BookTalk.org

Anyone have thoughts on the Glasgow COP conference? I tried to follow developments closely and have read a lot of divergent opinions about what was accomplished. So have at it, please.

Hi DWill

The Economist Magazine published a positive review of Glasgow, at https://www.facebook.com/TheEconomist/v ... 267393604/

To which I commented with the following rather disgruntled response.

In this summary, Catherine Brahic from The Economist refers to Glasgow as "Paris Plus". That is the most naively rose tinted lily gilding silk purse from sow's ear comment imaginable, up there with the emperor's new clothes. In fact it is Paris Minus. For the last five years, nations have been meant to be ratcheting up their Paris pledges, but suddenly we get to Glasgow and find the cupboard is bare.
The ratchet mechanism from Paris has failed, turning out more rat shit than ratchet. It is as though Brahic sees a remarkable positive in recalcitrant nations having suddenly discovered that the IPCC actually calls on them to reduce their emissions. But this failure was inevitably built into the spinning nonsense of the Paris Accord.
The tragic farce here is the avoidance of the reality that only geoengineering will prevent dangerous warming in this decade. The resolute refusal to engage this basic science of global security is likely to prove the most gross dereliction of planetary duty in all human history.

Thanks, Robert. I had expected that if you replied, it wouldn't be with a bouquet of roses for the Glasgow Conference! I have mixed feelings about pledges lacking ambition. It might be worse for countries to pledge ambitiously and then to fall short, as surely will happen if the means or political will to cut emissions is lacking. The most optimistic assessment of the resolution I saw came from the mainstream International Energy Agency. It said that 1.8C was possible if all the natiions met their pledges and if no new fossil fuel projects were funded. The first is unlikely while the second is impossible.

The pact is thoroughly muddied by the phrase "unabated coal and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies." Clean coal is a chimera; and the efficiency of subsidies for the fossil industry isn't the issue.

Just wondering, would it be fair to say that the country of Australia is like our state of West Virginia, grasping tightly its reliance on coal for jobs and wealth?
As you probably know, Sen. Manchin of WV, personally and politically beholden to coal interests, derailed the emissions plan Biden had hoped to arrive with in Glasgow.

The whole idea that cutting emissions is the primary strategy to address climate change has failed. Watching the swathe of destruction through America's Midwest from this tornado swarm shows far more drastic response is now urgent.

A shift to geoengineering is needed. Marine cloud brightening in the Atlantic Ocean would cut the intensity of hurricanes and tornadoes in the USA. It is a primary security problem. Failure to discuss this simple stopgap solution reflects psychological blockages, like a bleeding patient refusing a tourniquet because it is not surgery.

My view is that three measures should be assessed - refreezing the North Pole around a Trans Arctic Ice Canal, fleets of marine cloud brightening vessels deployed around the world oceans, and large scale ocean based algae production.

I tried to see whether geoengineering had been discussed at the Glasgow conference. I think not, because doing that would have seemed like conceding that emissions policing had failed. "Keep 1.5 alive," you know. The IPCC has included the natural geoengineering method of BECCS in its reports, but that might be about the extent of serious mainstream promotion of geo. You might be up on how much research is going on elsewwhere. I think in the U.S. the Nat. Science Foundation has geo under study. Not seeing it being deployed doesn't mean nothing going on with it, as you'd expect a lengthy time to establish effectiveness and safety. But any other than local, minor use of geoengineering requires governance, and that might be the bigger obstacle. Developing countries already resent like hell the U.S. and Australia getting rich on fossil fuels while telling poor nations to cut back now. Geoengineering I think would appear to be an escape plan for the wealthy that exposes everyone to risk. What polling has been done I believe shows low public support for Geoengineering, at least the types you're promoting. Planting a trillion trees probably would get approval, despite its own problems of cost and practicality.