Geoengineering: the Arguments

In my last post I addressed the key facts about geoengineering.  Here I examine the arguments for and against this contentious approach.  Because emissions mitigation is often cited as an alternative to geoengineering, I begin by explaining their respective impacts on the environment.  For simplicity, I consider only the global warming effects of greenhouse gases (GHGs).  Ocean acidification and other non-warming effects are thus ignored.  See the diagram below. Continue reading

The Point Of No Return

Graphic of globe poised at edge of a cliff

When a team is behind in a basketball game, time becomes a serious factor several minutes before the final buzzer. What typically happens is that the team’s normal style of play gives way to an accelerated pace and intense pressure to regain the ball and score points. The ecological crisis is roughly analogous. We’re losing a game called “human survival,” and time is now a critical factor. Any strategy for resolving the crisis must therefore incorporate a sense of extreme urgency and a fixed deadline for decisive action. I use the “point of no return” concept to address these imperatives. Continue reading

Mainstream Mitigation, or How to do NOTHING

Mainstream Mitigation - To-do-list-nothing

Unless the emissions fallacy is quickly rejected, it will be calamitous for humankind and the biosphere. The fixation on increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations while ignoring their existing levels means that global warming and ocean acidification will proceed virtually unchecked. Unfortunately the situation is even worse than this because the mainstream approach to emissions mitigation is itself severely restricted. The result is that humankind’s response to the GHG-based emergencies is essentially zero – nothing at all. My aim in this post is to substantiate this claim. Continue reading

The Emissions Fallacy

I recently said that mainstream sources such as the IPCC implicitly use a falsified model of greenhouse gas (GHG) effects when offering policy prescriptions and making public statements. The central feature of this falsification is the emissions fallacy. This is the idea that the climate and ocean emergencies should be addressed exclusively through emissions mitigation, thereby ignoring reductions in existing GHG concentrations. In this post I address the fallacy in more detail. Continue reading

My Strategy for Ecological Survival

The most remarkable fact about the ecological crisis is that, even at this perilously late hour, no-one has devised a strategy to seriously address it. On second thought, the situation is far worse than that. With our ecological survival at stake, no-one has even come to grips with the basic realities that would allow such a strategy to be formulated. This is truly humankind’s darkest hour: we are facing an existential threat, we are equipped with powerful brains and impressive knowledge, but we have no clue how to proceed. What the hell is going on? Continue reading

The “Decoupling” Travesty

The economic growth fanatics have reached a new low in rationality and integrity. Recently the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced that, despite 3% global economic growth, CO2 emissions from energy sources increased only slightly for the second straight year. The fanatics immediately told us what this meant: energy use has been decoupled from economic growth, so the latter can continue indefinitely. Continue reading

Book Review: Climate Change, Capitalism, and Corporations

Climate Change, Capitalism, and Corporations: Processes of Creative Self-Destruction.
Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg (2015).

Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg are business-oriented academics associated with the University of Sydney. Starting in 2008 they interviewed 70 employees at 25 Australian corporations to determine the corporate response to climate change. Continue reading