being the only answer. But I'm not able to just say, screw it, let's go on burning highly concentrated carbon until it all runs out. We'll vacuum the CO2 out later. We'll have reports of 5%, 10%
increases in emissions and be expected not to worry about them? When will offsets come on line greater than the emissions increase?
However, a farcical
joint climate justice statement by civil society groups condemns nature-based solutions to climate change such as carbon removal, showing how deeply toxic the political debate has become. The distinct impression they convey is they are inspired far more by their ability to mobilise ignorant supporters than by science.
Implying that "science" doesn't support efforts to reduce emissions is questionable, I think. Isn't ER still the main recommendation of climate authorities in general? So that those opposed to "nature-based solutions" (I don't like the term) aren't ignoring scientific opinion.
While as the NGOs argue, there may be good reason to question current methods of biomass burning known as Bio Energy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), we should all welcome research into carbon storage technologies and ocean based climate restoration methods. The NGOs point out that “intended fossil fuel expansion by 2030 is at least 50% beyond a 2C target and 120% beyond what may be compatible with the global commitment to limit heating to 1.5C." but then reject the only thing that can overcome this problem, namely carbon removal technology.
In view of this apparent solidly objective statement, our disagreement may come down to whether emissions reduction is indeed counterproductive to or incompatible with carbon removal.
This rejection is profoundly irrational and unscientific, and can only explained by the collective neuroses that I mentioned relating to personal carbon footprint and climate politics as class struggle.
OK, I'll go along in this case with "irrational and unscientific" if, indeed, individual footprint advocates demonize removal. I'm not sure how to establish that reaction beyond the impressionistic level, though. When you come into Marxist rhetoric I have to say, whoa. There is such abundant primary cause for climate change concern, that I think to imply that the footprint faction is a stalking horse for sticking it to the capitalist class, doesn't hold up.
A reason emission reduction retains such strong support among the activist cadre is that it harmonises with the mentality of the extreme political left, forming a weapon with which to wage class war, placing climate policy squarely within the old progressive thinking of left = good versus right = evil. Such polarised attitudes offer no hope as they are broadly rejected by voters, have no prospect of political success, and are based on wrong science. The popular united progressive front offers a lowest common denominator approach to policy, but loves to bully opponents with arrogant assertions that it represents revealed truth.
Well, but the "polarized attitudes" would have to be that of the emissions-only crowd vs. that of the removal-only group, of which you are one. Otherwise I can't see polarization demonstrated in either side singly. But I don't see much left-right split in ER vs. removal, anyway. The real left/right divide is those who think AGW is real vs. those who deny it. On the right, you won't find support for
any effective CO2 reduction, by whatever means.
People who are serious about climate change need to distance themselves from the toxic left-wing culture of political polarisation. The activists are right in calling for “bold, transformative and immediate action”, but the only practical such action is research and development of climate restoration technology.
Without a right-wing advocating for any approach at all regarding climate change, I again don't think polarity exists as to means of CO2 reduction. The problem with supporting removal seems to be no significant momentum on that side, nothing for advocates to attach to.
Greta Thunberg’s latest speech in Madrid, while making many important points, contains a basic mistake with her phrase “
real zero emissions”, replacing the concept of
net zero emissions.
Looking first at the sound parts of her speech, Thunberg shows the corruption of climate politics with her succinct explanation that claims about “net zero emissions” at a national level are basically fraudulent, since the national level accounting methods ignore international sources such as aviation and shipping, and the creative shifting of emissions offshore.
The problem with such language is that it makes the unscientific assumption that cooling produced by decarbonisation is somehow more effective and even morally better than cooling from climate interventions. It is a simple fact of physics that everything in the biosphere can be measured in terms of its effect on radiative forcing. The scientific approach to climate change is to find and promote those activities that most effectively cut radiative forcing. But emission reduction is only a tiny fraction of the cooling task, which will mainly have to be achieved through new technology. Thunberg is smart and sincere, but the ideas on offer from Extinction Rebellion offer no hope whatsoever of solving the climate emergency.
I would give the moral/ethical nod to decarbonization, but if it can't succeed on its own, the point is moot. The morality of one approach vs. the other is complicated. Weighing the risks of each is hard.