A new bi-monthly open thread for climate solutions discussions. Climate science threads go here.
Reader Interactions
704 Responses to "Forced Responses: July 2021"
nigeljsays
Killian @447
I barely have to read your comments on economics and soil science because I just know its all going to be wild assertions and nonsense. Still no peer reviewed citations or proper calculations to back your wild claims on how much carbon you think soils can sequester.
Those deep carbon rich soils took millions of years to build up under very specific conditions. You think we can do something similar rapidly is just fantasising. You dont even understand something simple that global warming makes soils loose carbon which limits what you can achieve sequestering soil carbon.
Dunning Kruger? The word was designed for you.
Susan Andersonsays
Please just stop. You have just guaranteed another endless round of argument. You at least should be able to see this is not a useful activity for the community at large.
nigeljsays
You are “tilting at windmills” Susan. Argument is what websites are about. Personally I find it generates some interesting views and information. We should not have to sit back and just accept things when people post nonsense.
Argument on this website gets a bit personally abusive.. That’s a moderation issue to deal with. I’m quite happy for their to be. tighter rules.
I generally like your comments, so no criticism of you is intended. But I’m not sure why you are singling me out for criticism.
Killiansays
Because, and you know this, having had the exact same feedback from several different people, finally. You are the primary source of negativity.
The why is clear:
1. You respond to literally every issue posted, You are the only person posting here that seems to consider themselves an expert on any and every topic. You are not a polymath. You should be more circumspect.
2. You particularly seem to take joy in diminishing/belittling/attacking anything about sustainable/regenerative/simplification processes. You even go so far as to claim, because of 1 very limited, deeply flawed study, that Regenerative Ag is 30% less productive no matter how many different ways we point out this is absolutely impossible. Minus 30%? Hmmmm.. but PLUS 40-60% nutrient density. On this basis alone you are wrong. Then there’s the massive diversity where a regenerative farm will not just grow a field of corn, e.g., but numerous other things in the same space. Where your darling chem ag grows corn, a regenerative farm might grow corn, beans and squash in the same space. A little less corn, but a lot more of two other crops. It’s called co-planting. It is impossible for Regen Ag to be less productive all things being equal. And there are a number of additional points that add to yield!
Nigel, this is simple logic. We are not even asking you to understand Regen Ag to “get” this. You don’t need to. You just have to have two neurons that work and a minimal ability to think. Nigel, literally, I could explain this to a five-year-old and they would get it instantly.
Ergo… you are merely arguing for the sake of defending a poorly chosen piece of ground that you’d rather die on than admit you were wrong.
You’re driving people crazy and losing a lot of respect. Don’t you remember not long ago Scott and I had some negativity between us, but you and he were fine? Dude, wake up. You’re your own worst enemy right now. You even got Susan barking at you, and that takes some doing.
2b. That is denialist behavior, and it frustrates and angers people. You do not have a legitimate opinion on these issues, yet continually tell the two experts on the topic they have no fucking clue what they are talking about.
If you would just stop responding to anything I post, this site would be about 80% less contentious. Just… chill out. Focus on the one or two things you might have expertise in, none of which are Simplicity/degrowth, Regenerative Design, Regen Ag.
nigeljsays
Killian the only people genuinely barking at me are you, scott and mike, maybe reality check. And you are only barking at me because I ask for citations and proper mathematical proofs for some of your wild claims and you dont have any, so you go yap,yap,yap. I dont need expertise in your subject to see obvious and endless logical flaws..
And you get far more negative feedback from far more people than me.
nigeljsays
In addition its not sustainability I criticise. Its your particular version I criticise. You seem to think the world revolves around your definitions and views. They are interesting yes. Definitive, not in my view.
Susan Andersonsays
Please see my reply to nigel; I recommend taking a ruler to measure how much scrolling the rest of us have to do to avoid the flame war, and who is perpetrating it. Excessive boldface quotes are also counterproductive. Somebody has to stop for all our sakes. This is my final tilt at this particular windmill.
Susan Andersonsays
It’s my windmill and I’ll tilt at it if I want to. I have learned not to respond to personal insults because it is an invitation to escalate. I also generally prefer that others not leap to defend me. I am, as a non-scientist, a guest who used to say of herself that “I am the fool who leaps in where angels fear to tread.”
You and Killian and several others are amplifying the material you wish to correct. In the past few years, endless column feet (inches, yards) hae gone in to repetitive groupings of back and forthing that bury much that is of value here, and has driven away a number of interesting contributors. The comment section of a blog is not “owned” by commenters, who imnsho are guests. It’s not about taking sides. RealClimate is a quality science site and I am grateful to its hosts. It is my guess that they don’t have the time and energy for all this pettiness. And I would also guess that I and the perpetrators of this mishigass have too much time on our hands and should find something more useful to do with our time.
Here, because I don’t have the skills to post the graphic, is the essence:
How To Not Amplify Disinfo:
1. Don’t repost [wrong info – this includes boldfacing the material you wish to debunk]
2. Don’t comment trying to outsmart them, this attracted more attention to the post
3. Only if the post is already popular, do comment with vetted debunking info
4. Do take a screenshot if you must share, and share only through email, messenger etc.
5. Do educate your community to exercise the same discipline
I couldn’t respond to the thread where you commented about boldface:
FYI, I boldface ALL quotes, It’s simply my style of defining which person is being responded to and which is responding.
But, as usual, you treat it as something else.
You want this site to be better? Don’t lecture without knowing the background, call people on their bullshit.
nigeljsays
Richard the Weaver @436
“RtW: A holistic system with twenty pillars will probably perform like shit if only one or three pillars exist in a test.”
Yes, but there is quite a lot of peer reviewed science on soils and how much carbon they can be made to sequester. Studies have looked at tilling and mulching, biochar, crop rotations, rotational grazing, etc,etc, everything that could conceivably have an effect on soil carbon, and other studies have looked at the combined effects of these things. The results? Soils can be made to sequester MODERATE amounts of soil carbon at best, and in ideal conditions, but not the crazy claims made by Killian and to a lesser degree Scott. And none of this considers that a warming climate causes soils to loose some of that carbon! And keeping that carbon in the soil is difficult. Do some reading.
Killian says scientists haven looked at the “whole system” but does he seriously think that the way farms are organised, or who owns farms, or things like weed killers, or the way crops are gathered is of significant relevance? Enough of the BS!
Killiansays
does he seriously think that the way farms are organised, or who owns farms, or things like weed killers, or the way crops are gathered is of significant relevance? Enough of the BS!
Only a fool doesn’t.
nigeljsays
Reality Check @439
This was your original statement @403 “So, nigel, do you think the unsupported (unverifed) claim in the article that goes: An early idea to increase carbon stores — planting crops without tilling the soil — has mostly fallen flat. is somehow related to, or proven true because of some study about …how much carbon dioxide was released when researchers artificially warmed the soil in a Panamanian rainforest?”
The article did not say that the failure of no tilling to sequester as much soil as expected was due to a warming climate. There could be any number of reasons contributing. Warming is presumably one reason, but they just didn’t say. I think the point is we have had one degree of warming so far that would affect field trials but we are in for more warming so that will have even more effect on soils. Maybe I’ve missed your point, but I think its best to just cut to the main issue of warming soils and what it means. The article could have been clearer, maybe thats your point.
“The problem here is that you do not know that. You do not know the Quantity of Carbon that could be put into soils using RegenAg, either now or the future at scale. The carbon loss mentioned in those papers are purely theoretical, not proven. They do not apply across all soil types nor regions or type of agricultural uses.”
There are multiple peer reviewed studies looking at how much carbon soils can be made to sequester using regen. agriculture, for example by no till agricluture, mulching, biochar, crop rotations , grazing systems etc,etc and studies looking at all of this added together. The quantities are modest to moderate at best, and less than the huge claims made by people like Killian and Scott. Thats the ONLY thing I really claimed.
And this is BEFORE you consider carbon loss from a warming climate over the coming decades, with some warming already locked in! The claims on loss from warming are not just theoretical because the study you quoted yourself is based on field obeservations! And the science behind the claims is compelling: warmer conditions increase bacterial activity. You aren’t giving me reasons to think the science is wrong.
I read the studies you quoted. They do not contradict what I’ve said.
nigeljsays
Correcting a bad typo: The article did not say that the failure of no tilling to sequester as much carbon in the soil as expected was due to a warming climate.
nigeljsays
Reality Check @449 doesn’t your long list of things that cause carbon loss in soils show how DIFFICULT its going to be to turn this around and actually increase soil carbon with regenerative farming? Thats been my main point all along. We should of course still try.
Killiansays
404, 365, 375, 407, 413, 421, 422, 424, 429, 430, 432, 437, 439, 445, 446, 448, 449 and the Magnum Opus of them all, 450:
A note on Amazonian soils: I noted that point when I read the source(s), but it didn’t really pick at my brain until I saw them referenced above, which triggered remembrance of my own points about terra preta/bio-char:
Rainforests don’t really have soils so much as they have rocks with some dirt, clay and decaying organic material on them (this is a massive simplification to make a point, but is completely valid) because it is a *rain*forest. The rains drain nutrients and organic matter out of the soils rapidly, so the forest has become a place where there is virtually no lag in the organic cycle. In the Great Plains of North America, no such rains exist and so the ruminants (and their pee and poo – very important!), grasses, and the H-G’s and apex predators keeping them moving, created a mellower form of terra preta of soils up to 15% C and meters deep.
But the Amazon, it’s like a nightmare apparition that is all ass and mouth, constantly eating and pooping. Virtually all the organic matter of a rain forest is in… the rain forest, itself. i.e., in the plants, animals, bugs, fish, and other biota, not in soils.
This is ***exactly*** why terra preta was originated in the Amazon. As First Peoples filled the continent, and presumably also as some chose not to get dominated much later by the likes of the Aztec, Inca, Olmec, etc., some found the fishing and hunting great in Amazonia because all that carbon was in stuff they could eat. Most of us don’t eat soil directly after the age of 1 or 2, I’d think.
The biological productivity of the Amazonian rainforest is *massive*, as is the biodiversity, for the reasons cited above. Still, we’re fundamentally lazy in the sense that, yes, we can trek through the rainforest for a day to gather papaya, but why not get some growing outside the village? So, hey, let’s plant some papaya seeds over yonder, mates! I.e., they altered the rainforest so they could have some (relatively) dry places and do a little light farming via farms and food foresting. (They also developed ingenious ways to “farm” fish by trapping them into pens, etc.)
Et viola! Terra preta. Two meters of 20% carbon soils **in the goddamned rainforest!** In the place where rains make healthy soils virtually non-existent, we have METERS of soil so rich it’s black and, despite those rains, *****still there after 1000 years.*****
Now, let us let our imaginations free and imagine terra preta everywhere else, too. Without the massive rains draining through it washing away nutrients and minerals…
But, I am sure nigel is right and nobody else here – and certainly not the agricultural specialists! – know a goddamned thing. Nigel said so. It must be true.
You don’t know what the hell you are talking about, Scott! Terra preta does not exist! Bio-char does not exist! Regen Ag/Agroforestry/TEK/Permaculture do *nothing!* Nigel said so. 20% C? Massive exaggeration! Fake pictures! Lying aborigines!
Silly, silly, Scott!
Let me close with the original point I intended to make: Why in the hell would anyone do a study on the residence time of SOC in a location where Nature barely bothers to make any?
Rhetorical question…
Killiansays
I forgot 451, 452, 453, 455:
Nigel says “those deep carbon soils” took millions of years. Well, which ones? And, at 1cm per 200~400 years and 3k years for it to become really good soil, we’re actually looking at well under 100k years.
But that’s irrelevant because we can build soils orders of magnitude faster. Two meters of terra preta soils in the Amazon were created in 500 years with zero advanced technology and massive amounts of rain. That’s 1cm/year, or thousands of times faster than Nature.
But, dude, you know SO much more than the experts!
terra preta took millions of years. Well, no. Not even close.
Fun fact! Terra preta, once established, grows itself at 1cm a year! Do note, that is the speed of Nature itself. So…. if you have terra preta expanding 1cm, and nature building 1cm on top of that, you get 2cm/year without lifting a finger. Add in that we can build soils faster than nature, once you have a terra preta base and are constantly improving the soil above that, you’re looking at, oh, 3cm/yr? Or more?
But I suppose nigel is right: CAN’T BE DONE!
Dunning Kruger? The word was designed for you.
:-)
Kisses, sweetie.
Killian says scientists haven looked at the ”whole system” but does he seriously think that the way farms are organised, or who owns farms, or things like weed killers, or the way crops are gathered is of significant relevance? Enough of the BS!
Why, yes, but you are mixing Regen Ag and Regen Design. (We are not surprised, Sir Dunning-Krueger.) Thank you for so clearly pointing out how little you understand.)
Reality Check @449 doesn’t your long list of things that cause carbon loss in soils show how DIFFICULT its going to be to turn this around and actually increase soil carbon with regenerative farming? Thats been my main point all along. We should of course still try.
No. None of those things are massively complex or particularly difficult. What they represent is resilience, not difficulty. Are surprised you do not see it this way? Of course not.
Regarding my original comment on soils back @ 379. It was related to Killians and Scotts claims that regenerative agriculture can make soils sequester huge quantities of carbon quite rapidly. Killian has stated we can get from about 415ppm CO2 back to 280ppm in 10 – 20 years based on regenerative agriculture being adopted by all or most farmers and the techniques they use. This just makes me sceptical. The peer reviewed science suggests it would be more like 300 years. This might change given more studies or ideas like the glomalin pathway but we can only go by what hard evidence we have at this point in time.
However something else just occurred to me. Lets assume purely for the sake of argument that Killians right that we can get back to 280 ppm in 10-20 years. So when we hit 280ppm CO2, the process obviously wont stop. We could rapidly trigger a serious cooling period and lower rates of plant growth. To stop this you would have to stop regenerative farming, or alter it and probably quite dramatically, because Killian has said its not just specific things like mulching and no tilling that conserves soil carbon, its “the entire system”. And so you have a problem.
So what would you actually do to control such a powerful sequestration process if such a thing is even possible? Its not like sequestering carbon with tree planting where you can just stop planting more trees or cut trees down when you hit your targets. Its flexible. Its not like tech. based carbon capture and storage that can be switched on or off. So ideas about soil carbon just doesn’t look like its been thought through enough to me. I think Piotr said something similar, but I cant remember the details. I’m sure others have wondered about such things.
Of course if soils sequester carbon more modestly and at a slower rate you would still be helping a lot, and it would be less likely to trigger unintended consequences.
Killiansays
Re my 457: Sloppy editing on the latter part. The first section is accurate on soil creation: 1cm over 200 to 400 years.
Killiansays
458: Killian has stated we can get from about 415ppm CO2 back to 280ppm in 10 – 20 years based on regenerative agriculture being adopted by all or most farmers and the techniques they use
That is a lie. I have never said that in my entire life, written or spoken.
Do you think he is capable of identifying his error? I do not. Or is it an error rather than a lie?
It’s really impossible to tell with this guy. But, then, denialists often trade on seeming sincere.
Thoughts?
nigeljsays
You certainly said something very much like that. If its a lie what did you ACTUALLY SAY? Because until you say , your credibility with scientists will be zero.
Killiansays
I said nothing like this, And there is nothing on this site less credible than your comments. You get everything wrong that you attempt to criticize because you are speaking from a position bruised ego. You are irrational.
Killiansays
Sorry, Dear Readers, my error: I should have read the rest of it.
Sigh… and so…
However something else just occurred to me. Lets assume purely for the sake of argument that Killians right that we can get back to 280 ppm in 10-20 years. So when we hit 280ppm CO2, the process obviously wont stop. We could rapidly trigger a serious cooling period and lower rates of plant growth.
OBVIOUSLY! Humans don’t do math, after all! It is absolutely impossible that we could have a decades-long target to hit 260~280 ppm and set up a plan to shift our actions to deal with that! CAN’T BE DONE!
But, um, yeah, I think it would be pretty easy to create a system by which when the world is approaching the target – which would be counted down globally, right? – we notify people over a period of years to… stop sequestering and move to merely sustainable: Same in and out each year.
Nah…. CAN’T BE DONE! EVEN WTIH 20 YEARS TO PLAN FOR IT! NOPE!
;-)
To stop this you would have to stop regenerative farming, or alter it and probably quite dramatically
ORRRRRR…. we could stop adding C to soils as they would all be high in carbon? Or eat more, build more, create more and increase quality of life across the board…? No? After all, it is that loss of “Quality of Life” that you claim makes all this impossible,…. right?
I guess that would be silly according to nigel. WE CAN ONLY HAVE TOO HOT OR TOO COLD!
because Killian has said its not just specific things like mulching and no tilling that conserves soil carbon, its ”the entire system”. And so you have a problem.
Hmmm… a system tuned to Nature, mimicking Nature…. is a problem in dealing with… Nature.
ARe you sure you want this out in public?
So what would you actually do to control such a powerful sequestration process if such a thing is even possible? Its not like sequestering carbon with tree planting where you can just stop planting more trees or cut trees down when you hit your targets.
That is exactly what it’s like. You are here making ridiculous reverse arguments that make no sense… We warned you about yourself.
How hard would it be to reduce bio-char production in each community? Or allow C to decompose at the top of the soil?
As Scott said, and you said, you don’t know what we’re talking about and the post I am responding to is… an extremely obvious proof of this.
bIts flexible. Its not like tech. based carbon capture and storage that can be switched on or off. So ideas about soil carbon just doesn’t look like its been thought through enough to me.
Oh… my…. People can’t choose to sequester or not sequester, or burn or not burn C… because nigel said so? I mean, Let’s say I am a farmer and temps have become pretty moderate over the years and the gov’t announces we’ve sequestered enough carbon. I cannot over the next year or two do an analysis of my carbon footprint and change what I am doing?
Uh… OK…. I guess since you asserted it, it *must* be factual!! Don’t sequester the carbon, you’ll kill yourself!
I think Piotr said something similar
Then surely we must call the schoolmarm, the dog catcher, and the Wall St. trader to weigh in on this!
Of course if soils sequester carbon more modestly and at a slower rate you would still be helping a lot, and it would be less likely to trigger unintended consequences.
LOL…
He’s never going to figure it all out, is he?
;=) ;=) ;=) ;=) ;=) ;=) ;=) ;=) ;=)
nigeljsays
Doesn’t work. Stopping adding biochar will at best reduce the rate of carbon sequestration. Eating more food is not a great plan to reduce carbon sequestration because. too many people are already overweight.
You could not stop mulching and no till agriculture, because they are the fundamentals of regenerative agriculture. So carbon sequestration would continue past 280 ppm CO2. Its an interesting problem, however you could slow it down a bit and it would just be an overshoot situation. The system would reach a new equilibrium.
However its all academic because there is no hard evidence in the peer reviewed literature that we can sequester soil carbon as rapidly and hugely as you claim.
By the way biochar is just pyrolised biomass, cooked at very high .temperatures. Quantities are constrained by available biomass, and the furnaces are high tech and largely reliant on fossil fuels for power generation. The point being that the amount of carbon sequestered by biomass isn’t going to be huge.. Google research studies on the issue.
Killiansays
Too uninformed, illogical and intentionally antagonistic to bother with. Wrong on every point, yet again.
BTW, you said, “Google research studies on the issue.” First, what an arrogant asinine thing to say. 2. I know the world’s leading expert on the issue.
nigeljsays
So nothing of substance again. Just empty rhetoric. From wikipedia: “Biochar is charcoal that is produced by pyrolysis of biomass in the absence of oxygen”
Killiansays
Shush, child. You know nothing. Speak less or not at all.
Carbomontanussays
Genosse
That is an old cartoon by Storm P. (Mark Twain?)
A lecturer saying:
“this is not something that I take from myself. It is said by a man who knew what he was talking about!”
Thus, watch your procedures. We may be experienced.
“
Reality Checksays
#455 “Reality Check @449 doesn’t your long list of things that cause carbon loss in soils “
With all due respect, I do not think you were reading that quite right. There were only two “causes” listed. One was modern industrial Agriculture and the multiple standard practices that go with that, and two was the increasingly destructive heatwaves, droughts, floods etc from global warming.
Nigel, I have never denied the difficulties of turning this thing around. I have already said upfront I do not think climate change is going to be solved, that it is going to run out of control. I have said (meant) specifically regarding RegenAg I cannot see it ever going mainstream globally.
You see, my actual opinion is, even if RegenAg was proved scientifically beyond all doubt tomorrow to be able to rapidly sequester unbelievably enormous amounts of CO2 permanently in soils, it would still not be deployed globally, nor replace Industrial Agriculture systems anyway.
Because the powerful forces aligned against that and the general negative press and the lack of public support at a political level (as shown on these pages) are too great. Same as the FF interests against renewables and nuclear energy and hydrogen for transportation engines and sane rational economics and so on have got in the way of equitable common sense progressive change.
Primarily becasue They and enough of the Public in the more powerful wealthy nations, people like us, simply do not care enough, or care at all. Buckets of verbal rhetoric says they do, but they’re lying to themselves. Actions show their true form.
The most important thing in western/OECD society now is wealth accumulation. Nothing else. Appearances to the contrary is simply lip-service and spin. Except for that large % of western society who are already in the poorer socioeconomic class in a non-stop struggle to survive. Who can’t afford PV solar or a new EV from Tesla, let alone the house to put them on and in.
RegenAg will “fail” to make a difference for the very same reasons why renewable energy is still only 11% of all energy use in the OECD (a pittance after 3 decades waiting) and why GDP Growth and mainstream capitalist economics will never be voluntarily abandoned by using reason and scientific evidence either.
But I did say, once the collapse of modern civilisation comes, and it will with the increasing climate impacts, there will survive pockets of enlightened groups scattered across the world who will retain the regenag knowledge and use it to sustain their communities who do survive.
The rest will starve to death while locked inside their shining new Tesla EVs with flat batteries. And no one will be bothered anymore to even question if RegenAg can or cannot sequester more than a Moderate amount of SOC in soils. It will be far too late for that wasted exercise.
This is what I think. Feel free to quote me properly, or ask for some refs which underpin such thinking. For example 2018 Negative emissions—Part 1 of 3 parts https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b very scary rabbit holes exist. Some have entered never to return to a normal life.
nigeljsays
Reality Check, I actually really enjoyed reading your post, but there is nothing wrong with my reading of your comment. You also mentioned “-Deforestation increases carbon loss in all soils, has done for thousands of years. -Many other Land Use Changes and Irrigation practices increases carbon loss in all soils.” But perhaps you view that as part of industrialisation, which is fair enough.
I agree with some of what you say about society, especially about the negative influence of vested interests and the huge difficulties mitigation faces and the risk of a collapse of civilsation. I’m increasingly thinking we wont meet the Paris accord targets. However I prefer to be a little bit more upbeat as well posting comments and so I generally promote renewables, electric cars, etc, etc. I also promote regenerative agriculture on most websites, but I get really annoyed when I see exaggerated claims and a science website like this such claims should be rebuted and debated. It probably makes me look opposed to regenerative agriculture but I’m not.
And I’m not QUITE as pessimistic as you. Close admittedly. I do think regenerative farming might gain traction because several techniques it uses dont add too many costs. I just dont think it would be the very pure form Killian talks about and it will take a lengthy time to become the new norm.. And wind and solar power are now cost effective so why wouldn’t they scale up? Even Trumps silly attempts to bring back coal have failed. None of it will happen fast enough to be ideal, but maybe enough to stop the worst outcomes like 3 degrees or more
Yes poor people cant’ afford electric cars, but that seems a weak argument not to promote them. EV’s do reduce emissions regardless of who owns them, and we are seeing used nissan leafs at very affordable prices now and reasonable battery like left. Eventually they will be as affordable as ICE cars. You have to start somewhere. Its like the first smartphones cost a fortune, but now poor people own them.
I’m very concerned about the impacts of climate change on poor countries. Its partly why I advocate we mitigate climate change. It probably wont affect me personally, because I’m financially reasonably well off and ditto the family. If civilisation collapses in a heap of rubble I will survive either way, because I have a lot of practical skills. But a lot of people will be lost. Many young people don’t even know how to change a tire on a car these days.
However it seems unlikely to me that the collapse of civilsation will happen overnight such that all the lights just suddenly go out permanently, and food doesn’t get delivered next morning. It may be more like a slow motion train wreck over decades to centuries, where many people end up going back to live simply off the land.
nigeljsays
Reality Check, sorry I didn’t mean to imply you opposed EVs, if it came across that way. Just thinking aloud. Some people oppose them, because they feel only the rich can afford them.
Couple of other things. Half the problem is lobby groups influence on politicians and the influence of campaign donations. New Zealand is tightening up on this but its hard to see that happening in America, given the freedom of speech constitutional right.
And secondly although its hard to see society deliberately opting for slower economic growth as you mentioned, economic growth is slowing inexorably anyway in the developed world.. Check the trends since the 1970s if you haven’t already.. I could see it trending down naturally to near zero in the coming two or three decades. Consider resource limits, market saturation, and demographics. AI and robotics will push back against this, but I dont think it would reverse the basic trend.
Reality Checksays
Michael Mann seems to be on a PR tour with the alt-non-mainstream media of late.
July 30, 2021 The Climate Emergency Warning from Extreme Weather
Michael E Mann i’view talks Forced Responses – audio transcript
(slightly edited extracts)
The impacts of climate change really test our capacity as a global civilization to continue to operate. The conditions upon which our societal infrastructure have been built, what our societies are based upon, suddenly no longer apply.
If we allow the warming to proceed, then we will exceed our capacity to adapt as a human civilization. That is a potential future – societal collapse is a very real potential future.
It is not yet guaranteed as our future. There is still time to make sure that that is not our future. But we have to de-carbonize our global economy now – and rapidly.
We’ve got to bring global carbon emissions down by 50% within this decade. (By 2030) if we are to have any chance of averting that +1.5C degrees Celsius danger level.
There is a certain amount of climate change that’s already baked in. We’re seeing it. We are already there. Dangerous climate change has arrived.
In the very best scenario, we’re dealing with a new normal, where we have to fundamentally adapt our infrastructure to deal with these heightened threats. And we’re seeing that right now.
Especially for those who have the least resources. The poor, folks in low income communities have the least resilience, the least resources. They are the ones who are facing the greatest impacts. https://loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=21-P13-00031&segmentID=3
About “We’ve got to bring global carbon emissions down by 50% within this decade. (By 2030)”
IIRC, about the COP26 goal setting parameters for 2030, he means reducing emissions by 50% below the actual GHG CO2e emissions result in 2010.
A few nations have submitted goals close to this. Few are consistent in using the 2010 yardstick so their ambitions cannot be directly compared to each other. The COP system never standardizes these submissions, afaik. No one is the wiser.
With two months left to go it looks the targets won’t achieve a combined 50% reduction as a goal. But even if they did, I do not see how the world could get close to achieving a 50% reduction Goal in 2030.
Contrary to what Mann and others aspire to and say it is still technically possible; I think it is impossible – technically, mathematically, politically and practically – given the constraints and accepted norms of COP, the OECD powers that be.
Because there are zero goals or programs to constrain consumption or ramp up energy efficiency globally. OECD Renewable non-Carbon energy capacity/use sits at ~11% in 2019. Less than the individual share for Coal, Gas and Oil. Theoretical NET sequestration, CCS and BECCS included in the IPCC +1.5C estimates and in some COP Targets, is non-existent today. Likely to remain so throughout the next decade, with new Nuclear deployments providing minimal GWh increases as well.
Greenhouse gas emissions OECD 1990-2018
Unit Tonnes of CO2 equivalent, Thousands
1990 = 15 334 604.00
2012 = 15 920 666.00
2018 = 15 669 868.00
and
EU 1990 = 5 647 955.14 – 2018 4 224 358.28
USA 1990 = 6 437 000.13 – 2018 6 676 649.62
see https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AIR_GHG
The gains by the EU have been swallowed up by the increases of other OECD nations.
China’s economic growth and export demand by the OECD and developing world is going to increase. China’s Govt has said emission won’t peak until 2030; India not until 2040 or later. Indonesia’s (380 mln) economic growth and emissions are going to increase the next decade as well.
There is no global moratorium on the rapid destruction of forests. The rate of forest destruction, iirc, has more than doubled since the 1990s. There is no plan or agreement to stop it.
I think the current program of the UNFCCC-COP system is a fiction. A global pea and shell game. It’s make believe, a fantasy, disconnected from reality. Little more than a long term marketing program designed to not tell the truth and make as little change as possible.
Susan Andersonsays
Mike Mann’s presentations are (imnsho) superb. Thanks for the extract. Though in fact it becomes ever more difficult to believe that humanity will have the courage or humanity to make the big changes necessary, it is, though unfortunately all too tempting, not useful to encourage despair or apathy. It’s only life itself.
That is your personal flawed interpretation of what is being said Susan. Not a good one because it misses the mark. You’d be better off recognizing and taking responsibility for your own emotions. Processing what’s is triggering them would help.
It’s often from where misunderstandings, unjustified personal criticisms and blaming of others arise.
Denying reality is not a rational response to catastrophic climate change. That is apathy. Not until this reality is faced squarely, with mature objectivity based on the historical evidence, can appropriate alternative corrective action be found and acted upon.
Childishly, naively, chasing rainbows because it “feels lovely” or “inspiring” or is “the only thing” we believe we have to act on, is not viable. It’s foolish and self-defeating. That is the road to ultimate despair!
I can’t image what you must think of Greta when she tears strips off the people behind the WEF, the UN, the OECD and the failure that is the UNFCCC-COP system.
Michael Mann will not be attending COP26. He has no power and no influence there. Mann and his fans are not making the critical decisions about to be announced at COP26 for the next decade and more.
Those decisions have long been made. They do not care about your emotions or feelings either. Mann is saying COP26 is our last chance to act. He’s wrong. That ship sailed a long time ago.
I encourage you to take another look at what was being said and what it actually means. Objectively. While seriously reconsidering the last 30 years of the overwhelming accumulated evidence.
It is said: “When one door closes, another one opens.”
It’s past due the COP system door was slammed shut forever. Only after that door closes can a better more constructive door be seen and opened.
Human Psychology:101
In the meantime, it’s a slippery slide to hell on Earth. Which is what Michael Mann is actually pointing out to you in spades!
So, good luck.
Reality Checksays
Annual global emissions are estimated about 5PgC/year according to https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/
eg – From 2000 through 2018, CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels rose from 6.7 PgC yr-1 to 10.2 PgC yr-1
The other major source of CO2 is wildfires, which in CT2019B add an additional 2.0-2.6 PgC yr-1 to the atmosphere.
According to CT2019B, the world oceans absorb 1.4 to 4.1 PgC yr-1.
It’s suggested ” we have generated estimates for the global cumulative loss of SOC which potentially represent a maximum estimate of the SOC sink capacity, and have demonstrated that there are hotspots of SOC loss which are closely associated with land that has been identified as highly degraded. “
and “This analysis indicates that the majority of the used portions of planet Earth have lost SOC, resulting in a cumulative loss of ∼133 Pg C due to agricultural land use. These SOC losses are on par with estimates of carbon lost from living vegetation primarily due to deforestation (40) and are nearly 100 Pg C higher than earlier estimates of land use and land use change-driven losses of SOC”
Therefore: “Our analysis has found that this sink potential is ∼133 Pg C (SI Appendix, Table S3). A widely repeated figure is that, with adoption of best management practices, two thirds of lost SOC can be recovered (42). If the two-thirds figure is accurate, then SOC sequestration has the potential to offset 88 Pg C (322 Pg CO2) of emissions. “
and “However, bottom-up estimates of the maximum biophysical potential for carbon sequestration on cropping and grazing land range from 0.4 Pg C⋅y−1 to 1.4 Pg C⋅y−1 (20, 43). Assuming SOC reaches a new steady state in 20 y (35, 44), this calculation suggests that 8 Pg C to 28 Pg C (in total) can be recaptured. ‘” (end quotes)
OK, so that is one paper, I am sure others offer varying estimates. But a comparison to annual emissions mentioned above, can offer some perspective of potential sequestration estimates.
This paper suggests a low end SOC sequestration range of between 0.4 Pg C⋅y−1 to 1.4 Pg C⋅y−1 (per year) which might be able to offset some of the mean 5 PgC/year emissions over a number of decades. Which is (roughly) around 10 to 28% of annual emissions. This is significant volumes of CO2 drawdown.
It’s only one paper, so it shouldn’t be taken as definite, but indicative only. Nor does this paper consider potentially improved results by using site specific Regenerative Agriculture, or Permaculture or enhanced Grazing techniques (if they were better.)
But it does specifically mention the potential to target specific regions that have suffered the greatest degradation (Nth America, Europe and Australia) – offering greater potential for theoretical SOC uptake in those soils.
Though I am unsure if this paper is reliable enough to draw such broad-ranging conclusions. Maybe it’s findings have been superseded. idk The Paper might be worth a read. Been cited several hundred times. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/36/9575/tab-article-info
Reality Check,
The answer for the discrepancy is in the quote of the very study you posted.
“Assuming SOC reaches a new steady state in 20 y”
They then refer to Carbon Management Response curves: estimates of temporal soil carbon dynamics DOI: 10.1007/s00267-003-9108-3 and 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
There is the problem from a fundamental standpoint. This is a nested bad assumption. The first bad assumption is in assuming the soil would reach a steady state in 20 years, when evidential analysis reveals actually that’s about the time carbon sequestration in regenerative ag really starts accelerating. It is biologically driven, so it actually improves as habitat (soil) improves. Better habitat, means more biological activity, resulting in higher sequestration rates. Those higher rates will plateau at some point of course, but as long as the habitat remains healthy, the LCP will continue to function well into geological timeframes.
We have plenty of evidence this happens in natural systems, and there is no reason to believe any agricultural approach using biomimicry would be any different. So it is clearly an example of an assumption not in evidence.
The next assumption nested within this bad assumption is that should SOC ever actually reach a saturation level, the losses of carbon would return to the atmosphere. Again, this is not found in many natural systems at all. The primary losses of sequestered carbon in a saturated system do not return to the atmosphere, but rather erode into waterways eventually showing up as sediments and then ultimately back into sedimentary rock and/or fossil fuels. Some just get buried so deep they fossilize in situ themselves.
This is why it is so important to distinguish between stable SOC and labile SOC. It is also why I am working with a commercial laboratory to develop a soil test that distinguishes between these forms for use in carbon credits.
The labile portion of SOC might reach a steady state in 20-30 years in many cases. That portion is well represented by the The Roth C model. The model is designed to run in two modes: ‘forward’ in which known inputs are used to calculate changes in soil organic matter, and inversely to back calculate inputs from current known SOC levels.
There is an issue here though. This model is calculating inputs of organic matter, ie biomass added, then decomposing slowly in the soil. Basically to make this conceptually simple for you, this model works for the labile carbon cycle of decay, but has nothing to do with stable carbon at all. And yes as noted before, the labile carbon does indeed generally ultimately return as CO2. That biological cycle, while very important, is only marginally useful to mitigate AGW in the long run. Basically of about equal importance as tree planting. (another mitigation strategy that quickly saturates and reaches a steady state)
The stable cycle, or LCP as many have called it follows a completely different path, and as of yet I have seen no statistical model for this anywhere. I have seen trials conducted by agricultural researchers, data collected in the form of soil sampling, even evidence in the fossil record, but not any computer modeling.
One thing we need is a way to gain better data. That’s one reason why I have been working so hard on my project, which is actually fairly limited in scope directly, but if a better soil testing protocol and data resulting can come out of it, then we could maybe start making a model of the LCP, which functions in the biosphere entirely differently than any models show currently.
Reality Checksays
Thank you Scott for the clarification of those many aspects. and how things have moved along.
“Those higher rates will plateau at some point of course, but as long as the habitat remains healthy, the LCP will continue to function well into geological timeframes. ”
So the potential is likely far higher than this one paper concludes is possible. Good to know, but please define LCP if you have a chance, I’ve searched but can’t bring up a clear meaning.
and best wishes for your project. I appreciate your insights and experience in the field.
RC,
I forgot you were gone from this forum for quite a while. My apologies for using specialty field Jargon not in common usage. The LCP is short for the liquid carbon pathway.
The pathway (LCP) is a biochemical pathway that can be highly simplified into:
Photosynthesis to liquid plant primary productivity -> to root exudates -> to feed mycorrhizal fungi (and a whole interrelated web of symbiotic soil microorganisms) -> producing a stable class of soil glues produced by those fungi called glomalin which carbon based itself is very stable up to 100 years or more, -> but also “glues” smaller chain humic polymers together and attaches them to the mineral substrate of sand/silt/clay -> to create a type of soil structure called a mollic epipedon.
That mollic epipedon can then grow deeper and deeper until it reaches a state where it dominates the entire A horizon of the soil (and to a lessor extent the B horizon) and then is considered a Mollisol, the most important agricultural soil type in the world.
“Mollisols have: (1) a mollic epipedon (thick, dark surface horizon); and (2) base saturation of at least 50 percent throughout the subsoil. (USDA-NRCS image)”
As stated earlier, mollisols can either just keep getting deeper and deeper and eventually the lower layers fossilize in situ, or they can erode and eventually they will deposit as sediments in oceans or other large bodies of water, and ultimately becoming new sedimentary rock and/or new fossil fuels, all of which is in geological timeframes out of the atmosphere.
But the chemical bonds that create Mollisols are very strong. It is not impossible to break the connection of humic polymers with the mineral substrate, but even when that soil is eroded and flowing down a river, the carbon tends to hold onto the silt and clay particles especially. Now that might be reborn as alluvial soils, or it might end up at the bottom of a sea or ocean and become sedimentary rock eventually, but it is sequestered into geological timeframes useful for long term AGW mitigation!
“Glomalin eluded detection until 1996 because, “It requires an unusual effort to dislodge glomalin for study: a bath in citrate combined with heating at 250 F (121 C) for at least an hour…. No other soil glue found to date required anything as drastic as this.” – Dr. Sara Wright, USDA soil scientist
This pathway has been measured in agricultural trials to be about ~5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr under appropriate conditions. So the trick for using regenerative agriculture as an AGW mitigation strategy would be to get as many acres as possible using methods that achieve those conditions.
There actually are enough acres already under lessor forms of agricultural management that if we simply changed methods on all those acres, we would need a rate of approximately 8 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr to offset current man made emissions. 8 does indeed fall into the range of 5-20 measured in trials.
It would be a Herculean task, requiring as much effort as the previous “Green Revolution” in agriculture. But I suspect that could be done eventually. That’s not all either. We also could still replant deforested areas worldwide, like parts of the Amazon and Indonesian rain forests. There are vast grasslands so degraded they no longer are fit for agriculture that could be rewilded. I believe I saw that even the Mangrove forests on coastlines need significant effort in restoration and sequester large quantities of carbon as well as protecting inland areas from flooding. etc etc. I am not certain exactly what the quantified AGW mitigation potential for those areas would be, combined under the heading of wild ecosystem restoration, but I am sure it would be non-trivial as well.
But now here is the rub. We cant depend on these alone. It is too important. The risk is too high for emergent properties of the system to kick in and destroy all our hard work. So we need very much to also reduce fossil fuel use substantially too.
Lets say we are able to actually reduce man made emissions by ~50%. That would mean that we would simultaneously need to take up the slack with ~50% regenerative agriculture and ecosystem restoration combined to achieve net zero emissions, and a bit more to achieve drawdown. So not necessarily everyone needs convinced and trained right away, just enough to add to efforts on renewable energy.
Ultimately though, the biological carbon cycle is self regulating. as atmospheric CO2 begins dropping, we can expect the LCP to drop somewhat as well. There is a lot of uncertainty in that future, but these are the “good” kind of problems to deal with. Before we go making drama about what if we somehow get too much of a good thing in some distant future, lets just try and get enough of a good thing now? I really don’t care if we get there by 50/50 or 60/40 or even 80/20. I am fairly certain even just eliminating the highly destructive commodity crop “America’s corn system” if done world wide would at least get us 20% there with regenerative agriculture. Maybe 10% with tree planting and other forms of ecosystem recovery? Can the techie types get us the other 70% with renewable energy? Lets just get to drawdown and soon. I don’t want perfect to be the enemy of good enough.
Thank you for all that info. and the LCP explanation. Got it. Excellent. Really good summary, much appreciated.
a mollic epipedon (thick, dark surface horizon)
ah yes, I have read of this recently, and some other things you mentioned, though I cannot yet put it all together well, it’s ok,
and have heard of this too .. and eventually the lower layers fossilize in situ etc.
I don’t need to know it all, though I think I can adequately grasp the importance and use of these matters going forward re sequestration. as well as the variations in outcomes between regular ag doing that and regeneration ag applications. Happy to defer to those who know better. I get it’s complex, including from one place, or region, to another, and what the land is being used for… ag or rewilding etc. Looking forward to the necessary confirmations about soc uptake numbers and a consensus so a formal tick of approval and agreement is forthcoming. Progress has been very slow by the look of it.
Lets say we are able to actually reduce man made emissions by ~50%. That would mean that we would simultaneously need to take up the slack with ~50% regenerative agriculture and ecosystem restoration combined to achieve net zero emissions, and a bit more to achieve drawdown.
This kind of approach is how I had always envisioned things might play out, longer term. vs all fossil fuels being replaced by renewables …. with all electrified energy. and why nuclear is so critical imo, but the world ain’t ready yet for that at scale either. reforestation and rewilding grasslands scrub regions and degraded ag regions has always seemed so obvious/logical to me etc. Would be nice to stop destroying any more of it first.
Anyway, I hear what you’re saying, and what Killian says too. Eminently rational and down to earth practical and much sustainable longer term. (eventually – collapse or not) In the meantime, do the best you can. Thank you for the above.
Killiansays
I want to particularly point out on the limits issue, that 20% SOC is massive, and that has been measured in terra preta. Someone do me the math for 20% SOC for all “arable” land, grazing land, yards and gardens and potential food forests.
And then there’s stuff like this which supports what I had said about deep sequestration of C: The team analyzed a soil known as the Brady soil, which was formed more than 13,500 years ago in what is now Nebraska, Kansas and other parts of the Great Plains. It lies up to 6.5 m below the present-day surface and was buried by a vast accumulation of windborne dust known as loess beginning about 10,000 years ago.
“There is a lot of carbon at depths where nobody is measuring. It was assumed that there was little carbon in deeper soils. Most studies are done in only the top 30 cm. Our study is showing that we are potentially grossly underestimating carbon in soils,” Dr Marin-Spiotta explained. http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/soilscience/science-ancient-soils-rich-carbon-01944.html
Land and ocean sinks absorb about half the anthropocentric CO2 emitted into the atmosphere
Killiansays
Killian has stated we can get from about 415ppm CO2 back to 280ppm in 10 – 20 years based on regenerative agriculture being adopted by all or most farmers and the techniques they use. This just makes me sceptical.
Why do you lie? None of the above is true. What is true? I have said:
We can get to 260~280ppm in as little as 20 years IF we
* Rapidly, massively simplify
* Adopt regenerative agriculture globally, everything from home gardens to farms
* Rapidly reduce consumption globally 80-90%
* Adopt Regenerative Design as the basis of decision-making
* Adopt Regenerative Governance, or something similar
You’re not skeptical, you’re a denialist and propagandist. You knew what you were writing was false.
Mikesays
it doesn’t matter much, but I think he doesn’t know what he writes is false. I think he often reads carelessly and thinks in a muddled manner and responds the same way. We all do some of that. Some of us do more of it than others. We can all do better if we try and if we choose to be less reactive.
I think the plan you lay out above might work as you think. It’s too bad that our species would rather die than change our way of life. I am not worried, even for the sake of argument, that overshoot on your plan would bring on a new ice age. That’s an idea that jumps the shark in my opinion.
Cheers
Killiansays
it doesn’t matter much, but I think he doesn’t know what he writes is false.
He’s been on this site since Dec. 2016. He and I have gone round and round on this precisely because he consistently and constantly employs such tactics.
It is true he is a crap analyst, is muddled, can’t keep the issues integrated in his mind to save his life, but the misrepresentations of what *I* say, not him stating his muddled opinion, is intentional. it’s far too consistent to not be. THANK GOD a couple others have finally said to him the same as you do above and I have since mid-2017: He is muddled, self-contradictory, quick to use a Straw Man, etc.
As you can see, it has him rattled. He’s gotten quite belligerent of late with others in a way he has mostly reserved for me. Maybe the mental and emotional strain will break through his obtuseness and let him begin to understand things?
Reality Checksays
mike: “I think he doesn’t know what he writes is false. I think he often reads carelessly and thinks in a muddled manner and responds the same way. “
And too hastily. There’s a set pattern there. The responses I have received are ethereal at times.
“That’s an idea that jumps the shark in my opinion. “
I was thinking early high school debating. Win at any cost? The truth be damned. A pity.
nigeljsays
This is the same Mike who has:
1) several times insinuated I’m a luke warmer, despite my repeated, consistent statements that I think climate change is serious and caused by human activities.
2) called me a climate centrist despite me repeatedly and consistently saying I think the IPCC underestimate the climate problem, and are too conservative.
3)insinuated I was opposed to systems change, despite the fact I have repeatedly and consistently called for a new zero carbon energy grid.
4)has repeatedly insinuated I oppose money printing to help solve the climate problem when I’ve consistently and repeatedly said the exact opposite.
5) said I say we should go slow solving the climate problem, when I’ve repeatedly and consistently said we should aim to meet the Paris accord goals and ideally try to do better..
He might deny this, but the regulars here that I have some respect for know I’m right. I wonder what planet Mike lives on at times.:). I suspect he sees me criticising some of the more outrageous warmist claims and jumps to the conclusions I’m a luke warmer or climate centrist. I don’t know what else it could be unless his brain is muddled. Or perhaps he thinks that because I disagree with the latest ridiculous idea I oppose all change or something.
I don’t care if people robustly crticise my views, but when someone makes so many repeated false accusations about me, and as in his comment above is such a back stabber and hypocrite, I do get annoyed.
Stop jumping to the wrong conclusions Mike. Read carefully. The same goes for Killian who consistently misrepresents my position on things. Although he’s not quite as bas as Mike.
Killiansays
Stop jumping to the wrong conclusions Mike. Read carefully. The same goes for Killian who consistently misrepresents my position on things.
It must be genetic? He absolutely refuses to see himself clearly.
Nigel, no, you have the directionality backwards. This is what we are trying to get you to understand, and what I have been telling you since mid-2017. Let’s look at the first thing you said above:
1) several times insinuated I’m a luke warmer, despite my repeated, consistent statements that I think climate change is serious and caused by human activities.
You’ve heard it said, actions speak louder than words? Your fingers type that you are not a centrist and not a luke-warmer, but your actions are consistent with both.
Then you said, 2) called me a climate centrist despite me repeatedly and consistently saying I think the IPCC underestimate the climate problem, and are too conservative.
You have, for over four years now, said we can’t move too fast, we can’t change too much *no matter how many times it is pointed out that *risk* trumps what you want or wish for or think is plausible. If we fail to act rapidly and the worst-case scenario occurs, your feet-dragging will have helped end… everything. Mass extinction, and maybe even our own.
Your self-descriptions and your actions are *not* in harmony, but you so far have refused to accept that observation.
Etc.
I have fought this pitched battle with you all these years with only rare instances of others debating you. But I have called you out on your behavior, and now, finally, others have become fed up with it because,,, your rhetoric is directly contradicting them and their expertise. Finally, others have a personal reason to call you on your shit.
Thank god! You can never again try to label me as some mean, nasty malcontent: I respond to your maddening illogic and belittling.
Time for you to take stock of yourself.
nigeljsays
Killian, not surprisingly I disagree. Although of course I’m not perfect.
“You’ve heard it said, actions speak louder than words? Your fingers type that you are not a centrist and not a luke-warmer, but your actions are consistent with both.”
Another typical falsehood and evidence free claim. Killian should be BOREHOLED. to spend all of eternity with JDS. Im sure they will love each others company.
“You have, for over four years now, said we can’t move too fast, we can’t change too much *no matter how many times it is pointed out that *risk* trumps what you want or wish for or think is plausible. If we fail to act rapidly and the worst-case scenario occurs, your feet-dragging will have helped end… everything. Mass extinction, and maybe even our own.
Another falsehood. One example. I have consistently and repeatedly said we should change over to renewable energy as fast as possible. Obviously it cannot and will not happen overnight. It takes time to build out new energy sources..
“Thank god! You can never again try to label me as some mean, nasty malcontent: ”
You misunderstand. me. I do label you as a nasty PERSON as far as your internet style of communication goes. But many people like you are brave and happy to personally demean others on internet, where people have anonymity and dont have to directly face others.
And of course there are other people who promote regenerative farming and wont like my criticisms so they fight back, eg Scott, Mike and Reality check. You are obviously like minded people, all hard left except maybe Scott. So you find common ground, and attack me and what I post.
All I’m saying is you make HUGE claims on how much and how fast things can be done, so show me citations and proper maths. Apparently asking that that makes me a “a school debater. ” ROFL
Or stop making unsubstantiated, crazy claims. If you were more realistic about things, I would be less critical support you more if you did that..
And nothing you have said falsifies what I said about Mikes comments.
Adam Leasays
I’ll take your word for it that it is theoretically possible to drop CO2 back to below 300ppm with the measures you list (looking at them together they seem virtually certain to work), but the question is how we persuade the global population, or even starting with the wealthiest nations, to adopt these measures? Scientists have been warning about climate change and its potential impacts for the last half century at least, and CO2 emissions are still increasing year on year. If we haven’t managed to even put the brake on emissions, never mind reduce them in that half century, why should I believe that the world’s population is suddenly going to see the light and do what you say is necessary over the next 20 years?
Killiansays
the question is how we persuade the global population, or even starting with the wealthiest nations, to adopt these measures?
I don’t think we do in the sense you mean it. “Hearts and minds” type stuff, old-style activism, none of that is going to work because we don’t have centuries to get this done. (Yes, centuries: How long have we been fighting inequality, economic injustice, racism and slavery, etc? Literally thousands of years, really, but certainly several hundred at the least.)
No, we do this by… doing it. My plan would in ways parallel things like Via Campesina, Transition Towns, Ecosystem Restoration Camps. In fact, we could use Regenerative Governance to bring all such movements under a single umbrella.
Reality Checksays
I concur. Something very profound and significant needs to change first. Until then, BAU rules the day in the real world.
I don’t know the details of Killian’s simplification and regenerative governance plan. I’ll just bow out and let him advocate his own ideas.
However, I myself have put a lot of thought to the problem of actually doing this in an organized way that just might stick. There is a little known economic theory called modular autarky that I think just might be the perfect transitional form to implement solutions without any net costs and only gradual minor disruption of societal norms, towards a much more adaptable, resilient and robust sustainable future.
It’s based on biomimicry and somewhat resembles “franchises” with important differences. (Not the least of which is it works bottom up with vertical stacking rather than top down with vertical integration). This reverses the monetary flow from the bottom up to a monetary flow from the top down. Principles include local ownership and autonomy and circular economics based on only a more general planned framework, all done in an organized cooperative effort much like farmers’ co-ops.. And it would require a start up seed, that will then expand and grow. But we are talking about a tiny one time seed compared to the trillions found in most mitigation plans. That’s because each module is stand alone sustainable and profitable, self replicating, while groups become even more so.
Much like a tree is stand alone capable of growth, but there are many more emergent properties in a forest that make it far more valuable than the sum of each tree. It is capitalistic, but follows the principles of abundance rather than the principles of scarcity (supply and demand) as found in modern economics. And most importantly of all, it is fully compatible with most current systems as a plug in. Only after it grows and multiples does it begin to take over. (survival of the fittest as it becomes the forest rather than a bunch of individual trees ie… the new normal)
I caution of course that I am not an expert in economics or business. So I am not certain if it would work or not. But it does follow many basic principles of permaculture design and holistic management, as well as basic farm economics 101 taught to all farmers in the USA. It could work in my opinion. Maybe one day I will get that seed and see if it germinates? Just a thought.
nigeljsays
What a truly ridiculous claim you have made. You have just said everything I said was wrong and then said the numerical claims and time frames are correct. I left out simplification and those details for the sake of brevity and concentrating on the main issue about farming. That is the main POINT anyway.
Your comments on this are laughable. This is why nobody takes you seriously on this website except Mike. and Scott. Even they don’t seem too enthusiastic. Its why you get so much negative feedback form so many other people.
Killiansays
No, I really didn’t. I’m beginning to think there’s some mental illness involved here. Reality is not in play.
I mean no disrespect. I come from a psych/counseling background. You have twisted this around spectacularly.
Take a break, Nigel. Go on a little vacation or something. I have long thought you were not intellectually up to this challenge, but now I am beginning to think I misread you and there is something deeper at play.
Seriously, take a step back. Take a minute.
nigeljsays
Ok I didn’t use the exact words you used. But I was right about you aiming to get back to approximately 280ppm, and I was in the same ball park in terms of time period, of around 20 years, as opposed to something like 5 years, or 50 or 100 years. So I think you are being needlessly pedantic.. I did my best to remember exactly what you said.
I didn’t say simplification because we are talking specifically about farming so things like tilling, mulching, herbicides etcetera.. Governance systems or de-industrialisation might be related but only indirectly.
I also have a psych. background. I did a couple of papers at university, and was in the top five students in an intake of about 150 people. I barely even tried. So don’t lecture me on the issues. We did operant conditioning, trained rats in mazes, perception ,motivation, neuropsychology etc. Most interesting.
The more you accuse other people of not being intellectually up to things the more you piss of the very people you need to convince. You don’t even have Ray Ladburys entertaining sense of wit..
Killiansays
So I think you are being needlessly pedantic.
No, you lied. Again. And, just to put a fine point on it, I have also added that 20 years is *possible*, but not likely because of inertia and the time needed to build awareness, etc., and that 50 years should be very doable and 100 should be easy.
All of this is known to you.
But you cherry-pick 20 to set up your lying straw man.
So sick of your dishonesty.
Killiansays
Re: Energy and simplification/degrowth
As I have said for 14 years, this is not a choice. I am supremely happy I had the luck to participate on The Oil Drum (TOD) while it was active. If one does not understand energy, one cannot understand Economics, politics, sustainability…. pretty much anything one needs to know to discuss humanity’s future.
I know Nate Hagens from TOD. He had been a Wall St. guy, “got religion” about the state of the planet, left Wall St., started studying issues of sustainability, went back to school, and ended up with a Ph.D. I first heard the term “discounting the future” from his posts pre-PhD.
Here is a small part of an over TWO HOUR presentation on the realities we face. I have not watched it all, only Myth #21 about energy. I do not always agree with Nate because, you know, I’m a better analyst than everyone else ( :-) ), but he gets an awful lot right.
His presentation is on Twitter and YouTube. He has – thank god! – created a Twitter thread with all the myths linked separately to the point in the total presentation where they begin. Ingenious idea for a really long video.
Anyway, biophysically (resource limits) degrowth is coming whether one accepts that or not. It’s not an issue of opinion, but of biophysical reality.
The whole video:
For some weird reason, I cannot get the URL to point to the beginning, so if you want to see the beginning of the video, just start the video then jump to the beginning.
Reality Checksays
I cannot get the URL to point to the beginning
That’s because there’s a timing addon “stamp” at the end of the url
see &t=405s ,, delete that part.
and look at the pinned comment at top … time stamp of the various sections … eg 6:45 — Myth #31: Humans Are Mostly Selfish
When using the Share option, there is a checkbox to use to set a particular time in every video.
Killiansays
Ah…. I am a technical dunderhead. It’s really ironic because I was graduating uni as the 80-88’s were still a thing and built my own first couple of computers. I became a life-long IBM/Microdeath user because we could customize vs Apple’s take-it-or-leave=it attitude.
I am truly lost these days!
Killiansays
Here’s a link to the Nate Hagens Twitter thread. The second post has a Table of Contents w/ time stamps.
Some of you are not gonna like Myth 30. After all, most of you seem to hate any form of society-wide sharing and cooperating – despite it being the true “human nature.”
99% of human history…. (It’s actually closer to 97%.)
—–
In Myth #25 he says we are less smart than we were 10k years ago. Yes! I think it was Jared Diamond who first got me thinking this. I always knew Aborigine people had to be at least as intelligent, but when you consider all they do, remember, problem-solve, etc., on a daily basis, it becomes clear they are using their brains far more actively.
This correlates with the myth of modern humans’ exceptionalism.
“Energy blind.” Indeed. This has a huge impact on the myths that resource limits either don’t exist or can be overcome because the reality of energy as work vs economic value is lost on people and they cannot accept the obvious: None of our energy systems are sustainable.
——————————
Myth #22 is fun: Money! While MMT is the correct explanation of how debt and taxes work, increased debt does not increase resources – but it does allow us to use them faster. We can use MMT to equalize economically, but like all economics, in the end it’s a fantasy and the physical realities of Nature impose themselves on our wishes to consume.
———————————
Myth #20: In the future we wont need oil due to Peak Demand!!
Love this one. I just laugh at people who talk about a non-carbon/decarbonized economy. They are thinking only of direct energy uses such as gasoline. But if you end all transport-related and energy consumption-related uses of oil, 2/3 of a barrel of oil goes into… stuff. Look around you: 95% of everything around you right now, no matter what town, city, or house you live in, requires FFs in some way, shape or form.
—————-
Myth #19: We Can Achieve Net Zero!! (by 2050 or any date)
“NetZero is biophysically impossible,”
Amen. And obviously so. NetZero does NOT include reducing consumption. It is, if anything, a scam that keeps oil gushing because the goal is to keep consumption ramped up… despite the fact all that “stuff” requires FFs.
———————–
Myth #17: Growth Is Forever
The energetic/resource-based impossibility of continued growth. Economists like Friedman, Nordhaus, et al., consider 2-3% a year economic growth healthy. That equals an economy 4x larger in 2100… on a planet already in overshoot with depletion of a range of resources already manifesting?
Crazy talk. Fantasy.
————————-
Myth #15: Overpopulation Is the Main Driver
It’s consumption, not population, though reducing both is ultimately needed for a good quality of life. Problem? Reducing population is economic suicide in the current economic system, as is reducing consumption, thus the faux #GND and #NetZero delerium.
———————————–
Myth #11: Climate Change Is the Core Problem > Climate Change is the Only Big Problem We Have
This is poor framing on his part, He describes the issue well, but that is a terrible title for this section. He means, we are facing a Perfect Storm of problems created by the economic choices we have made. Chemicals pervade the planet, soil destruction, land-use changes, ecosystem breakdown and fragmentation, e.g.
(con’t)
I really miss The Oil Drum… We used to debate and discuss this stuff all the time. Most people, and most of you here, really don’t understand the implications.
————————–
nigeljsays
Killian the problem is that just because common ownership and group decision making works for hunger gatherers and some simple farming communities it doesn’t automatically follow that it would work well for an industrial society, even your scaled back version. It works for hunter gatherers because it fits with their hunger gathering lifestyle. Its doesn’t fit with industrial society. Private ownership and hierarchies work well for industrial society.. This is kind of obvious.
Concentrate on things that might actually work like the circular economy idea of living within biosphere constraints and recycling non renewables.
Killiansays
Shush, I am tired of your baseless assertions. Why do you keep bleating about things you have zero knowledge or experience with?
Cheran, Mexico: Modern city, 16k people. You know this. Why do you lie?
nigeljsays
Killian, you cannot quote one or two examples like Cheran, that might work to an extent and expect it would suit every country, or scale up successfully globally. And Cheran is not a big industrial powerhouse. You also have the Quaker communities but its their religious convictions that enable them to stick to their lifestyle. Its just so much more complicated than you seem to think.
And most of these sorts of alternative (intentional) communities fail after a few years. That should tell you something. I wish it were otherwise. Refer:
No examples? Well, there’s Cheran. Why do we need more than one proof of concept? And you think that was the only one? How about pretty much every society prior to 10k years ago? And most up till 4k years ago? And hundreds that still exist.
More complicated than *I* think? You have no idea what I think, even after all these years. It is the opposite: I understand the issues and which ones are germane and which are not. You are cluelessly waving your arms and wagging your tongue at things precisely because you do not understand them with any depth whatsoever.
You really need to just close your mouth and tape up your fingers for a few years and force yourself to learn to think.
Killiansays
Cheran, Mexico.
Quiet, please. You have no knowledge, experience or expertise in this field.
Reality Checksays
Earth and Humanity: Myth and Reality
OK, well I do like that video Killian. A very pleasant clear voice as well. Great well thought out text.
This word ‘Reality’ keeps turning up a lot for me recently. It is clever placing a Myth icon top left, shifting to the Reality icon bottom right as he goes through the information he is sharing. Whether he did that with intent or not, it’s a neat trick to help “lock in” his key points, perhaps subconsciously.
I am really impressed how the beginning starts with Myth #33 : The Experts Have ALL the Answers
He is making a critical point. One that has been proven/shown to be undeniably true – pick it up here at 3:02 Mins. – https://youtu.be/qYeZwUVx5MY?t=182
“Most people think that when you get a bunch of experts in a room (or a discussion forum, a COP Meeting, a IPCC Working Group Review meeting) their expertise is somehow merged and everyone understands everything.”
“The reality is that information ultimately has to be synthesized in a single Mind. It is the only place it can possibly be synthesized.”
“Specialists need to learn, a lot, from other specialists to arrive at a generalist’s *aha moment* that puts the big picture together.”
“This is a problem for a culture (and sub-cultures such as science, academia, economics or politics) full of reductionist expertise but seeking wisdom.”
“In a similar way we have advocates and activists striving for policies that address their specific issues without a coherent overview of how their issue interconnects with other, perhaps equally important, future needs.”
“We have arrived at a species level moment where everything is connected but we lack both a vocabulary for the future and a corresponding systemic map. “
“Collective coordination of our upcoming challenges will not be possible without first having collective sense making. We are going to need both cleverness and wisdom. ”
Comments: Brilliantly put. The above underpins every Myth vs Reality that comes after.
Many might think or say “Well that is really obvious. We know that. It’s a given. We all understand this already.” Some might know it, theoretically, but we certainly have not practiced it in addressing the critical nature of Climate Change.
I also think the above by Nate Hagens again illustrates why the UNFCCC-COP systems are not fit for purpose. Why they have failed so dramatically despite giving lip-service to noble ideas like Collective Coordination for 30 years.
Yes. I meant to note he is describing exactly why I have had so much success with predictions/scenarios. I don’t have the memory or the temperament to DO the science, e,g, but I excel at the systems level, the Big Picture. My mind is where the data go to be analyzed.
This is why we need permaculturists and indigenous people deeply involved in these bodies that hold our futures in their hands.
Killiansays
Regenerative Governance is sense-making.
Reality Checksays
Yes!
Mr. Know It Allsays
“In Myth #25 he says we are less smart than we were 10k years ago. ”
Not hard to believe that at all. I’ll bet most folks 10K years ago didn’t have much trouble figuring out if they were a boy or a girl. Libraries of the future will be filled with examples of abject stupidity by people alive today. Maybe that’s not right – our collective stupidity today is so profound that any who survive the consequences of today’s idiocy will probably be cavemen and there will be no libraries.
;)
nigeljsays
This new format has a software bug. After posting a reply the page goes to the blue block of information right at the bottom of the page.
Killiansays
Myth #10: Billionaires and Politicians Are in Charge
The keys here for me are:
1. Politicians and billionaires are not so much in charge as they are stuck on a runaway economic and ideological train.
2. Thus, they can’t solve our problems.
3. especially since they require degrowth, which is anethema to both the economic and political systems.
So, as I have said for many years now, the change that is coming *must* be bottom-up, not top-down.
Reality Checksays
Yes, that Myth 10 was a really good section. And the others surrounding it. There is a lot covered there to grasp, think about clearly. Myth #8: Stimulus Is Permanent is another critical aspect, piece of the puzzle box.
…… the super-organism dynamic of growth
is currently drowning out the wishes and
plans of politicians and elites.
it’s why people at Davos, (WEF/G7) and DC are so
concerned and feel powerless because the system
aka supporting financial markets that are
optimized for growth, as growth is waning.
This has taken on a life of its own
metaphorically the global economic
system is a runaway train, with an energy-hungry
amoeba as the conductor at least for now.
We are now in a perfect storm of challenges
which are bipartisan, systemic, abstract, complex,
not imminent until they are, and have no easy
answers within current institutional accepted
policy frameworks.
The minds of the people most capable of
addressing them are retreating from this storm
not envisioning and building life rafts.
In the same way that our individual minds have
increasingly little overlap with the physical world,
our political discourse has very little overlap with
the real policies our nation/s is going to need
because we have continually kicked the can on
our longer term problems (down the road.)
(spoiler: the discussion concludes pointing out the road ahead is now closed, it hits a dead end. Almost as long as gone with the wind will be a drawback. The people most in need to grasp these things holistically and re-orientate their thinking and motivations, will not watch it through. His Twitter posts in series for each Myth vs Reality doesn’t do the quality work he has put into it justice. Some things simply cannot be dumbed down or simplified like that. )
Killiansays
Same response as the other below: Top-down cannot solve our problems. We come at it from different perspectives, his esoteric, mine utterly pragmatic, but reach the same conclusion. That should scare people.
For him, it’s all about this overwhelming that, the system is out of control, etc., but none of that is quantifiable and all of it is subject to interpretation/opinion. This is why I advocate so strongly for a First Principles-based approach, a regeneative approach, a TEK-/Permaculture-based approach.
If we focus on problem-solving, we avoid any of the nightmare quagmires that come with trying to harmonize those things which can never, will never be universal: Beliefs, morals, ethics, ideologies. We can shift the questions:
1. Who can afford to eat? Who is allowed to eat? Who should be allowed to eat?
1b. How do we feed everyone?
2. Who deserves more? Who earns more? Who is more valuable?
2b. What needs some food? Who needs a roof thatched? Who needs a cane?
Etc.
When we solve problems rather than argue esoterica, we live well.
Reality Checksays
none of that is quantifiable and all of it is subject to interpretation/opinion
Yes, i can understand. He’s presenting a different framing, perspective and tone. It;s nebulous and yet there’s some clarity there too. He;s taking detailed hard facts and painting a graphic picture for the Mind to grasp. Not easy, and by defualt not entirely accurate either, it cannot be as each mind sees a little differently.
But I really like what he has shown up, from the minor details to grand vista.
So I feel that I can see your alt approach and why that’s good too. Principles, practical, down to earth. If this then that in situ. People focused. Community and so on. Brilliant.
Where do people imagine today’s culture and society arose from in the first place. And how it became so distorted and anti-humane despite any good intentions.
It’s like, hey, all economists are evil … they aren’t individually, but they are! It’s the System they live in which makes them promote evil and dysfunctional stupidity. Doesn’t matter. No big deal.
When we solve problems rather than argue esoterica, we live well.
Tes, E-P does say that–a lot. But IMO it’s a bit of a strawman, and even more so an argument from incredulity.
Existense proofs are the only true proofs there are in this world. (Mathematical proofs are something else.)
ALL of the examples you cited are FOAK units built by inexperienced organizations. The ONLY way to build ANYTHING at scale is to use experienced workforces in series production. So WHY are you citing the former to condemn the latter?
Second, and going to the argument from incredulity–is it harder to believe that we can scale up the deployment of RE by a factor of 6 or so in the next decade or two, or that we can scale up the deployment of nuclear power AT ALL in the same time frame?
Look at the existence proofs again. THere are SEVERAL nuclear decarbonization success stories: Ontario, France, Sweden, to list a few. There are NO wind/solar decarbonization success stories; “renewable” Germany is an abject failure despite its scale-up, stuck at several times the per-kWh carbon emissions of nuclear France. The way to go is obvious.
The problem is the solution: Why would we need synfuels in a simplified world?
To support the population we have today and won’t be rid of naturally for at least half a century. Or do you intend to kill them?
Killiansays
Gobbledygook. You’re barking words. A simplified world saves lives, it doesn’t put them in jeopardy.
Killiansays
Sadly, this isn’t true regenerative farming as it uses pesticides, etc., though minimally *because* of the positive effects of regenerative techniques.
It does demonstrate how an intermediate step might be applied.
Guardian has a cultural story about amaranth. I think amaranth can be grown without tilling soil, so I think it would fit in a regen ag model. I don’t know much about amaranth, but it sounds like a highly adaptable plant that will spread and survive, even in hot and dry climate, so maybe it could fit into a regen ag model.
The beautiful thing about true Regen Ag? Everything and anything fits under the umbrella. It is utterly and completely context-dependent because… Nature is.
Expanding our knowledge of plants is always a good thing as none of them are weeds. “Weeds” is a kind of bio-racism! If you have dandelions, save money, eat ’em!
Adam Leasays
I’m not sure about that. I have an allotment and have spent time at my workplace tyring to eradicate an invasive plant originally brought in from overseas (Himilayan Balsam).
I have only cultivated an allotment for about eight years so there is still a lot I have to learn, and learning through experience is a slow process. I try to minimise digging and never use pesticides or weedkillers. One of the problems in my part of the UK (and I suspect in a lot of places) is that there are a handful of plants that are often classified as weeds that are very aggressive, and without some management will just take over. My allotment is on a site with heavy clay soil which spends 11 months of the year damp or wet (because the UK has a damp climate). These conditions are optimal for bindweed, couch grass and creeping buttercup to take hold. These notorious weeds, which spread through underground rhizomes, if left unchecked will swamp a vegetable bed and uiltimately kill any traditional edible annual crops which are not strong or vigorous enough to compete (they won’t be good for perennial crops either). Digging them out will have limited success as even an inch of root left behind in the soil will spawn a new plant. In a prolonged dry spell, these weeds will get knocked back, but they will recover once the rains return.
To grow traditional staple UK crops like carrots, potatoes, brassicas, leeks and beans, there is going to have to be some management of the land to stop the aggressive perennial weeds/plants taking over. There is a reason why if you go on a walk in the country near where I live and the footpath has not been maintained, you will be wading through waste deep nettles and brambles, because they are some of the most aggressive (successful) native plants and they spread everywhere given the chance.
You really don’t want these around if you are trying to cultivate land for food.
Reality Checksays
@mike
amaranth. grows wild in Greece. During the bad times, during the war etc it kept people alive who had little to nothing. But they would use the entire plant, not the seeds only. Could even feed babies with it to replace missing mothers milk. It’s also well known in Asia and still used today.
Mikesays
A smart move would be to tackle methane emissions. That is the low hanging fruit if we are trying to reduce warming in the near term.
Reduce methane or face climate catastrophe, scientists warn
Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development and a lead reviewer for the IPCC, said methane reductions were probably the only way of staving off temperature rises of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, beyond which extreme weather will increase and “tipping points” could be reached. “Cutting methane is the biggest opportunity to slow warming between now and 2040,” he said. “We need to face this emergency.”
Cheers
Killiansays
Silos are not going to get it done. We change the system, or we fail. See: New paper much-posted re: AMOC.
There is one and only one pathway that de-silos our response by addressing everything simultaneously: Rapid, regenerative simplification.
I’m thinking about the COP system while listening to this section –
You might think of other systems under stress that also fits.
Quote: Because we have continually kicked the can on our
longer term problems, incremental tiny steps are the only
things that are now politically acceptable. Simply put the
political world is even less ready for the systemic
conversation than the general public.
Under this framing what can be stated politically are themes
like: Net Zero by 2050. We don’t need oil anymore due
to peak demand. Hydrogen and Renewables will replace
fossil fuels. Sustainable growth and others.
These (fiction) stories maintain a socially acceptable
conduit between politics and business sharing popular
societal goals, but lacking in biophysical reality.
I realize there may be some tough pills to swallow in this
presentation and that some may not agree with all these
myths and realities, but just for a moment imagine that
everything I am saying here is true.
Can you further imagine a G7 or a G20 meeting (or a COP
meeting) where heads of state admit that (Economic)
Growth is over, and the only way to solve climate change
is using considerable less energy and resources, shifting
to less material economies going forward, especially by rich
nations? And that we are papering over our (dire)
biophysical situation with unsustainable debt, and that oil
production peaked in 2018!
These things cannot be stated, for if they were it would
trigger a phase shift towards scarcity behavior.
For similar reasons I suspect the energy, money, growth
story will never be spoken in Congressional hearings or
on Fox, or on CNN, until it is well in the rear-view mirror
and obvious to everyone.
As individual human beings politicians billionaires and
civic leaders can understand the details of the human
predicament and over a few beers or whiskey muse on
what might be possible as interventions. But as
spokespeople the interventions society will truly need cannot be voiced because the super-organism dynamic
of simple goals aligned with Growth stand between leaders
and the public, at least for now.
(end quotes)
I highly recommend bookmarking this video for later consumption and quiet consideration.
Earth and Humanity: Myth and Reality – May 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY
Killiansays
And yet, when I say degrowth, the end of Capitalism, the end of economics, simplification, et al., is *necessary*, and that the current governmental/political/economic/NGO structures CANNOT solve our problems *because of* the nature of what they are, the principles by which they operate, the rudeness is not even slightly contained.
Fear is a great motivator of denial.
Reality Checksays
@Killian
I hear you. If I was you I’d be fed-up (or worse) too. Knowledge and the truth is wasted on fools. By their fruits thou shalt know them, be they wise or the fool.
(some misc random ideas) It’s good to be nice to others, but it’s even more important to be nice to yourself. You really have to love yourself to get anything done in this world. So make sure you don’t start seeing yourself through the eyes of those who don’t value you. Know your worth, even when they don’t.
If they make you feel like you can’t be yourself, or if they make you “less than” in any way, don’t pursue a connection with them. If you feel emotionally drained after hanging out with them or get a small hit of anxiety when you are reminded of them, listen to your intuition. There are so many “right people” for you, who energize you and inspire you to be your best self. It makes no sense to force it with people who are the wrong match for you.
Birds of a feather flock together. And are joyful doing it.
Or become a Duck. Ignore it all, like water off a duck’s back. Stuff them. Why care what other people say or think?
nigeljsays
Reality Check said:
“Can you further imagine a G7 or a G20 meeting (or a COP
meeting) where heads of state admit that (Economic)
Growth is over, and the only way to solve climate change
is using considerable less energy and resources, shifting
to less material economies going forward, especially by rich
nations? And that we are papering over our (dire)
biophysical situation with unsustainable debt, and that oil
production peaked in 2018!”
No I cant imagine any government admitting that and suggesting those things, so this is why I don’t waste my time even suggesting it could be imagined. Best to promote things that can be imagined and that might actually happen.
Growth isn’t over, but its been gradually slowing down in developed countries. The party might be nearing the end!.
Who was implicitly speculating about fusion energy, which has conspicuously failed to pan out as expected at the time.
Fission energy has done quite well. Why aren’t we using it to best effect?
Susan Andersonsays
Sadly, more modern (and safer) forms of fission energy are expensive to set up and people are afraid. Using it to “best effect” has become impossible because fears are exploited. Most people don’t have the flexibility to understand that life is complicated and we need to choose the least bad options rather than running away from anything that distracts from our daily preoccupations.
The whole soil carbon issue has uncertainties in it, so I tend go by what the peer reviewed studies show
Because terra preta does not exist, apparently. Created a thousand years ago with the simplest of actions, still there, meters deep, orders of magnitude faster and richer than anything Nature can do on her own, yet you keep repeating this “uncertainty” in the face of factual evidence, of history.
Terra preta is a key part of Regen Ag – true Regen Ag, not the bullshit, single-issue trash you keep claiming represents studies of holistic systems. The existence of that one thing, all by itself, invalidates everything you have ever said contrarily about Regen Ag.
I really sat up and took notice when you mentioned terra preta.
The downside of the “slash and smolder” agriculture which built the terra preta in the first place is that it loses a great deal of fixed carbon to the atmosphere. We can deal with that by supplying the energy for the charring step from something other than the biomass itself, and electric power (from clean sources, of course) is well-suited to that task. Frank Shu’s supertorrefaction reactor would seem to be just the thing, as it converts 1 kg of wet wood chips into 550 grams of steam, 300 grams of solid char and 150 grams of mostly-combustible gases (of which a surprising amount is hydrogen). Wash the salt out of the char and you should be good to go.
Supposedly, a maize plant has about an equal yield of grain and other biomass. I realize that you won’t be getting 200 bu/ac yields with regenerative methods, but maybe 100 bu/ac is possible. That’s about 5600 pounds of grain and another 5600 pounds of stalks, leaves and cobs. If half of that is used as soil cover and the rest carbonized, you’d get about 840 lb of nearly-pure carbon char per acre per year. Hmmm, that’s not really very much, only about 0.3 ounces per square foot per year. Maybe this idea needs more work.
(And is there any chance we can get rid of this cockamamie color scheme and buggy page and go back to what works?)
Killiansays
You don’t understand what terra preta is. It is not created by slash-and-burn. Also, slash and burn does not add to the atmospheric load, it merely speeds the natural cycle because plants die and decompose slowly while burning them makes the cycle much, must faster. But nothing is added, only cycled more quickly.
Reality Checksays
Prof. Kevin Anderson again raising concerns about Net Zero, NETs, +1.5C Mitigation, ongoing Economic Growth to 2100, as the serious implications of COP26 looms.
Kevin Anderson @KevinClimate – August 6th
The real danger of ‘Net Zero’ exemplified on @BBCr4today when head of UK Oil & Gas Authority claimed proposed development of large new UK oil field (Cambo) is all part of delivering UK net zero. We urgently need to escape the deeply corrupt Net-Zero framing of climate change. https://twitter.com/KevinClimate/status/1423561322491523073
I haven’t come across any framing of Net Zero that doesn’t rely on a series of ruses to justify weak near-term mitigation, including the CCC’s 6th budget report. As I’ve argued earlier, I’d prefer to see a set of separate & stringent commitments with no substitution between them. https://twitter.com/KevinClimate/status/1423567229333934082
But the prospect of future negative emissions is already being used to weaken mitigation policies today. Hence real additional CO2 today is justified by a belief in NETs tomorrow. My point is there should be no substitution between these & we need 1.5-2°C mitigation policies now. https://twitter.com/KevinClimate/status/1423573736461148160
The UK & CCC Net-Zero position is not based on Paris 1.5-2°C, but has been stealthily shifted to align with the Paris Agreement’s nebulous legal language of “highest possible ambition” (sub-clause, without major impacts on business as usual). At every turn we’re scamming Paris. https://twitter.com/KevinClimate/status/1423613499113152514
Fact is Anderson, Mann, and RealClimate et al are not being seen on the 6 O’Çlock News or on Fox and Sky News. The decision makers at COP26 don’t care what is trending on Twitter – they have already decided the future.
1.5 °C degrowth scenarios suggest the need for new mitigation pathways
Lorenz T. Keyßer
Five years after the Paris Agreement, CO2 emissions are still
rising, … mitigation scenarios reported by the IPCC Special
Report on 1.5 °C (SR1.5) rely on controversial amounts of
carbon dioxide removal and/or on unprecedented technological
changes. Simultaneously, all of them assume continued growth
in gross domestic product (GDP) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22884-9.pdf
Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis
Jan C Minx et al Moral hazard, betting, and hubris
In our view, three issues in particular stand out in need of future ethical analysis (Lenzi 2018). These are first, that NETs might create a moral hazard against mitigation; second (and relatedly), that an implicit policy bet on NETs that are unproven at scale may lock in worse climate-related harms if they failed to deliver; and third, that the sheer scale of NETs deployment observed in mitigation scenarios is staggeringly hubristic. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b/meta
Well done on using the time based urls. In this case, what might have happened is when you went to copy the url it didn’t take, so you pasted the same url Myth #21: twice. see both have &t=2682s
It happens to me often too. So just do a check before hitting post. eg test the link in another tab.
Noting Myth 21: 46:50 mins
we often use a money in energy out lens — a money in energy out is only one way to see what’s happening and it is a narrow boundary perspective and therefore incomplete and misleading. A systems perspective would use energy and materials in, energy and materials out math; and when viewed this way a more complete picture emerges
Math doesn’t lie. Only the people who use Math can do that.
Reality Checksays
@Killian getting a little bit of reality into the conversation.
Better than zero. I wonder if it will take?
I liked this turn of phrase by Nate: In a 17 Terawatt Economy, 80% powered by fossil fuels,
Net Zero emissions is Biophysically Delusional.
but then: … accepting this biophysical reality will be Politically
Delusional, so maybe we can meet in the middle?
I’m not convinced reality can be that easily negotiated away. Accepting the present biophysical reality is what it is, seems to be the best if not the only place to start.
You have obviously not thought this through. You are using SERIOUSLY unreadable text colors (text should be #000, BLACK, throughout). Distinguish things with mildly different background colors; the contrasts are far better.
Also, the threaded format is defective. When every comment is in sequence, they can be followed in sequence. You do not have any way to follow new comments in a subthread aside from bookmarking every one and tracking them individually. This puts the burden on the reader for something YOU should take care of.
My advice, as a long-term user of discussion boards: just give it up. You have not improved things, you’ve degraded them.
Some ideas turn out badly. Accept this.
Reality Checksays
@MichaelEMann (with short video)
My interview with @JonSnowC4 of @Channel4News UK on the devastating climate change-fueled wildfires we’re seeing this summer and the “implementation gap” in climate policy commitments going into #COP26: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1423368431538249733
One reply points out the more compelling honest truth:
Great interview Sir. But we must be honest about the looming failure of the mitigation framework under the Paris Agreement. 1.5C consistent pledges won’t be made let alone implemented. We need a new means of rapid action & pressure. Please endorse this: Coal Elimination Treaty
Which states, I think accurately: Under Paris, states have pledged non-binding emission reductions (Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs), which will only hold warming to 2.5-3°C (at best this century). Despite recent progress, major countries refuse to increase their pledges. UNFCCC voting rules enable a single state to block new initiatives and more accountability. By using the General Assembly the CET empowers high-ambition states to create a new framework for action. While this means stepping outside the UNFCCC, it will support the Paris goals – coal reductions will support better NDCs. Like the 2017 nuclear ban treaty, the CET will create a powerful global norm against fossil fuel pollution and empower the vulnerable. https://www.planetpolitics.org/coal-treaty
It may not catch on, but at least they are telling the truth at the same time. Whereas Michael Mann says he is more Optimistic than ever. I am not buying that for a second.
My view is those still following along with the UNFCCC/COP fiction are like the mice following the Pied Piper to their certain death.
There is no virtue in being stupid or gullible and suicidal.
Reality Checksays
(Final highlight of Myth vs Reality) This segment might help see past psychological limitations and blockages, as well as recognising misguided priorities about what we think is more important, but is not. Myth #28: We Care About the Future
Starts at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY&t=1278s
We Care About the Future, kind of, but
for biological reasons we resist doing
much about it.
Our recognition that the future exists
and that we will be in any of it, springs
from a very new brain structure the
neocortex, which has no direct connection
to the deep brain motivational centers
which can impart urgency.
from https://youtu.be/qYeZwUVx5MY?t=1321
During economic research subjects who
chose a larger long-term reward
had their prefrontal cortex activated.
Those who chose the smaller
short-term rewards showed neural
activity in the Limbic system or the
emotional brain.
Neuro-economic research has thus
uncovered that humans in effect
have two discount rates. Blue shaded
area here (rational and thinking brain)
shows our thinking discount rate which
is evidence that we can imagine
long-term issues, like climate change
or resource depletion.
But the steeper red line region is our
emotional discount rate which is
incredibly steep in favor of the present
(emotional feeling brain).
This is clear evidence that we make
decisions using different parts of our
brain. It also proves, (not that we
needed proof that emotions have
the ability to trump reason), this
results in dynamic inconsistency
in our lives.
from https://youtu.be/qYeZwUVx5MY?t=1398
We are emotionally blind to long-term
issues like climate change or energy
depletion, even though our neocortex
can imagine and care about them.
On most of the things that matter we
are addicted to the present. The
future isn’t real to us emotionally
and because of that it isn’t real in our
behaviors.
(end quotes)
Additional useful information:
Human Behavioral Biology Course: 1. Introduction We think in categories.https://youtu.be/NNnIGh9g6fA
This is the guy in every natural disaster/apocalyptic movie that makes an earth-shattering discovery that no one pays attention to; everyone dismisses him because he’s a philosophical lecturer with a hippie beard — but then the main hero notices something off, investigates it, finds him, and together they make up the heroic brains/brawn duo that saves the day.
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2020, abstract #GC119-0012
Pub Date:
December 2020 – Abstract only ref
–Uncovering mechanistic underpinnings of regenerative farming systems on soil organic carbon. Separating SOC into particulate (POC) and mineral-associated (MAOC) forms, two SOC components that are fundamentally different in terms of their formation, persistence, and functioning, is now recognized as the leading strategy to understand and predict broad-scale SOC dynamics to provide recommendations to managers and policymakers.
We will quantify POC and MAOC stocks in soils collected from 24 farms (96 fields) enrolled in the General Mills regenerative agriculture initiative in Kansas. Combining SOC pools data with management, soil health, and biodiversity data we will advance our understanding of the mechanisms promoting SOC storage, and quantitatively assess the ability of a range of regenerative agro-ecological approaches to stimulate long-term SOC sequestration, as well as maintain soil health.
Results will be incorporated into a new generation biogeochemical model (MEMS) that can be used in decision support tools to scale up effects of management and provide an analytically tractable framework that can be used to test specific mechanistic hypotheses about C and N cycling in agroecosystems. Findings from this work will have broad impacts through integration with the numerous organizations coalescing around the regenerative agricultural initiative of which this project is part. We will present the overall conceptual framework, project design and initial findings. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AGUFMGC1190012P/abstract
Killiansays
Or, they could just ask some permaculturists to explain it all to them.
They’re doing better than in the past, but still very, very poorly. Note to all humans: When a corporation starts claiming they are testing something that, if it existed would put them out of business, take it with a grain of salt.
Reality Checksays
@Killian
#RealGoodPoints
I do take your last point especially. Seen it often. However, to be sure I hear you right, when you say *corporation*, you weren’t referring to the AGU were you in this case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union
(Not that I believe the GRU or it’s findings should be taken as perfect or final without good reasons. and some credible verification. )
nigeljsays
More on Joseph Tainter.
Respected anthropologist Joseph Tainter thinks simplification is very difficult and problematic. He is an expert on social collapse theory. The following is a good interview with Tainter, and right up to date discussing current issues. This adds to material Mike posted recently. Just a couple of brief excerpts:
“Dr. Tainter: No, and that is one of the recurrent theories about why societies collapse, that they depleted their resources. I don’t see that in looking at the historical record. What I see, instead, is that you have a situation where societies grow more complex and more costly. They reach a point of diminishing returns, and it becomes essentially impossible to solve future problems……”
“Dr. Tainter: You are absolutely right. We are trapped. We cannot simplify. We cannot withdraw from the way our system has evolved and the way we have set it up. We are at the point where we really are trapped in, I have to say, a downward spiral that we can’t get out of, or we will someday get out of it when a crisis occurs, but we can’t voluntarily withdraw from it because that would create too many other problems and politicians aren’t willing to create those kinds of problems.”
“David: This is the classic game theory, or prisoner’s dilemma, where we see the problem in front of us, as we are discussing it today, but to do anything about it would unhinge the system, because an exit is actually what may cause a triggering event for the collapse of the system……”
I have been concerned that simplification (which is essentially de-industrialisation /dramatically reduced consumption / new socio economic system) would cause huge problems well before I heard of Jospeh Tainter. Fixing the climate problem with simplification / deindustrialisation / huge reductions in consumption would require such massive and rapid changes the risk of inadvertedly causing a collapse would logically become acute. Some people might form simple living communities but by exiting the larger system that system could weaken significantly and destablises causing the collapse of essential services that will still be needed in a simplified world. Pulling so mcuh demand out of the system causes problems all down the chain. There is no governmentt showing signs that it could orchestrate a deliberate planned simplification, assuming such a thing could work. And the public show little appetite for some sweeping form of simplification.
Because of the climate problem we need a solution that we can be confident in and that can be implemented potentially quickly and will gain acceptance with the public. Building a new energy grid and transport system works and is starting to gain some traction. The public grumble about costs but renewables have become very cost competitive. Nuclear power should not be ignored either. It adds short to medium term complexity but to me this seems unavoidable.
I think we have to look carefully at what could be done that doesn’t cause chaos or inadvertently cause a collapse. The circular economy idea looks like it would be a step towards sustainability that would not cause chaos because it is not putting massive pressure on the existing structure of our system. It is not really simplifying (think recycling plant) but it isnt adding too much complexity.Economic growth is generally slowing in western countries and it may be ok to just accept that process as inevitable. Its about what will help stabilse consumption without moving so fast it collapses the current system by reducing demand and basic functionality.
Fix the climate problem with the conventional tools and worry about trying to deliberately simplify and de-industrialise at scale as a longer term project. Such a thing may be possible, it can’t be ruled out, but I don’t accept it is a viable quick fix or panacea applicable to the climate problem.
Killiansays
“Dr. Tainter: You are absolutely right. We are trapped. We cannot simplify. We cannot withdraw from the way our system has evolved and the way we have set it up. We are at the point where we really are trapped in, I have to say, a downward spiral that we can’t get out of, or we will someday get out of it when a crisis occurs, but we can’t voluntarily withdraw from it because that would create too many other problems and politicians aren’t willing to create those kinds of problems.”
Stop reading to support your massive bias against solving any problems and read what is written. Tainter’s point has nothing to do with simplification, it has everything to do with having painted ourselves into a corner, as he sees it, He does not say simplification would cause too many problems, but that the politicians will not *address* the problems. The problem is politics.
“David: This is the classic game theory, or prisoner’s dilemma, where we see the problem in front of us, as we are discussing it today, but to do anything about it would unhinge the system, because an exit is actually what may cause a triggering event for the collapse of the system…”
It is wrong to say it this way. Yes, simplification would alter the system for the reasons *I* have told you for years now. You do simplification locally, from the ground up, precisely because, again, as I have said over and over and over, the current incestuous economic/political system cannot function under a degrowth scenario. It is why Transition Towns and Doughnut Economics and Via Campesina exist: We need new structures. But those structures are not the problem and do not, will not *cause* collapse, per se. because that is already in process. However, done well, simplification will eliminate massive disruptions and allow a controlled collapse.
I have been concerned that simplification
Yes, we know: You are scared of anything that solves our problems.
Fixing the climate problem with simplification / deindustrialisation / huge reductions in consumption would require such massive and rapid changes the risk of inadvertedly causing a collapse would logically become acute.
Collapse is already underway. You cannot trigger something already begun. It will continue no matter what if we do not change the system, but your solution is to blame the solution for the cause? If you do not simplify you end up with a long, rising slope that becomes a Seneca Cliff. You are completely unaware you are arguing for a massive, sudden collapse. Dunning-Kruger. Again.
Some people might form simple living communities but by exiting the larger system that system could weaken significantly and destablises causing the collapse of essential services that will still be needed in a simplified world
Because you say so? Cause, gee, let me see, a simplified world would be a Commons where all services are available to all. What essential services? Workers cannot simply take over such services? Communities can’t? Is someone going to burn down all the hospitals and kill all the doctors and nurses?
Every transition is difficuly, but blaming the process for a controlled simplification for causing the collapse is a massive attempt at gaslighting and demonizing degrowth.
Shame on you.
Pulling so mcuh demand out of the system causes problems all down the chain.
Yes, Exactly. Opt out, the old dies, the new rises as people opt in. I have told you this many times, but you are trying to twist that into the cause of collapse rather than the solution for a soft landing.
There is no governmentt showing signs that it could orchestrate a deliberate planned simplification
Again, you are stealing my concepts and attempting to gaslight them. It is not that gov’ts won’t, though that is also true, it is that they cannot. They operate on principles that are the opposite of sustainability. Since gov’t cannot, we must. Luckily, simplification is ultimately local.
As Cuba showed, an overnight collapse of the economy and supply chains can be handled by simplification and a rapid shift to Regenerative Ag. They collectively lost 20lbs on average, but there were few deaths – and that was without any warning or planning whatsoever. An entire nation, millions of people, and they did it.
And the public show little appetite for some sweeping form of simplification.
You’ve been bleating this bullshit point for years. I repeat: They have not been told they have no choice. If you don’t tell them of the necessity, and how to do it, why in the hell would they be busy embracing the concept?
Besides, you are wrong. There are strong movements for simpler living across the industrialized world, even here in Korea.
Building a new energy grid and transport system works and is starting to gain some traction.
And is delusional. Will not be done. And, if it is done, it will lead to a massive Seneca Cliff as a wide range of resouces get depleted. Worse, if you maitain this consumptive society, you collapse the ecosystem, Climate Change or not. It will take many decades, which we do not have. And it will be confined to the “elite,” the rich countries, because under THID system you so dearly demand we hold onto, the poor don’t get shit. Poor countries will not be given free solar and wind. Poor people in rich countries will still have their utilities shut off and die.
Only a fool solves only for climate.
I think we have to look carefully at what could be done that doesn’t cause chaos or inadvertently cause a collapse.
You have no idea what that is. In this post you have called the solution the cause, said the cause is the solution and set out a point of view that will *create* the worst type of collapse, a Seneca Cliff.
The circular economy idea looks like it would be a step towards sustainability that would not cause chaos because it is not putting massive pressure on the existing structure of our system It is not really simplifying
Jesus christ… Circular economies ARE simplification. WTF is wrong with your head? And how do you justify implying recycling would somehow not be part of simplification, but is part of… simplification?
Muddled, confused thinking. Every. Time.
Enough… I need a shower after wading through this bullshit.
nigeljsays
Killian.
“Dr. Tainter: You are absolutely right. We are trapped. We cannot simplify. We cannot withdraw from the way our system has evolved and the way we have set it up…..”
“Tainter’s point has nothing to do with simplification.”
No. He said ” We cannot simplify…” It couldn’t be clearer. He spends pages elaborating on simplification and the difficulties simplifying. I mean WTF?
“He does not say simplification would cause too many problems, but that the politicians will not *address* the problems. The problem is politics.”
He doesn’t say the problem is politics. Copy and paste where he says this.
“Collapse is already underway. You cannot trigger something already begun.”
You can make it a great deal worse by trying to simplify. Tainter clearly understands this.
“but your solution is to blame the solution for the cause? If you do not simplify you end up with a long, rising slope that becomes a Seneca Cliff. You are completely unaware you are arguing for a massive, sudden collapse. Dunning-Kruger. Again.”
I haven’t said that per se. Like Tainter says complexity CAN lead to collapse and requires a lot of work to avoid collapse, but deliberately simplifying can also trigger a collapse. Remember Mikes post? He could only find ONE society that successfully simplified by simplifying its military forces, so it was only a partial simplification anyway. I’m saying we MIGHT be able to simplify to some extent, but it would be a slow process needing a lot of care and that dreaded word “incremental change.”
Tainter is only saying broadly what I’ve always suggested about simplification. Nice to have my views confirmed by an expert.
“Some people might form simple living communities but by exiting the larger system that system could weaken significantly and destablises causing the collapse of essential services that will still be needed in a simplified world,…”
“Because you say so?”
Not because I say so, but because if you take people and demand out of the existing system on the relatively fast time frames you advocate it will probably trigger a huge economic depression collapsing the supply of essential services. The only way to stop that would be political command and control, but you have already indicated you have no faith in politics.
“Again, you are stealing my concepts and attempting to gaslight them. ”
Just please don’t be so ridiculous.
“As Cuba showed, an overnight collapse of the economy and supply chains can be handled by simplification and a rapid shift to Regenerative Ag. They collectively lost 20lbs on average, but there were few deaths – and that was without any warning or planning whatsoever. An entire nation, millions of people, and they did it.”
I did not know cuba simplified and adopted regenerative agriculture. Could you supply a link? What I do know is cuba is a relatively poor country with a poor standard of living and constant shortages of goods (healthcare system excepted), so its a pretty dreadful way of promoting simplification. How do you think the vast majority of people will respond to you saying look at how great Cuba did?
“And the public show little appetite for some sweeping form of simplification.”
“You’ve been bleating this bullshit point for years. I repeat: They have not been told they have no choice. If you don’t tell them of the necessity, and how to do it, why in the hell would they be busy embracing the concept?”
Its not BS. Its hard reality. People have been warned for years about the dangers of climate change and environmental degradation but obviously don’t get the message very well. Reality Check posted a good comment on the psychology of this below somewhere, and it’s similar to what I’ve posted previously namely that our brains are hard wired to respond well to immediate threats, but not to long term problems like climate change, even although they are serious. This suggests to me people will embrace some mitigation measures but not things like massive and rapid de-industrialisation. So this is why I advocate the things I advocate, like renewable energy and the circular economy concept (as normally defined (eg on wikipedia). Tired of repeating it.
“Building a new energy grid and transport system works and is starting to gain some traction.”
“And is delusional. Will not be done. ”
It is being done, and may be locked in because the costs of wind and solar power are now very competitive.
“And, if it is done, it will lead to a massive Seneca Cliff as a wide range of resouces get depleted. ”
This is a risk factor. But its survivable, because communities will adjust. Like I said before, the end game is it could force some form of simple living to happen, so you get what you appear to advocate anyway.
“Worse, if you maitain this consumptive society, you collapse the ecosystem, Climate Change or not. It will take many decades, which we do not have. ”
Only if its badly done.
“And it will be confined to the “elite,” the rich countries, because under THID system you so dearly demand we hold onto, the poor don’t get shit. Poor countries will not be given free solar and wind. Poor people in rich countries will still have their utilities shut off and die.”
Dealing with poor people is a political problem. Sensible countries help their poor people. I assume you do realise your simple living communities will have the same problem of how to deal with poor people, – in the sense of non productive people etc, etc. I just suggest it will always be a political sort of problem. Maybe your system would do it better. Who knows.
“You have no idea what that is. In this post you have called the solution the cause, said the cause is the solution and set out a point of view that will *create* the worst type of collapse, a Seneca Cliff.”
I haven’t said that per se. Like Tainter says complexity CAN lead to collapse and requires a lot of work to avoid collapse, but deliberately simplifying can also trigger a collapse. Remember Mikes post? He could only find ONE society that successfully simplified by simplifying its military forces. I’m saying we MIGHT be able to simplify to some extent but it would be a slow process needing a lot of care and that dreaded word “incremental change.” Tainter is only saying broadly what I’ve always said.
“Jesus christ… Circular economies ARE simplification. WTF is wrong with your head? And how do you justify implying recycling would somehow not be part of simplification, but is part of… simplification?”
Not really. The conventional definition of the circular economy is living within the restraints of the biosphere, (so not over fishing for example,) and recycling non renewables. Recycling plant actually adds complexity although in a useful way. But even if you say the circular economy is a form of simplification, it looks like something that could be integrated with our current overall system without causing the sort of collapse Tainter talks about. For example many countries already use recycling and it doesn’t destabilise their economy. It probably all depends on what definition of the circular economy you use. From what I’ve read opinions certainly differ.
In a nutshell? “Collapse is already underway. You cannot trigger something already begun.”
Correct.
“In this post you have called the solution the cause, said the cause is the solution and set out a point of view that will *create* the worst type of collapse, a Seneca Cliff.”
Correct. But it is only one person’s opinion. Or, no big deal at the end of the day.
e.g. “There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, and those who cannot see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci
It is what it is. Systems thinking is hard and rare.
K: Yes, we know: You are scared of anything that solves our problems.
BPL: No, he just thinks your particular solution won’t work, and I concur. Since we have other solutions available, we don’t need your particular crackpot, impossible, pie-in-the-sky anarchist fantasy.
Reality Checksays
@Barton Paul Levenson
#RealHyperbole
#RealBigLies
we have other solutions available
There are none as yet.
Remaining under +1.5C is a crackpot, impossible, pie-in-the-sky Dr. No fantasy at present and the foreseeable future.
The fantasy belief that solutions are available is not grounded in the hard sciences nor mathematics. It’s fools gold.
Ridiculing Killian and his suggestions will not change that Reality nor anything else. Desperate attempts to make him wrong does not and never will make you right. Give it up.
Pick a Door – The Inconvenient Truths, or A Room full of Alluring Lies?
Don’t accuse me of lying, you repulsive little twerp. Killian’s idea that we can contract the economy by nine tenths in a few decades or less is idiotic. On the other hand, we can fight global warming by switching to renewable energy, stopping the destruction of forests, and if necessary, removing CO2 from the air. We don’t need to give up high technolo9y or industry.
Killiansays
To BPL bc of truncated thread:
Barton Paul Levenson says
9 Aug 2021 at 7:38 AM
Don’t accuse me of lying
You do lie. Regularly. Why should he not say so? Your claim he called you a liar is lie! He did not even imply it.
you repulsive little twerp.
You are one of the core problem people on this site. The hypocrisy is unreal. You said you don’t attack without cause. That, too, was a lie. Do you not read the very words you type?
Killian’s idea that we can contract the economy by nine tenths in a few decades or less is idiotic.
It’s not even close to idiotic. It’s something we can actually do. Your tech-based approach? True fantasy. Literally cannot, will not be done, in every way: Resources, finance, justice, political will, etc. I have pointed out the reasons over and over. Bauxite alone makes it a joke.
On the other hand, we can fight global warming by switching to renewable energy
We already have enough in many industrialized nations – just not for the consumption levels you refuse to even consider reducing.
stopping the destruction of forests
But food forests are crazy talk, eh?
and if necessary, removing CO2 from the air.
Tech does not exist at a scalable, affordable level. You don’t plan a rescue mission for 9 billion+ based on a non-existent industry. You do it the safe way, THEN take advantage of any tech that comes online later.
We don’t need to give up high technolo9y or industry.
Who said give it up? Another Straw Man lie. Never said it. Massively reduce it? Yes, but always bearing in mind and planning with Embedded Energy.
You make no attempt to have an actual conversation about sustainability. You repeat these same false representations and omissions in every instance.
That’s called dishonesty, aka lying.
These are serious times. We need serious people. Do better. Be better.
Susan Andersonsays
Nice post, but this – from an article that is sideways to this discussion – voices my worry about how we are being programmed by media and marketing, while our entertainment (sports) is ever more about glamor, cosmetics, and materials-intensive spectacle, and we are encouraged to “upgrade” with ever more toxic waste. The article is about rich privilege but I see the same thing among those who have less. We are taught to envy the ability to waste and exploit.
We’re so hardwired to want to accumulate things—possessions, money, experiences, even people—that sacrificing any of them feels harder and more painful than unhappiness itself. As Mark and Nicole’s son says toward the end of the series,“We’re all just parasites eating the last fish and throwing our plastic cr*p in the ocean.”
“We’re so hardwired to want to accumulate things—possessions, money, experiences, even people—that sacrificing any of them feels harder and more painful than unhappiness itself. As Mark and Nicole’s son says toward the end of the series,“We’re all just parasites eating the last fish and throwing our plastic cr*p in the ocean.”
Yes exactly Susan. Perhaps it is because our ancestors just grabbed what they could when they could simply to survive, and so now we just go on doing this even in a world of plenty, so we often end up over consuming or hoarding. Our behaviour also reminds me of a squirrel hoarding nuts for the winter. And humans are status conscious animals and conspicuous consumption is a way of demonstrating status. So our entire evolutionary psychology pushes us to high levels of consumption. I suspect its not easy changing this, which seems obvious when you just look around us.
You can tell people to slown down their consumption because it hurts other people in the future or hurts the environment, but it falls on deaf ears. I’m not hugely materialstic myself but many are. Overall I tend to think de-industrialisation is the pontifications of well meaning academics who mostly fly around the world talking about it and drinking fine champagne. Levels of consumption will eventually fall dramatically all right, but probably ONLY when forced to do so by actual shortages.
However there are some thing that may help the problem. Eliminating waste helps solve various problems and might help stop consumption levels increasing. Substitution is also a factor. It may be possible to change from owning huge homes and cars to having more lesiure time. So the form of consumption changes from resource intensive things to less resource intensive things. And it is possible to reduce the consumption of electricity by increasing the efficiency of how its used, to a modest extent. Germany has proven this. This all helps. I’m interested in realistic things like this. Huge and ambitious doctrinaire ideas – not so much.
And Tainer says: societies collapse, … it becomes essentially impossible to solve future problems……”
Nate Hagens says the very same things in his Earth and Humanity: Myth and Reality presentation this year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY
Have you watched any of it Nigel? And understand it?
And We are trapped. We cannot simplify. We cannot withdraw from the way our system has evolved and the way we have set it up and we will someday get out of it when a crisis occurs
Nate Hagens says the same kinds of things.
The prisoner’s dilemma is a theoretical mind game. In the real world, confronted with such conditions some of the prisoners escaped by realizing what the mindset traps were and broke out of them. And most didn’t. Realizing one is caught in a prisoners dilemma you don’t give up and say nothing can solve this, and lay down like a dog.
Well actually, some will. They will not fight, They will deny they can see the reality they are in. And then pretend everything is going to be alright, even if they can do nothing about it anyway. You cannot challenge the system, because it will destroy the system, and we can’t have that.
Left to their own devices some people could not think their way out of a wet paper bag. Solutions should never be developed to accommodate the puerile needs of such people. They either follow or get left behind. The wise actors among us should never look back.
Nigel: There is no government showing signs that it could orchestrate a deliberate planned simplification … (or any solution for that matter)
Nate Hagens says the same thing. Then he explains why that is so. Several extracts already posted to RC.
Nigel: Because of the climate problem we need a solution that we can be confident in and that can be implemented potentially quickly and will gain acceptance with the public.
If that is what you wish Nigel, if that is what you believe is possible, then you need to start praying now for a Miracle. That’s the only way your dream will happen. Unfortunately, it will not happen.
Nigel: The public grumble about costs …
Actually they do not. It’s the Politicians, the Corporate Boards and CEOs, the Bankers, the Deniers, the greenwashers, and naysayers who grumble about costs. It’s a weak excuse for having nothing of value or true to say on the matter.
Nigel: The circular economy idea looks like it would be a step towards sustainability that would not cause chaos because it is not putting massive pressure on the existing structure of our system.
Says who? Where’s the evidence to support such assertions? Who decided the current *System/s* is so Sacred it will never to be replaced root and branch? Name names.
Nigel: Economic growth is generally slowing …. to deliberately simplify and de-industrialise at scale — I don’t accept it is a viable quick fix or panacea applicable to the climate problem.
Your beliefs and opinion has been noted and recorded for posterity on RC.
Let’s jump to the artciles conclusions:
David says: “Energy has two different ideas, here. One, obviously, there was energy required for a complex system (known as the work of human beings) long before there was such a thing as fossil fuels, plus we have the notion today that the global economy is dependent on cheap fuel.
It sure is. One thing I learned from Nate Hagens was the true value of the Energy captured in one barrel of Oil:- jump to here https://youtu.be/qYeZwUVx5MY?t=1785
“… one barrel of oil does almost five years of the work of one human essentially making it indistinguishable from magic on any human time scale. “… if we add up the billion barrels of oil equivalent of fossil energy used annually in our global economy this equates to around 500 billion human’s labor worth of work. “
But let’s leave the last word to Joseph Tainter shall we :- “… as we discussed with Joseph today, we are unable to get out of this particular system. We are grinding forward in terms of our progress, until we come to a grinding halt.”
What an optimistic and encouraging future that is from Tainter – not.
I have been told it is bad to be pessimistic and apathetic about climate change. It is better to be positive and optimistic. It is critical we maintain the belief remaining below 1.5C is achievable – while consumption, standards of living, and Economic Growth continues on forever – if we are to have any hope at all. However, we are totally screwed.
Pick a Door – The Inconvenient Truths or A Room Full of Alluring Lies?
nigeljsays
Reality Check,
Good points.
“Left to their own devices some people could not think their way out of a wet paper bag. Solutions should never be developed to accommodate the puerile needs of such people. They either follow or get left behind. The wise actors among us should never look back.”
This sounds like a very Darwinian survival of the strongest stuff and sounds I bit merciless. However I may be totally misinterpreting you. But surely we have to help those who are a bit useless? Just common humanity. Although even then there is only so much you can do. I suppose people could just abandon the system and be self sufficient on their own plot of land and leave everyone else to their fate. I have pondered this and would buy a farm if things got really bad. However in good conscience for me I hope 1)the socio economic system could be improved, 2) environmental outcomes improved and 3) people saved all at the same time.
“Nigel: The public grumble about costs …”
“Actually they do not. It’s the Politicians, the Corporate Boards and CEOs, the Bankers, the Deniers, the greenwashers, and naysayers who grumble about costs. It’s a weak excuse for having nothing of value or true to say on the matter.”
The people you list do indeed grumble loudest about costs, but they speak for various constituencies as well. Plenty of the general public do as well where I live. But its interesting that in America the public largely support a carbon tax from polling, but the politicians wont implement one. This does tend to underline what you are saying.
“Nigel: The circular economy idea looks like it would be a step towards sustainability that would not cause chaos because it is not putting massive pressure on the existing structure of our system.”
“Says who? Where’s the evidence to support such assertions? Who decided the current *System/s* is so Sacred it will never to be replaced root and branch? Name names.”
I did previously point out many countries (eg like New Zealand) are already adopting circular economy measures like recycling and it doesn’t appear to be causing unanticipated problems to the overall economic system. It appears this form of ‘simplification’ might escape the problems Tainter identifies of simplification triggering a collapse. Could be wrong of course and its just my anecdotal observation.
Whether the current socio-economic system should be replaced seems like a different issue. Yes it could be replaced in theory. Capitalism has a whole lot of problems associated with it, but for me nobody has articulated a fundamentally different system that would be viable and useful.
“But let’s leave the last word to Joseph Tainter shall we :- “… as we discussed with Joseph today, we are unable to get out of this particular system. We are grinding forward in terms of our progress, until we come to a grinding halt.”
“What an optimistic and encouraging future that is from Tainter – not.”
Yes this is where I also find Tainter a bit too pessimistic. Although I think he’s basically right that civilisations typically head to some sort of collapse generated by their own complexity plus other factors, and we have to try to work hard to prevent that, and it may require even more complexity, and that “simplification” could actually trigger a collapse. But Tainter did find ONE civilisation that simplified successfully. There may be SOME form of simplification where we can avoid triggering a collapse and I’ve suggested a few things on that. But I doubt that it would include deliberate, massive and RAPID de-industrialisation. That would be like a multiple amputation with no antibiotics and anaesthetic.
Reality Checksays
@nigelj
But surely we have to help those who are a bit useless? Just common humanity.
Of course. The only way to help them to do what is right, best under the circumstances. Based on valid up-to-date knowledge, evidence and scientific rigor and morally good sense.
The alternative is next time Gavin gets involved in an attribution study, he makes allowances for the uselessness of a Cliff Mass .. lest he hurt his feelings, or impinges on his make believe freedom of speech rights and liberty to vote for more useless idiots to go to Congress.
For example, Trump is useless. Victor and KIA are useless. Tol is useless. Most of the GOP and half the Dems are useless. Many billionaires are useless and rank idiots. the Politicians, the Corporate Boards and CEOs, the Bankers, the Deniers, the greenwashers, and naysayers who grumble about costs are useless.
People who complain when others objectively lay out the real implications of climate change to the environment, to society, or the economy misspelling them as pessimists or apathetic, are useless too. No different then the self-indulgent over-consuming wasteful wealthy, they should not be accommodated by minimizing the truth in public discourse to ease their emotional torment of hearing the truth about Reality.
It’s a really long list. Some are even climate scientists. I said, Solutions should never be developed to accommodate the puerile needs of such people.
Political Speak
The art of changing two way discourse into one-way communication; sticking to the party message no matter what the other is saying. The abbreviation for political speak is BS. When was the last time you saw a Nigel give a straight answer to a question being asked of them? Political speak is when Nigel is asked a straight question and he answers with a response that has nothing to do with the question, but rather propounds his opinionated message on the topic of the day. Thus transforming what was a two way discourse into a one way diatribe with very little if any meaningful content.
Unlike climate change, in this case there actually is only one viable solution.
nigeljsays
RC, you suggest I dont give straight answers to questions, and go off on some sort of tangent, although you give no examples. I can therefore only assume you must mean your last post where you asked:
1)”Have you watched any of it Nigel?”
Sure I didn’t answer that question. I haven’t had the TIME to watch it yet. Too busy watching the Olympics.
2)”Says who? Where’s the evidence to support such assertions?
I GAVE you my answers and it was direct on topic: “I did previously point out many countries (eg like New Zealand) are already adopting circular economy measures like recycling and it doesn’t appear to be causing unanticipated problems to the overall economic system”. So you should have realised I don’t have any experts I can quote on this but was giving you my personal view.
3)”Who decided the current *System/s* is so Sacred it will never to be replaced root and branch? Name names.”
I never suggested the current system was so sacred it couldn’t be changed. I did respond that I thought it could be changed.
So are you asleep or something ? :)
Killiansays
Nate Hagens says the same thing. Then he explains why that is so. Several extracts already posted to RC.
And guess who said it before Nate…
Reality Checksays
MIchael Mann? BPL? Nigel? Susan?
I give up, who said it? :-)
It’s better to laugh about these things.
nigeljsays
More evidence Nordhaus gets his maths wrong: “The mortality cost of carbon”
Working out what carbon soils can usefully sequester is a complex business. Lots of science involved.
Reality Checksays
@nigelj
#RealObviousKnownComplexity
The ref paper says: We used isotopically labelled residue (13C) to determine the fate of residue C inputs into short-lived particulate organic matter (POM) and more persistent mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM) across a broad climatic gradient (ΔMAT 10°C) with varying soil properties. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.15807
3rd time in 3 days MAOM gets a mention. I wonder what the paywall research paper actually says.
From the above page, a recommended paper has full access:
Conceptualizing soil organic matter into particulate and mineral-associated forms to address global change in the 21st century Ultimately, we propose the POM versus MAOM framework as the best way forward to understand and predict broad-scale SOM dynamics in the context of global change challenges and provide necessary recommendations to managers and policy makers. in 2019. … but we have demonstrated that we currently have sufficient scientific evidence on which to base broad-scale measurement and predictions of POM and MAOM https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14859
#RealGoodRead
Not a lot has changed in a decade, they still don’t know much about SOC with any broad consensus. More research required, as usual. Very rare to find papers and research focusing upon Regenerative Agriculture domains only.
With many of the Ref’d papers offering full text access for the curious.
#RealResearchContinues.
Reality Checksays
Environmental progress looks like this:
Indian Point’s share of New York electricity was completely replaced by fossil fuels, with the share of New York’s generation from fossil fuels rising by 14 percentage points, from 30.5 percent to 44.5 percent, between 2019 and 2021. https://environmentalprogress.org/indian-point
Killiansays
“When you’re in a warming climate and the presence of ice, you have these pulses of rapid collapse of ice and that’s what we have to look forward to,” Wanless said. “We just started melting ice in about 1990, and we’re seeing this rapidly accelerate in both polar areas.”
Pulses of rapid collapse. Climate change is *not* linear and these pulses can happen at any time, as we are now experiencing since 2016 and the rapid warming and ramping up of disasters globally.
Risk. It’s all about long-trail, existential risks.
It’s hard to watch these things happen as we knew and have warned for the past several years. Meanwhile, a lot of folks are scrambling to find a past quote somewhere in their history that sounds even slightly alarmist so they can say, yeah… I saw that coming.
Some of have taken a fair amount of heat for “peddling alarmism” over the years and IPCC 6 sounds like they are quoting us to a certain extent.
I understand that scientists need to be cautious and not overstate the issues, or even make a simple slip in language that will allow the “go slow” folks to jump on them for creating alarm.
It’s really a shame that our species is so trapped in the dialectics of cultural conflict and that so many individuals are completely boxed in by their historical understanding of how humans should live because we do need to change the way we live now to minimize the catastrophe. The change has to be significant. The Nordhaus experiment and fantasy has failed miserably and the scope of that failure will grow day by day now as the warming gathers energy and speed thanks to feedbacks and tipping points.
I don’t think there is any reason to engage with the folks who are been slow to comprehend the catastrophe of global warming. Even if they are doing a bit of baiting, who cares? The facts on the ground are getting very hard to ignore or discount.
But you may feel differently about that and that is your prerogative.
Cheers
Mike
Killiansays
I think, Mike, that I need to find an editor and a publisher.
I am having a conversation tonight with a gentleman who wants to help fund a 150-home-strong ecovillage. Hopefully, my concepts will resonate with him.
I have multiple concepts that an NGO/501(3)(c)/501(7)(c) could use to help ramp up change:
** RegenGov (of course)
** Regen Community Incubators
** Adopt-a-Neighborhood (A variation on a theme w/ localization and adoption melded)
** Community Micro-grids (not an original concept, but I advocated for them as a necessary element of change in 2008)
** The Perfect Storm World Simulation
Then there’s an animated script concept, a novel and scrpt concept that extends a book from a well-known author into a second book that is sci-fi with cli-fi, and a creative non-fiction how-to approach to climate/collapse.
I’m only a writer on small scales. I need a kick in the ass from a good editor and publisher and funding to allow me to write and do activism full-time.
Maybe Patreon? A kickstarter or gofundme for the simulation?
And wind and solar power are now cost effective so why wouldn’t they scale up?
Because they suffer from huge diseconomies of scale due to externalized costs. The only way they’ve gotten anywhere is because natural gas is readily available for backup at most places and times. Gas has been crowding out every other dispatchable source because the capital cost is so low; gas plants can make money at spot prices, while nothing else can without subsidies. “Renewables” get subsidies, coal and nuclear do not.
Even Trumps silly attempts to bring back coal have failed.
When fracked NG became cheaper per BTU than coal, the writing was on the wall. The system as a whole doesn’t properly value guaranteed availability, though, and that’s going to be a bigger and bigger problem going forward. Just-in-time delivery of NG carries a lot more risk to the system than a 3-month supply of dirty black rock, and the GHG emissions of both of them are also externalized.
(I am NOT going to use the messed-up threading format. It does not allow tracking of new comments in subthreads, which is destructive to real discussion. I will post all my comments at base-level with links to and quotes of the parents, which is what the web designers of this site should have encouraged at the beginning; whatever they were thinking, it was misguided in the extreme. They have not thought anything through, nor learned from their mistakes.)
Reality Checksays
I will post all my comments at base-level with links to and quotes of the parents …
Houston, we have a problem.
Here is the url to your comment above. Click on it and watch what happens.
@E-P When fracked NG became cheaper per BTU than coal, the writing was on the wall.
Yes, of course. And the writing is already on the wall for when the fracking system of oil and gas output collapses (and that won’t take very long to bite in the US. ) Currently, relatively “cheap Gas” is underpinning the electricity networks.
That will end once the political myth of grandiose US energy self-sufficiency is outed as the lie it is. The faster existing nukes keep being shutdown the faster that will unfold.
E-P: ““Renewables” get subsidies, coal and nuclear do not.”
BPL: What parallel universe do you live in where this is true?
Mr. Know It Allsays
I was told at the car dealer that I would get a HEFTY subsidy if I bought an EV. I asked how much I’d get if I bought a FF vehicle. They said I’d get nothing.
I was told at the mechanical supply house that if I bought a solar water heater I’d get a HEFTY subsidy. I asked how much I’d get for a NG water heater and they said I’d get nothing.
I was told when I build my McMansion that if I installed PV panels, inverters, batteries, etc for my electrical system that I’d get a HEFTY subsidy. I asked how much I’d get if I installed a traditional grid system and they said I’d get nothing.
Maybe he lives in that universe. ;)
Ray Ladburysays
Clearly, you have never been to coal country. It’s full of denuded mountain tops where the coal has been exctracted, streams polluted by the tailings and hovels where the people who once mined the coal have been discarded. I commend to you the late, great John Prine, who we lost to COVID last year.
Actually, the area mentioned in the song, Muhlenberg County, is full of mostly green land – fields, forests, probably some clear-cuts, etc as can easily be seen on Google Earth. Yes, the town of Paradise was destroyed by TVA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_Kentucky
Muhlenberg County looks like nice country. Yes, you can see several blackened coal mines/coal piles/ etc but they are a tiny part of the landscape.
Someday, perhaps someone will do to the coal mines what they did to the rock quarry that is now Butchart Gardens:
And Kentucky, for all its mineral wealth remains one of the poorest states in the country, with no work for the people once the coal train has hauled all the coal away.
Maybe you should take a look at places from closer than 40000 feet.
Oh… my…. People can’t choose to sequester or not sequester, or burn or not burn C… because nigel said so?
No, YOU said so. You said that terra preta self-renews at ~1 cm/yr once established. That sounds like an unstoppable process on the order of the “oxygen catastrophe”. Take responsibility for your own words.
Sadly, more modern (and safer) forms of fission energy are expensive to set up and people are afraid.
Those fears are fading as the climate issue comes more and more to the fore. News like Hansen’s appraisal that nuclear energy has already saved 1.8 million lives through elimination of air pollution is getting more and more mindshare.
Some schemes like Thorcon and Elysium promise to be cheaper than coal, and Elysium claims a sub-zero fuel cost for at least the first few units. If we were taking the climate issue seriously, we would already have a Manhattan project-scale effort going and have prototypes of both in operation.
Using it to “best effect” has become impossible because fears are exploited.
We’ll see how long that lasts. The “environmental” organizations which take their money and marching orders from the FF industry are going to take it in their shorts this decade, mark my words.
E-P: The “environmental” organizations which take their money and marching orders from the FF industry
BPL: Exist entirely in your mind, and nowhere else.
prlsays
a Manhattan project-scale effort
As I’ve mentioned before, the Manhattan Project wasn’t all that big in expenditure terms. Its Wikipedia entry says it “cost nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $23 billion in 2019).”
Let’s see, terra preta creates 1cm/year. Hmmm… and how much of that might get used up in new agriculture every year? Why can’t a gardner/farmer choose to mulch – which it is claimed basically sequesters almost no C – instead of add to more terra preta?
1. Don’t just react, *think.*
2. Try to stay out of issues you are completely ignorant of.
You don’t understand what terra preta is. It is not created by slash-and-burn.
I wrote “smolder”, not “burn”, you pedantic nitwit. If you do a search you’ll find that exact phrase used time and time again to describe it. Biochar is quite the up-and-coming thing these days. Our main problem is not having enough raw material for it.
Scott stroughsays
RC,
Thanks for the links to the articles about MAOC (in the LCP). I’ll look at them the best I can in the coming week and get back to you.
David B. Bensonsays
Climate prognosis remains poor.
nigeljsays
This is good on biochar, because it looks at both sides of the argument: “Refilling the Carbon Sink: Biochar’s Potential and Pitfalls. The idea of creating biochar by burning organic waste in oxygen-free chambers — and then burying it — is being touted as a way to cool the planet. But while it already is being produced on a small scale, biochar’s proponents and detractors are sharply divided over whether it can help slow global warming.”
Who cares what a bunch of eggheads at Yale have to say on something they *don’t do?* The leading expert in the field has written multiple books on the subject. You refuse to read what true experts have to say. You are a solutions denialist.
If you aren’t willing to read “Burn”, just STFU on bio-char until you are.
Note Killian’s classic use of ad hominem. He makes no effort to even read what Yale has to say; he simply dismisses them from the outset by saying only “his” experts matter. Much like the global warming deniers, he couldn’t survive without poisoning the well.
Killiansays
BPL’s classic drive-by comment without substance of any kind, and dishonesty.
How the hell do you know what I do or do not know about what Yale had to say? You do not. That makes you a hypocrite and a liar. This is not a new thing for you.
What I am certain of based on how you react here and past evidence, is you, like nigel, have never read “Burn,” which makes you a hypocrite.
Finally, whether I read what Yale360 had to say or not is largely irrelevant: I have followed their crap for years and it is consistently technocopian nonsense. I could dismiss almost anything they produce out of hand as non-regenerative.
There is no ad hom, you damned fool. An ad hom is to insult to discredit an argument. I did not do that: Yale360 does not know regenerative systems any more than you do. .Like you and Nigel, they DON’T know. Fact.
nigeljsays
Killian
“There is no ad hom, you damned fool. An ad hom is to insult to discredit an argument. I did not do that:”
No wrong. An ad hominem is an attempt to discredit an argument by trying to discredit the person making the argument, or their qualifications, or experience, or other personal attributes, and that is exactly what you did as follows: “Who cares what a bunch of eggheads at Yale have to say on something they *don’t do?” . Of course you managed to insult them as well calling them a bunch of egg heads.
nigeljsays
Killian, except that I didn’t say don’t use biochar. I’m somewhat undecided.
And what is a true expert? The author of Burn is Albert Bates and he has a law degree and permaculture certificate, going by his wikipedia profile. So he doesn’t look any more of an expert than the guys at the Yale School of the Environment.
BPL is so right about you.
nigeljsays
Killian, except that I didn’t oppose the use of biochar. I’m somewhat undecided.
And what is a true expert? The author of Burn is Albert Bates and he has a law degree and permaculture certificate, going by his wikipedia profile. So he doesn’t look any more of an expert than the guys at the Yale School of the Environment.
BPL is so right about you.
Killiansays
Killian, except that I didn’t oppose the use of biochar. I’m somewhat undecided.
Straw Man.
Again.
And again.
Muddled. As ever.
nigeljsays
Not a strawman. The subject is biochar. You accused me of being “a solutions denialist”. You said “If you aren’t willing to read “Burn”, just STFU on bio-char until you are. So what is solutions denialist referring to if not biochar?
Like I said I’m undecided about biochar. You write complete crap and with all the clarity of mud.
BPL: Aristotle defined justice as giving to each person what they deserve. Thus a just society would not hand out rewards and punishments on any other basis, e.g. race, sex, class, or religion. A just society would treat people as individuals first and as members of groups later, if at all. And a just society would not countenance murder or theft, however conducted.
Mr. Know It Allsays
If you live in a leftist-dominated location (s-hole), try telling that to your local school board, your city council, or your state legislature.
;)
Ray Ladburysays
Well, undoubtedly things are much better in red counties and states, where everyone is on a ventilator due to COVID.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Don’t believe everything the lame stream media tells you.
Ray Ladburysays
What astounds me is when the folks who question the “lame-stream” media proceed to put their credence in peddlers of conspiracy theories. I also find it astounding that these same imbeciles don’t think Faux News is main stream. Faux News is just the main stream lies.
Reality Checksays
#RealTruth Retweeted by Michael Mann
jamin:
Being alarmed/scared to some extent is good – and only natural if you’re looking at where things are heading – but not to the point that it detracts from action.
Second: you don’t need to be a vegan, boycott air travel or have a zero-carbon footprint to be on the right side of the fight (although all these things are great). Carbon-shaming & putting the focus on the individual is a tactic of the inactivists to detract from systemic change.
Oil companies and inactivists will continue to put the onus on the individual, and drive a wedge between the community looking to seek action as best they can through blame and in-fighting (‘wedge tactics’, as Mann’s book discusses)
Oil companies and inactivists will continue to put the onus on the individual, and drive a wedge between the community looking to seek action as best they can through blame and in-fighting
…but not how you might think. Basically, saying individual behavior is not important/not key/is not a primary issue is completely incorrect. It ignores pretty much every important aspect of the problems we face and steers us toward solutions that cannot work. In short, it’s anti-systemic and or ignorance of systems dynamics.
Capitalism: INDIVIDUAL ownership. What individuals do with their resources cannot be separated from consumption, period. In fact, in a Capitalist society (and by that I mean all modern economic systems because they all currently include private ownership; there really is no such thing as socialism anymore, just variants of Capitalism – and don’t @ me on this: If you disagree, so what) the way you end a corporation or business you don’t like is to just. stop. buying. their. goods. Companies die because other companies come along and do it better or cheaper. But that doesn’t kill them. If they had a loyal customer base, they could go on making a profit. It might be a stagnant profit, but a profit is a profit. What kills them is if customers no longer want their product(s).
Similarly, if individuals organize into blocks of citizens to choose to reward or punish companies for their actions, they can be the kingmakers of the economy. The problem is individuals are fractured, no splintered. Let us become organized, we rule the world. That was, is, and always will be true: In the end, if The People demand is or choose to make it so, it will be so. But it requires being out from under the thumbs of corps and gov’t, and that means… being communities.
The more that becomes the reality, the faster things change.
Sustainability is ultimately local. There is no such thing as top-down sustainability because a person in Washington cannot possibly fully understand your life in your neighborhood in your town or city or area and bio-region. They. Cannot.
Principles:
*Small, slow solutions
*Build in chunks
We put whole-site designs together, but we never implement them in one go. That is the opposite of how modern design is done – which is why modern design destroys the environment rather than enhances it. Add elements slowly. Take time to be sure they function as plan, then either revise or continue as appropriate. This prevents entire designs having to be redone which makes the process very efficient in that sense.
What we do at home and in our neighborhoods is the cornerstone of sustainability, not a secondary or tertiary consideration. Yet, all our efforts are focused on utility-scale power, massive farms, massive tree plantings, massive new industries to solve problems that already have safe solutions (CO2 capture). But if every home, every small community is sustainable, the world is, by default. The opposite is not true, and is not even possible. How can a Senator or city councilperson know how best to use resources in your neighborhood?
Finally, this is a RESOURCE ABUSE ISSUE. Pretty much all of our environmental and climatic issues are. And resourcd abuse comes primarily from… consumption.
Yes, companies are to blame for bullshit, demented advertising. It’s intentional. But we are not without agency. If we talk to each other. Choose to act as communities together, produce locally together… we can change everything.
Certainly, we can say corporations have blame for lying, for making products to fall apart, for advertising that is meant to turn our brains into goo. All that is true. but there are two fully equal sides to this coin and the “don’t blame us poor consumers!” meme is suicidal. It doesn’t let corps off the hook, it balances the picture. They can’t be bad unless we let them, and we can’t be manipulated unless we choose to be.
Communities are the only ones who can localize… communities. Gov’t can only 1. facilitate (but won’t really do much because it’s suicidal for them) and 2. get out of the way (which they won’t do because it is suicidal for them.)
Individual action is not only important, it is the single *most* important part of solving all of our problems.
Reality Checksays
@Killian, I don’t have any issue with your reply, in what you have said. Though it seems like you have taken the quote and extended the meaning there far beyond it’s (and my) original intent and context.
I was pushing the limits of what an Inactivist might be. Could I put that another way?
The way some people here choose to continually undermine, misrepresent, twist and criticize the known facts of, and the potential of regenag and rewilding etc. to sequester SOC and improve farming ag pastoral dynamics simultaneously might be a good example of how a typical Inactivist acts.
Some might even say they wholeheartedly support RegenAg, but refute your or Scott’s version of it … while not once ever doing or saying a thing that actually does support or promote the use of RegenAg methodology. They’ll never be able to show you their email to their local politician or Prime Minister asking them to support it.
An activist would do those kinds of things. An Inactivist would not. See?
They approach matters publicly, and face to face, through blame and in-fighting to drive a wedge between the community (all genuine initially) looking to seek (good mitigation) action as best they can.
An Inactivist might say your regen ways are BS or Anarchistic while suggesting that Direct Air Capture is simply brilliant (despite being less effective, more energy intensive) and must be supported no matter what the cost to the tax payer and society or the Commons.
An Inactivist might say society is not ready for your extremely radical proposal even though it is scientifically valid and proven, while they continue to push the essential requirement of a global Carbon Tax system, and ignore the literature that challenges their positions. .
In a similar way, FF/Oil companies have now come out publicly declaring their support for a carbon price … knowing full well it will never get up in the USA and elsewhere.
Makes them look good to the public giving the appearance they support something when in reality they are working against such thing in backrooms constantly – funding the election of politicians who vote against a Carbon price.
Both approaches place subtle pressure on individuals who stand up for X actions … Inactivists attack them if anything appears not socially palatable – like actions to reduce consumption and waste, or reduce demand on mining, or cuts GDP growth …. sometimes saying things like, yeah but you’re not a scientist, where is your proof, what published papers have you got, you don’t know how scientists think, and what are you doing about cutting you own personal emissions and consumption down etc etc etc.
It’s only Human behaviour. The criticisms get personal. They place the onus on the individual to prove everything themselves and win a “debate” against mounting logical fallacies and denials and distortions — instead of relying on the actual knowledge, the facts, the ethics, the social benefits and the evidence of X mitigation action is a good idea.
The classic undermining method? Give a dog a bad name and it sticks. There’s nothing like AD Hominem slurs to undermine the validity of a recommended action. Works all the time. Go watch any political debate. The facts are irrelevant.
Because people are not persuaded by logic or evidence. Pick a Door – The Inconvenient Truths, or A Room full of Alluring Lies? The alluring lies win almost every time.
Alluring lies such as “We have all agreed to instigate plans which ensure we can keep Warming below +1.5C all this century.”
The Inactivists believed them and refuse to face the reality they have been lied to. Again.
It’s Denial:101 and Cognitive Dissonance at work now. Go look at how many are Optimistic the new agreements at COP26 to cut emissions will set us all on the right track to avoid the catastrophic climate crisis.
“Let’s be positive. We just need to cut GHG emissions rapidly. And we will.”
Inactivists!
nigeljsays
RC. You are a complete and utter hypocrite., because you accuse people of being “inactivists” for criticising regenerative farming, while you have posted dozens of comments criticising the viability of renewable energy, carbon taxes, and direct air capture. We could equally label YOU as an “inactivist”.
All I said about regenerative agriculture is Killian’s claims on yields and carbon sequestration look exaggerated and he cant provide citations. This does not make me an inactivist. It makes me a REALIST. I’m all for regenerative agriculture because it has multiple benefits.
Back in the real world of sequestering carbon, we will probably need a combination of approaches, like regenerative farming and direct air capture and crushed rock weathering to make a difference. There is no panacea. But it will probably not include BECCS, because it uses far too much land and fertiliser to be practical.
Killiansays
What you accuse him of is incorrect. It is not hypocritical to critique things, it is hypocritical to consistently and pejoratively critique things you have a personal beef about because you have a dislike of the primary person on a forum supporting said issue. He does not deny facts to fit his agenda, you do.
E.g. the 30% claim when even one counterargument proves it false, let alone a handful of them, yet you continued (still?) to repeat that false claim long after the facts made it abundantly clear it could not be true. But your motive is not the issue, it is to prove me wrong. I understand why you are frustrated. You have become increasingly angry and antagonistic towards not just me, but a widening circle of people.
But there was no hypocrisy.
Again, you’re just wrong.
Mr. Know It Allsays
“Individual action is not only important, it is the single *most* important part of solving all of our problems.”
Nah, whenever I point this out, the statists come out of the woodwork and tell us all how we have to send our $$ to the government to solve all of our problems. They say: “If we just had a tax for this problem we could solve it.” The tax never goes away and the problem only gets worse!!!!! Look at leftists in the USA today – they want government to solve every problem – as if individuals are not responsible for their own actions.
Ray Ladburysays
That is because you are a glibertarian imbecile, who wants to put the onus of action on those who actually acknowledge physical reality, while you and your robber baron friends shirk responsibility. It is going to take both individual sacrifice coupled with massive government action to tackle this problem. It is THE existential crisis of this century.
We can see from the COVID crisis that right-wing, authoritarian regimes fared quite poorly–mainly because they made addressing the threat the responsibility solely of the individual. We’re seeing it again as the bodies pile up in states where Republican governors oppose vaccination efforts and public health mandates. Unfortunately, every time capitalism is confronted with a serious problem it has utterly failed to address it. Capitalism seems to be very good for creating billionaires, but that is not what society needs now.
There’s a mythology about the American frontier that embraces the ‘rugged individualist’ out there on ‘his’ own–perhaps with a wife (whose hair magically stays immaculately coiffed even as she hoes the corn), and a couple of mischievous but cute blonde kids to reassure us about ‘his’ masculinity. What a guy!
And there’s a kernel of truth there; my great aunt Marie used to say that in the early years of homesteading, she’d get so lonely that she’d watch the train go by, as the closest approach to company during the day.
But somehow the mythology fails to embrace or even acknowledge the reality that communal barnraisings, sewing bees, and the like were enormously consequential to the success or failure of homesteaders. So was direct economic assistance, in labor or in kind, in time of trouble. Isolation made everything enormously more difficult.
That reality was taken for granted; everyone knew that good neighbors were like money in the bank. There was community because its value was directly demonstrated on an ongoing basis in everyone’s lives.
There were downsides, of course; pressure to conform to community norms could be fierce, and community norms could well include ‘values’ that most today would find reprehensible. If your neighbor helps you, then he or she also has a stake in your behavior.
But today the balance has swung so far toward a radical (and IMO radically unhealthy) individualism that large numbers of Americans truly believe, apparently, that taking basic, self-evidently sensible public health precautions is an unwarrantable intrusion on their individual liberty. It’s frankly sick–literally AND metaphorically.
Individuals are important, yes, and individual rights deserve respect and protection. But individuals cannot thrive in isolation, and communities cannot nurture healthy individuals, if there is no reciprocity, no responsibility–in the end, no sense of duty.
Yes, there is a tension between duty and freedom. But it’s a creative tension. Resolve it one way or the other and society either falls, or petrifies into oppression.
zebrasays
Kevin McKinney:
But today the balance has swung so far toward a radical (and IMO radically unhealthy) individualism that large numbers of Americans truly believe, apparently, that taking basic, self-evidently sensible public health precautions is an unwarrantable intrusion on their individual liberty.
So, all those MAGA people who are conforming to their community’s norms by not wearing a mask and not getting vaccinated are examples of “individualism”?
So, all those MAGA people who are conforming to their cult’s norms by not wearing a mask and not getting vaccinated are examples of “individualism”?
nigeljsays
“Oil companies and inactivists will continue to put the onus on the individual, and drive a wedge between the community looking to seek action as best they can through blame and in-fighting”
Mann is right about that. Some of the anti capitalists do the same because they think wind and solar farms are just a tool to enrich billionaires. Refer to the Planet of the Humans movie.
Killiansays
Mann is actually wrong. He is one of those who thinks Big Tech and Big Gov are the solution. That is why he wants us not talking about making personal and community-level changes.
He doesn’t really understand the system, the thermodynamics, etc.
Richard the Weaversays
Here’s an interesting video
A guy goes hunting with an aboriginal group.
He asks questions about life and whatnot. Apparently happiness is eating meat.
Does this have to be #RealClimate:101 – To act like the characters in an 18th century Jane Austen novel – continually watching, judging and gossiping about others and, in turn, being watched, judged and gossiped about. Because, it is what it is, so when in Rome …
Killiansays
I have said EVs are a non-solution that damages the environment and locks us into the current socio-economic and political structures we now have, thereby ensuring our failure in addressing climate and collapse.
So in your simplified world with its technology backbone of healthcare, recycling plant, long distance transport and communications how will ambulances and fire trucks operate? Do you expect to use a horse and cart? How do people get to work if distances are quite large? What powers long distance trains? You will need a significant number of electric vehicles, buses and trains.
Killiansays
All asked and answered repeatedly. Please stop trolling.
nigeljsays
I do not recall any answers to those specific questions. Give me a clear answer: Do you accept there will be a need for electric vehicles for emergency services, and medium to long distance transport in at least some circumstances? Yes or no?
Killiansays
I do not recall any answers to those specific questions.
So you always claim.
I have told you many times: You either cannot or simply do not keep the whole context in mind. You constantly revert to siloed issues, secondary or tertiary points that ignore First Order points made, etc.
Sorry, 4+ years is all you get of wasting my time.
Reality Checksays
Here is a really good example of ‘optimism and positivity.’
And it’s also another example of putting the onus on the individual.
Killiansays
I find that disgusting. God, how arrogant! NOTHING on localization. NOTHING on living regeneratively or sustainably. Nothing in indigenous people.
Yuck!
Reality Checksays
Re-orientating this issue back to Forced Responses where it best belongs.
Several links to info and research were posted to the AR6 WG1 1.5C related page on RC:
Paris goals to remain under 1.5C requires a NET/CDR in the order of up to 1000 GtCO2 to be CCS/sequestered under ground (this century as per the SR15 Report 2018).
The Avg Annual CO2 is tracking near 40 GtCO2 emissions. 40 x 25 years = 1000
(my rough estimate only for perspective) RegenAg SOC land use changes of maybe initially 2 GtC per year (8-10 GtCO2/yr) – ramping up from there if done universally at global scale.
At no additional energy use and minimal up front costs; ultimately paying for itself.
versus
To deliver the UK Committee on Climate Change BECCS scenario of 67 Mt (0.067 Gt) of CO2 removal per year by 2050 would require approximately 22 × 500 MW power stations across the United Kingdom, and 52 Mt of bioenergy feedstock.
note: whenever someone posts something here, a good idea is go back to the original source, the research etc. and check it out fully – how much is conjecture how much is data driven findings? What’s the context? The scope? The purpose? In research papers I usually go straight to the Conclusions Discussion sections first, then go back up through the rest. It’s good to remain skeptical, Remain aware of your own biases, and ask probing questions. That being said there’s nothing wrong in holding to your own opinions about various solutions, plans and govt policy. But being offended by the opinion or information others provide and being nasty about it is unnecessary and irrational.
Killian @447
I barely have to read your comments on economics and soil science because I just know its all going to be wild assertions and nonsense. Still no peer reviewed citations or proper calculations to back your wild claims on how much carbon you think soils can sequester.
Those deep carbon rich soils took millions of years to build up under very specific conditions. You think we can do something similar rapidly is just fantasising. You dont even understand something simple that global warming makes soils loose carbon which limits what you can achieve sequestering soil carbon.
Dunning Kruger? The word was designed for you.
Please just stop. You have just guaranteed another endless round of argument. You at least should be able to see this is not a useful activity for the community at large.
You are “tilting at windmills” Susan. Argument is what websites are about. Personally I find it generates some interesting views and information. We should not have to sit back and just accept things when people post nonsense.
Argument on this website gets a bit personally abusive.. That’s a moderation issue to deal with. I’m quite happy for their to be. tighter rules.
I generally like your comments, so no criticism of you is intended. But I’m not sure why you are singling me out for criticism.
Because, and you know this, having had the exact same feedback from several different people, finally. You are the primary source of negativity.
The why is clear:
1. You respond to literally every issue posted, You are the only person posting here that seems to consider themselves an expert on any and every topic. You are not a polymath. You should be more circumspect.
2. You particularly seem to take joy in diminishing/belittling/attacking anything about sustainable/regenerative/simplification processes. You even go so far as to claim, because of 1 very limited, deeply flawed study, that Regenerative Ag is 30% less productive no matter how many different ways we point out this is absolutely impossible. Minus 30%? Hmmmm.. but PLUS 40-60% nutrient density. On this basis alone you are wrong. Then there’s the massive diversity where a regenerative farm will not just grow a field of corn, e.g., but numerous other things in the same space. Where your darling chem ag grows corn, a regenerative farm might grow corn, beans and squash in the same space. A little less corn, but a lot more of two other crops. It’s called co-planting. It is impossible for Regen Ag to be less productive all things being equal. And there are a number of additional points that add to yield!
Nigel, this is simple logic. We are not even asking you to understand Regen Ag to “get” this. You don’t need to. You just have to have two neurons that work and a minimal ability to think. Nigel, literally, I could explain this to a five-year-old and they would get it instantly.
Ergo… you are merely arguing for the sake of defending a poorly chosen piece of ground that you’d rather die on than admit you were wrong.
You’re driving people crazy and losing a lot of respect. Don’t you remember not long ago Scott and I had some negativity between us, but you and he were fine? Dude, wake up. You’re your own worst enemy right now. You even got Susan barking at you, and that takes some doing.
2b. That is denialist behavior, and it frustrates and angers people. You do not have a legitimate opinion on these issues, yet continually tell the two experts on the topic they have no fucking clue what they are talking about.
If you would just stop responding to anything I post, this site would be about 80% less contentious. Just… chill out. Focus on the one or two things you might have expertise in, none of which are Simplicity/degrowth, Regenerative Design, Regen Ag.
Killian the only people genuinely barking at me are you, scott and mike, maybe reality check. And you are only barking at me because I ask for citations and proper mathematical proofs for some of your wild claims and you dont have any, so you go yap,yap,yap. I dont need expertise in your subject to see obvious and endless logical flaws..
And you get far more negative feedback from far more people than me.
In addition its not sustainability I criticise. Its your particular version I criticise. You seem to think the world revolves around your definitions and views. They are interesting yes. Definitive, not in my view.
Please see my reply to nigel; I recommend taking a ruler to measure how much scrolling the rest of us have to do to avoid the flame war, and who is perpetrating it. Excessive boldface quotes are also counterproductive. Somebody has to stop for all our sakes. This is my final tilt at this particular windmill.
It’s my windmill and I’ll tilt at it if I want to. I have learned not to respond to personal insults because it is an invitation to escalate. I also generally prefer that others not leap to defend me. I am, as a non-scientist, a guest who used to say of herself that “I am the fool who leaps in where angels fear to tread.”
You and Killian and several others are amplifying the material you wish to correct. In the past few years, endless column feet (inches, yards) hae gone in to repetitive groupings of back and forthing that bury much that is of value here, and has driven away a number of interesting contributors. The comment section of a blog is not “owned” by commenters, who imnsho are guests. It’s not about taking sides. RealClimate is a quality science site and I am grateful to its hosts. It is my guess that they don’t have the time and energy for all this pettiness. And I would also guess that I and the perpetrators of this mishigass have too much time on our hands and should find something more useful to do with our time.
Here, because I don’t have the skills to post the graphic, is the essence:
The graphic was on facebook, but this contains more on the subject:
http://publici.ucimc.org/2020/12/countering-disinformation-to-build-a-just-society/
Define “just society”.
I couldn’t respond to the thread where you commented about boldface:
FYI, I boldface ALL quotes, It’s simply my style of defining which person is being responded to and which is responding.
But, as usual, you treat it as something else.
You want this site to be better? Don’t lecture without knowing the background, call people on their bullshit.
Richard the Weaver @436
“RtW: A holistic system with twenty pillars will probably perform like shit if only one or three pillars exist in a test.”
Yes, but there is quite a lot of peer reviewed science on soils and how much carbon they can be made to sequester. Studies have looked at tilling and mulching, biochar, crop rotations, rotational grazing, etc,etc, everything that could conceivably have an effect on soil carbon, and other studies have looked at the combined effects of these things. The results? Soils can be made to sequester MODERATE amounts of soil carbon at best, and in ideal conditions, but not the crazy claims made by Killian and to a lesser degree Scott. And none of this considers that a warming climate causes soils to loose some of that carbon! And keeping that carbon in the soil is difficult. Do some reading.
Killian says scientists haven looked at the “whole system” but does he seriously think that the way farms are organised, or who owns farms, or things like weed killers, or the way crops are gathered is of significant relevance? Enough of the BS!
does he seriously think that the way farms are organised, or who owns farms, or things like weed killers, or the way crops are gathered is of significant relevance? Enough of the BS!
Only a fool doesn’t.
Reality Check @439
This was your original statement @403 “So, nigel, do you think the unsupported (unverifed) claim in the article that goes: An early idea to increase carbon stores — planting crops without tilling the soil — has mostly fallen flat. is somehow related to, or proven true because of some study about …how much carbon dioxide was released when researchers artificially warmed the soil in a Panamanian rainforest?”
The article did not say that the failure of no tilling to sequester as much soil as expected was due to a warming climate. There could be any number of reasons contributing. Warming is presumably one reason, but they just didn’t say. I think the point is we have had one degree of warming so far that would affect field trials but we are in for more warming so that will have even more effect on soils. Maybe I’ve missed your point, but I think its best to just cut to the main issue of warming soils and what it means. The article could have been clearer, maybe thats your point.
“The problem here is that you do not know that. You do not know the Quantity of Carbon that could be put into soils using RegenAg, either now or the future at scale. The carbon loss mentioned in those papers are purely theoretical, not proven. They do not apply across all soil types nor regions or type of agricultural uses.”
There are multiple peer reviewed studies looking at how much carbon soils can be made to sequester using regen. agriculture, for example by no till agricluture, mulching, biochar, crop rotations , grazing systems etc,etc and studies looking at all of this added together. The quantities are modest to moderate at best, and less than the huge claims made by people like Killian and Scott. Thats the ONLY thing I really claimed.
And this is BEFORE you consider carbon loss from a warming climate over the coming decades, with some warming already locked in! The claims on loss from warming are not just theoretical because the study you quoted yourself is based on field obeservations! And the science behind the claims is compelling: warmer conditions increase bacterial activity. You aren’t giving me reasons to think the science is wrong.
I read the studies you quoted. They do not contradict what I’ve said.
Correcting a bad typo: The article did not say that the failure of no tilling to sequester as much carbon in the soil as expected was due to a warming climate.
Reality Check @449 doesn’t your long list of things that cause carbon loss in soils show how DIFFICULT its going to be to turn this around and actually increase soil carbon with regenerative farming? Thats been my main point all along. We should of course still try.
404, 365, 375, 407, 413, 421, 422, 424, 429, 430, 432, 437, 439, 445, 446, 448, 449 and the Magnum Opus of them all, 450:
A note on Amazonian soils: I noted that point when I read the source(s), but it didn’t really pick at my brain until I saw them referenced above, which triggered remembrance of my own points about terra preta/bio-char:
Rainforests don’t really have soils so much as they have rocks with some dirt, clay and decaying organic material on them (this is a massive simplification to make a point, but is completely valid) because it is a *rain*forest. The rains drain nutrients and organic matter out of the soils rapidly, so the forest has become a place where there is virtually no lag in the organic cycle. In the Great Plains of North America, no such rains exist and so the ruminants (and their pee and poo – very important!), grasses, and the H-G’s and apex predators keeping them moving, created a mellower form of terra preta of soils up to 15% C and meters deep.
But the Amazon, it’s like a nightmare apparition that is all ass and mouth, constantly eating and pooping. Virtually all the organic matter of a rain forest is in… the rain forest, itself. i.e., in the plants, animals, bugs, fish, and other biota, not in soils.
This is ***exactly*** why terra preta was originated in the Amazon. As First Peoples filled the continent, and presumably also as some chose not to get dominated much later by the likes of the Aztec, Inca, Olmec, etc., some found the fishing and hunting great in Amazonia because all that carbon was in stuff they could eat. Most of us don’t eat soil directly after the age of 1 or 2, I’d think.
The biological productivity of the Amazonian rainforest is *massive*, as is the biodiversity, for the reasons cited above. Still, we’re fundamentally lazy in the sense that, yes, we can trek through the rainforest for a day to gather papaya, but why not get some growing outside the village? So, hey, let’s plant some papaya seeds over yonder, mates! I.e., they altered the rainforest so they could have some (relatively) dry places and do a little light farming via farms and food foresting. (They also developed ingenious ways to “farm” fish by trapping them into pens, etc.)
Et viola! Terra preta. Two meters of 20% carbon soils **in the goddamned rainforest!** In the place where rains make healthy soils virtually non-existent, we have METERS of soil so rich it’s black and, despite those rains, *****still there after 1000 years.*****
Now, let us let our imaginations free and imagine terra preta everywhere else, too. Without the massive rains draining through it washing away nutrients and minerals…
But, I am sure nigel is right and nobody else here – and certainly not the agricultural specialists! – know a goddamned thing. Nigel said so. It must be true.
You don’t know what the hell you are talking about, Scott! Terra preta does not exist! Bio-char does not exist! Regen Ag/Agroforestry/TEK/Permaculture do *nothing!* Nigel said so. 20% C? Massive exaggeration! Fake pictures! Lying aborigines!
Silly, silly, Scott!
Let me close with the original point I intended to make: Why in the hell would anyone do a study on the residence time of SOC in a location where Nature barely bothers to make any?
Rhetorical question…
I forgot 451, 452, 453, 455:
Nigel says “those deep carbon soils” took millions of years. Well, which ones? And, at 1cm per 200~400 years and 3k years for it to become really good soil, we’re actually looking at well under 100k years.
But that’s irrelevant because we can build soils orders of magnitude faster. Two meters of terra preta soils in the Amazon were created in 500 years with zero advanced technology and massive amounts of rain. That’s 1cm/year, or thousands of times faster than Nature.
But, dude, you know SO much more than the experts!
terra preta took millions of years. Well, no. Not even close.
Fun fact! Terra preta, once established, grows itself at 1cm a year! Do note, that is the speed of Nature itself. So…. if you have terra preta expanding 1cm, and nature building 1cm on top of that, you get 2cm/year without lifting a finger. Add in that we can build soils faster than nature, once you have a terra preta base and are constantly improving the soil above that, you’re looking at, oh, 3cm/yr? Or more?
But I suppose nigel is right: CAN’T BE DONE!
Dunning Kruger? The word was designed for you.
:-)
Kisses, sweetie.
Killian says scientists haven looked at the ”whole system” but does he seriously think that the way farms are organised, or who owns farms, or things like weed killers, or the way crops are gathered is of significant relevance? Enough of the BS!
Why, yes, but you are mixing Regen Ag and Regen Design. (We are not surprised, Sir Dunning-Krueger.) Thank you for so clearly pointing out how little you understand.)
Reality Check @449 doesn’t your long list of things that cause carbon loss in soils show how DIFFICULT its going to be to turn this around and actually increase soil carbon with regenerative farming? Thats been my main point all along. We should of course still try.
No. None of those things are massively complex or particularly difficult. What they represent is resilience, not difficulty. Are surprised you do not see it this way? Of course not.
You see, it’s additive.
No-till. Better!
No-till + compost. Better, better!
No-till + compost + heavy mulching. Better, better, better!
No-till + compost + heavy mulching + compost teas. Better, better, better, better!
No-till + compost + heavy mulching + compost teas + humanure. Better, better, better, better, better!
No-till + compost + heavy mulching + compost teas + humanure + vermiculture. Better, better, better, better, better, better!
No-till + compost + heavy mulching + compost teas + humanure + vermiculture + bio-char. Better, better, better, better, better, better, better!
Etc.
Get it?
Regarding my original comment on soils back @ 379. It was related to Killians and Scotts claims that regenerative agriculture can make soils sequester huge quantities of carbon quite rapidly. Killian has stated we can get from about 415ppm CO2 back to 280ppm in 10 – 20 years based on regenerative agriculture being adopted by all or most farmers and the techniques they use. This just makes me sceptical. The peer reviewed science suggests it would be more like 300 years. This might change given more studies or ideas like the glomalin pathway but we can only go by what hard evidence we have at this point in time.
However something else just occurred to me. Lets assume purely for the sake of argument that Killians right that we can get back to 280 ppm in 10-20 years. So when we hit 280ppm CO2, the process obviously wont stop. We could rapidly trigger a serious cooling period and lower rates of plant growth. To stop this you would have to stop regenerative farming, or alter it and probably quite dramatically, because Killian has said its not just specific things like mulching and no tilling that conserves soil carbon, its “the entire system”. And so you have a problem.
So what would you actually do to control such a powerful sequestration process if such a thing is even possible? Its not like sequestering carbon with tree planting where you can just stop planting more trees or cut trees down when you hit your targets. Its flexible. Its not like tech. based carbon capture and storage that can be switched on or off. So ideas about soil carbon just doesn’t look like its been thought through enough to me. I think Piotr said something similar, but I cant remember the details. I’m sure others have wondered about such things.
Of course if soils sequester carbon more modestly and at a slower rate you would still be helping a lot, and it would be less likely to trigger unintended consequences.
Re my 457: Sloppy editing on the latter part. The first section is accurate on soil creation: 1cm over 200 to 400 years.
458: Killian has stated we can get from about 415ppm CO2 back to 280ppm in 10 – 20 years based on regenerative agriculture being adopted by all or most farmers and the techniques they use
That is a lie. I have never said that in my entire life, written or spoken.
Do you think he is capable of identifying his error? I do not. Or is it an error rather than a lie?
It’s really impossible to tell with this guy. But, then, denialists often trade on seeming sincere.
Thoughts?
You certainly said something very much like that. If its a lie what did you ACTUALLY SAY? Because until you say , your credibility with scientists will be zero.
I said nothing like this, And there is nothing on this site less credible than your comments. You get everything wrong that you attempt to criticize because you are speaking from a position bruised ego. You are irrational.
Sorry, Dear Readers, my error: I should have read the rest of it.
Sigh… and so…
However something else just occurred to me. Lets assume purely for the sake of argument that Killians right that we can get back to 280 ppm in 10-20 years. So when we hit 280ppm CO2, the process obviously wont stop. We could rapidly trigger a serious cooling period and lower rates of plant growth.
OBVIOUSLY! Humans don’t do math, after all! It is absolutely impossible that we could have a decades-long target to hit 260~280 ppm and set up a plan to shift our actions to deal with that! CAN’T BE DONE!
But, um, yeah, I think it would be pretty easy to create a system by which when the world is approaching the target – which would be counted down globally, right? – we notify people over a period of years to… stop sequestering and move to merely sustainable: Same in and out each year.
Nah…. CAN’T BE DONE! EVEN WTIH 20 YEARS TO PLAN FOR IT! NOPE!
;-)
To stop this you would have to stop regenerative farming, or alter it and probably quite dramatically
ORRRRRR…. we could stop adding C to soils as they would all be high in carbon? Or eat more, build more, create more and increase quality of life across the board…? No? After all, it is that loss of “Quality of Life” that you claim makes all this impossible,…. right?
I guess that would be silly according to nigel. WE CAN ONLY HAVE TOO HOT OR TOO COLD!
because Killian has said its not just specific things like mulching and no tilling that conserves soil carbon, its ”the entire system”. And so you have a problem.
Hmmm… a system tuned to Nature, mimicking Nature…. is a problem in dealing with… Nature.
ARe you sure you want this out in public?
So what would you actually do to control such a powerful sequestration process if such a thing is even possible? Its not like sequestering carbon with tree planting where you can just stop planting more trees or cut trees down when you hit your targets.
That is exactly what it’s like. You are here making ridiculous reverse arguments that make no sense… We warned you about yourself.
How hard would it be to reduce bio-char production in each community? Or allow C to decompose at the top of the soil?
As Scott said, and you said, you don’t know what we’re talking about and the post I am responding to is… an extremely obvious proof of this.
bIts flexible. Its not like tech. based carbon capture and storage that can be switched on or off. So ideas about soil carbon just doesn’t look like its been thought through enough to me.
Oh… my…. People can’t choose to sequester or not sequester, or burn or not burn C… because nigel said so? I mean, Let’s say I am a farmer and temps have become pretty moderate over the years and the gov’t announces we’ve sequestered enough carbon. I cannot over the next year or two do an analysis of my carbon footprint and change what I am doing?
Uh… OK…. I guess since you asserted it, it *must* be factual!! Don’t sequester the carbon, you’ll kill yourself!
I think Piotr said something similar
Then surely we must call the schoolmarm, the dog catcher, and the Wall St. trader to weigh in on this!
Of course if soils sequester carbon more modestly and at a slower rate you would still be helping a lot, and it would be less likely to trigger unintended consequences.
LOL…
He’s never going to figure it all out, is he?
;=) ;=) ;=) ;=) ;=) ;=) ;=) ;=) ;=)
Doesn’t work. Stopping adding biochar will at best reduce the rate of carbon sequestration. Eating more food is not a great plan to reduce carbon sequestration because. too many people are already overweight.
You could not stop mulching and no till agriculture, because they are the fundamentals of regenerative agriculture. So carbon sequestration would continue past 280 ppm CO2. Its an interesting problem, however you could slow it down a bit and it would just be an overshoot situation. The system would reach a new equilibrium.
However its all academic because there is no hard evidence in the peer reviewed literature that we can sequester soil carbon as rapidly and hugely as you claim.
By the way biochar is just pyrolised biomass, cooked at very high .temperatures. Quantities are constrained by available biomass, and the furnaces are high tech and largely reliant on fossil fuels for power generation. The point being that the amount of carbon sequestered by biomass isn’t going to be huge.. Google research studies on the issue.
Too uninformed, illogical and intentionally antagonistic to bother with. Wrong on every point, yet again.
BTW, you said, “Google research studies on the issue.” First, what an arrogant asinine thing to say. 2. I know the world’s leading expert on the issue.
So nothing of substance again. Just empty rhetoric. From wikipedia: “Biochar is charcoal that is produced by pyrolysis of biomass in the absence of oxygen”
Shush, child. You know nothing. Speak less or not at all.
Genosse
That is an old cartoon by Storm P. (Mark Twain?)
A lecturer saying:
“this is not something that I take from myself. It is said by a man who knew what he was talking about!”
Thus, watch your procedures. We may be experienced.
“
#455 “Reality Check @449 doesn’t your long list of things that cause carbon loss in soils “
With all due respect, I do not think you were reading that quite right. There were only two “causes” listed. One was modern industrial Agriculture and the multiple standard practices that go with that, and two was the increasingly destructive heatwaves, droughts, floods etc from global warming.
Nigel, I have never denied the difficulties of turning this thing around. I have already said upfront I do not think climate change is going to be solved, that it is going to run out of control. I have said (meant) specifically regarding RegenAg I cannot see it ever going mainstream globally.
You see, my actual opinion is, even if RegenAg was proved scientifically beyond all doubt tomorrow to be able to rapidly sequester unbelievably enormous amounts of CO2 permanently in soils, it would still not be deployed globally, nor replace Industrial Agriculture systems anyway.
Because the powerful forces aligned against that and the general negative press and the lack of public support at a political level (as shown on these pages) are too great. Same as the FF interests against renewables and nuclear energy and hydrogen for transportation engines and sane rational economics and so on have got in the way of equitable common sense progressive change.
Primarily becasue They and enough of the Public in the more powerful wealthy nations, people like us, simply do not care enough, or care at all. Buckets of verbal rhetoric says they do, but they’re lying to themselves. Actions show their true form.
The most important thing in western/OECD society now is wealth accumulation. Nothing else. Appearances to the contrary is simply lip-service and spin. Except for that large % of western society who are already in the poorer socioeconomic class in a non-stop struggle to survive. Who can’t afford PV solar or a new EV from Tesla, let alone the house to put them on and in.
RegenAg will “fail” to make a difference for the very same reasons why renewable energy is still only 11% of all energy use in the OECD (a pittance after 3 decades waiting) and why GDP Growth and mainstream capitalist economics will never be voluntarily abandoned by using reason and scientific evidence either.
But I did say, once the collapse of modern civilisation comes, and it will with the increasing climate impacts, there will survive pockets of enlightened groups scattered across the world who will retain the regenag knowledge and use it to sustain their communities who do survive.
The rest will starve to death while locked inside their shining new Tesla EVs with flat batteries. And no one will be bothered anymore to even question if RegenAg can or cannot sequester more than a Moderate amount of SOC in soils. It will be far too late for that wasted exercise.
This is what I think. Feel free to quote me properly, or ask for some refs which underpin such thinking. For example 2018 Negative emissions—Part 1 of 3 parts https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b very scary rabbit holes exist. Some have entered never to return to a normal life.
Reality Check, I actually really enjoyed reading your post, but there is nothing wrong with my reading of your comment. You also mentioned “-Deforestation increases carbon loss in all soils, has done for thousands of years. -Many other Land Use Changes and Irrigation practices increases carbon loss in all soils.” But perhaps you view that as part of industrialisation, which is fair enough.
I agree with some of what you say about society, especially about the negative influence of vested interests and the huge difficulties mitigation faces and the risk of a collapse of civilsation. I’m increasingly thinking we wont meet the Paris accord targets. However I prefer to be a little bit more upbeat as well posting comments and so I generally promote renewables, electric cars, etc, etc. I also promote regenerative agriculture on most websites, but I get really annoyed when I see exaggerated claims and a science website like this such claims should be rebuted and debated. It probably makes me look opposed to regenerative agriculture but I’m not.
And I’m not QUITE as pessimistic as you. Close admittedly. I do think regenerative farming might gain traction because several techniques it uses dont add too many costs. I just dont think it would be the very pure form Killian talks about and it will take a lengthy time to become the new norm.. And wind and solar power are now cost effective so why wouldn’t they scale up? Even Trumps silly attempts to bring back coal have failed. None of it will happen fast enough to be ideal, but maybe enough to stop the worst outcomes like 3 degrees or more
Yes poor people cant’ afford electric cars, but that seems a weak argument not to promote them. EV’s do reduce emissions regardless of who owns them, and we are seeing used nissan leafs at very affordable prices now and reasonable battery like left. Eventually they will be as affordable as ICE cars. You have to start somewhere. Its like the first smartphones cost a fortune, but now poor people own them.
I’m very concerned about the impacts of climate change on poor countries. Its partly why I advocate we mitigate climate change. It probably wont affect me personally, because I’m financially reasonably well off and ditto the family. If civilisation collapses in a heap of rubble I will survive either way, because I have a lot of practical skills. But a lot of people will be lost. Many young people don’t even know how to change a tire on a car these days.
However it seems unlikely to me that the collapse of civilsation will happen overnight such that all the lights just suddenly go out permanently, and food doesn’t get delivered next morning. It may be more like a slow motion train wreck over decades to centuries, where many people end up going back to live simply off the land.
Reality Check, sorry I didn’t mean to imply you opposed EVs, if it came across that way. Just thinking aloud. Some people oppose them, because they feel only the rich can afford them.
Couple of other things. Half the problem is lobby groups influence on politicians and the influence of campaign donations. New Zealand is tightening up on this but its hard to see that happening in America, given the freedom of speech constitutional right.
And secondly although its hard to see society deliberately opting for slower economic growth as you mentioned, economic growth is slowing inexorably anyway in the developed world.. Check the trends since the 1970s if you haven’t already.. I could see it trending down naturally to near zero in the coming two or three decades. Consider resource limits, market saturation, and demographics. AI and robotics will push back against this, but I dont think it would reverse the basic trend.
Michael Mann seems to be on a PR tour with the alt-non-mainstream media of late.
July 30, 2021 The Climate Emergency Warning from Extreme Weather
Michael E Mann i’view talks Forced Responses – audio transcript
(slightly edited extracts)
The impacts of climate change really test our capacity as a global civilization to continue to operate. The conditions upon which our societal infrastructure have been built, what our societies are based upon, suddenly no longer apply.
If we allow the warming to proceed, then we will exceed our capacity to adapt as a human civilization. That is a potential future – societal collapse is a very real potential future.
It is not yet guaranteed as our future. There is still time to make sure that that is not our future. But we have to de-carbonize our global economy now – and rapidly.
We’ve got to bring global carbon emissions down by 50% within this decade. (By 2030) if we are to have any chance of averting that +1.5C degrees Celsius danger level.
There is a certain amount of climate change that’s already baked in. We’re seeing it. We are already there. Dangerous climate change has arrived.
In the very best scenario, we’re dealing with a new normal, where we have to fundamentally adapt our infrastructure to deal with these heightened threats. And we’re seeing that right now.
Especially for those who have the least resources. The poor, folks in low income communities have the least resilience, the least resources. They are the ones who are facing the greatest impacts.
https://loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=21-P13-00031&segmentID=3
About “We’ve got to bring global carbon emissions down by 50% within this decade. (By 2030)”
IIRC, about the COP26 goal setting parameters for 2030, he means reducing emissions by 50% below the actual GHG CO2e emissions result in 2010.
A few nations have submitted goals close to this. Few are consistent in using the 2010 yardstick so their ambitions cannot be directly compared to each other. The COP system never standardizes these submissions, afaik. No one is the wiser.
With two months left to go it looks the targets won’t achieve a combined 50% reduction as a goal. But even if they did, I do not see how the world could get close to achieving a 50% reduction Goal in 2030.
Contrary to what Mann and others aspire to and say it is still technically possible; I think it is impossible – technically, mathematically, politically and practically – given the constraints and accepted norms of COP, the OECD powers that be.
Because there are zero goals or programs to constrain consumption or ramp up energy efficiency globally. OECD Renewable non-Carbon energy capacity/use sits at ~11% in 2019. Less than the individual share for Coal, Gas and Oil. Theoretical NET sequestration, CCS and BECCS included in the IPCC +1.5C estimates and in some COP Targets, is non-existent today. Likely to remain so throughout the next decade, with new Nuclear deployments providing minimal GWh increases as well.
Greenhouse gas emissions OECD 1990-2018
Unit Tonnes of CO2 equivalent, Thousands
1990 = 15 334 604.00
2012 = 15 920 666.00
2018 = 15 669 868.00
and
EU 1990 = 5 647 955.14 – 2018 4 224 358.28
USA 1990 = 6 437 000.13 – 2018 6 676 649.62
see https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AIR_GHG
The gains by the EU have been swallowed up by the increases of other OECD nations.
Comparison Data in 2019
OECD = 14,057 MMt CO2e
China= 14,093 MMt CO2e
https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-countries/
Population Comparison Data in 2020
OECD = 1 291 087
China= 1 387 792
https://www.oecd.org/sdd/01_Population_and_migration.pdf
Per Capita CO2e Emissions in 2019
China = 10.1 tons/capita
OECD = 10.5 tons/capita
USA = 17.6 tons/capita
https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-countries/
Since 1750, the 38 members of the OECD bloc have emitted four times more CO2 on a cumulative basis than China (Figure 4) GRAPH
https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Figure-4.png
China’s economic growth and export demand by the OECD and developing world is going to increase. China’s Govt has said emission won’t peak until 2030; India not until 2040 or later. Indonesia’s (380 mln) economic growth and emissions are going to increase the next decade as well.
There is no global moratorium on the rapid destruction of forests. The rate of forest destruction, iirc, has more than doubled since the 1990s. There is no plan or agreement to stop it.
I think the current program of the UNFCCC-COP system is a fiction. A global pea and shell game. It’s make believe, a fantasy, disconnected from reality. Little more than a long term marketing program designed to not tell the truth and make as little change as possible.
Mike Mann’s presentations are (imnsho) superb. Thanks for the extract. Though in fact it becomes ever more difficult to believe that humanity will have the courage or humanity to make the big changes necessary, it is, though unfortunately all too tempting, not useful to encourage despair or apathy. It’s only life itself.
Susan Anderson – “not useful to encourage despair or apathy.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/07/forced-responses-july-2021/comment-page-10/#comment-793850
That is your personal flawed interpretation of what is being said Susan. Not a good one because it misses the mark. You’d be better off recognizing and taking responsibility for your own emotions. Processing what’s is triggering them would help.
It’s often from where misunderstandings, unjustified personal criticisms and blaming of others arise.
Denying reality is not a rational response to catastrophic climate change. That is apathy. Not until this reality is faced squarely, with mature objectivity based on the historical evidence, can appropriate alternative corrective action be found and acted upon.
Childishly, naively, chasing rainbows because it “feels lovely” or “inspiring” or is “the only thing” we believe we have to act on, is not viable. It’s foolish and self-defeating. That is the road to ultimate despair!
I can’t image what you must think of Greta when she tears strips off the people behind the WEF, the UN, the OECD and the failure that is the UNFCCC-COP system.
Michael Mann will not be attending COP26. He has no power and no influence there. Mann and his fans are not making the critical decisions about to be announced at COP26 for the next decade and more.
Those decisions have long been made. They do not care about your emotions or feelings either. Mann is saying COP26 is our last chance to act. He’s wrong. That ship sailed a long time ago.
I encourage you to take another look at what was being said and what it actually means. Objectively. While seriously reconsidering the last 30 years of the overwhelming accumulated evidence.
It is said: “When one door closes, another one opens.”
It’s past due the COP system door was slammed shut forever. Only after that door closes can a better more constructive door be seen and opened.
Human Psychology:101
In the meantime, it’s a slippery slide to hell on Earth. Which is what Michael Mann is actually pointing out to you in spades!
So, good luck.
Annual global emissions are estimated about 5PgC/year according to https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/
eg – From 2000 through 2018, CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels rose from 6.7 PgC yr-1 to 10.2 PgC yr-1
The other major source of CO2 is wildfires, which in CT2019B add an additional 2.0-2.6 PgC yr-1 to the atmosphere.
According to CT2019B, the world oceans absorb 1.4 to 4.1 PgC yr-1.
One paper I saw has investigated historical SOC loss – Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use https://www.pnas.org/content/114/36/9575 (2017)
It’s suggested ” we have generated estimates for the global cumulative loss of SOC which potentially represent a maximum estimate of the SOC sink capacity, and have demonstrated that there are hotspots of SOC loss which are closely associated with land that has been identified as highly degraded. “
and “This analysis indicates that the majority of the used portions of planet Earth have lost SOC, resulting in a cumulative loss of ∼133 Pg C due to agricultural land use. These SOC losses are on par with estimates of carbon lost from living vegetation primarily due to deforestation (40) and are nearly 100 Pg C higher than earlier estimates of land use and land use change-driven losses of SOC”
Therefore: “Our analysis has found that this sink potential is ∼133 Pg C (SI Appendix, Table S3). A widely repeated figure is that, with adoption of best management practices, two thirds of lost SOC can be recovered (42). If the two-thirds figure is accurate, then SOC sequestration has the potential to offset 88 Pg C (322 Pg CO2) of emissions. “
and “However, bottom-up estimates of the maximum biophysical potential for carbon sequestration on cropping and grazing land range from 0.4 Pg C⋅y−1 to 1.4 Pg C⋅y−1 (20, 43). Assuming SOC reaches a new steady state in 20 y (35, 44), this calculation suggests that 8 Pg C to 28 Pg C (in total) can be recaptured. ‘” (end quotes)
OK, so that is one paper, I am sure others offer varying estimates. But a comparison to annual emissions mentioned above, can offer some perspective of potential sequestration estimates.
This paper suggests a low end SOC sequestration range of between 0.4 Pg C⋅y−1 to 1.4 Pg C⋅y−1 (per year) which might be able to offset some of the mean 5 PgC/year emissions over a number of decades. Which is (roughly) around 10 to 28% of annual emissions. This is significant volumes of CO2 drawdown.
It’s only one paper, so it shouldn’t be taken as definite, but indicative only. Nor does this paper consider potentially improved results by using site specific Regenerative Agriculture, or Permaculture or enhanced Grazing techniques (if they were better.)
But it does specifically mention the potential to target specific regions that have suffered the greatest degradation (Nth America, Europe and Australia) – offering greater potential for theoretical SOC uptake in those soils.
Though I am unsure if this paper is reliable enough to draw such broad-ranging conclusions. Maybe it’s findings have been superseded. idk The Paper might be worth a read. Been cited several hundred times. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/36/9575/tab-article-info
Reality Check,
The answer for the discrepancy is in the quote of the very study you posted.
“Assuming SOC reaches a new steady state in 20 y”
They then refer to Carbon Management Response curves: estimates of temporal soil carbon dynamics DOI: 10.1007/s00267-003-9108-3 and 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
There is the problem from a fundamental standpoint. This is a nested bad assumption. The first bad assumption is in assuming the soil would reach a steady state in 20 years, when evidential analysis reveals actually that’s about the time carbon sequestration in regenerative ag really starts accelerating. It is biologically driven, so it actually improves as habitat (soil) improves. Better habitat, means more biological activity, resulting in higher sequestration rates. Those higher rates will plateau at some point of course, but as long as the habitat remains healthy, the LCP will continue to function well into geological timeframes.
We have plenty of evidence this happens in natural systems, and there is no reason to believe any agricultural approach using biomimicry would be any different. So it is clearly an example of an assumption not in evidence.
The next assumption nested within this bad assumption is that should SOC ever actually reach a saturation level, the losses of carbon would return to the atmosphere. Again, this is not found in many natural systems at all. The primary losses of sequestered carbon in a saturated system do not return to the atmosphere, but rather erode into waterways eventually showing up as sediments and then ultimately back into sedimentary rock and/or fossil fuels. Some just get buried so deep they fossilize in situ themselves.
This is why it is so important to distinguish between stable SOC and labile SOC. It is also why I am working with a commercial laboratory to develop a soil test that distinguishes between these forms for use in carbon credits.
The labile portion of SOC might reach a steady state in 20-30 years in many cases. That portion is well represented by the The Roth C model. The model is designed to run in two modes: ‘forward’ in which known inputs are used to calculate changes in soil organic matter, and inversely to back calculate inputs from current known SOC levels.
There is an issue here though. This model is calculating inputs of organic matter, ie biomass added, then decomposing slowly in the soil. Basically to make this conceptually simple for you, this model works for the labile carbon cycle of decay, but has nothing to do with stable carbon at all. And yes as noted before, the labile carbon does indeed generally ultimately return as CO2. That biological cycle, while very important, is only marginally useful to mitigate AGW in the long run. Basically of about equal importance as tree planting. (another mitigation strategy that quickly saturates and reaches a steady state)
The stable cycle, or LCP as many have called it follows a completely different path, and as of yet I have seen no statistical model for this anywhere. I have seen trials conducted by agricultural researchers, data collected in the form of soil sampling, even evidence in the fossil record, but not any computer modeling.
One thing we need is a way to gain better data. That’s one reason why I have been working so hard on my project, which is actually fairly limited in scope directly, but if a better soil testing protocol and data resulting can come out of it, then we could maybe start making a model of the LCP, which functions in the biosphere entirely differently than any models show currently.
Thank you Scott for the clarification of those many aspects. and how things have moved along.
“Those higher rates will plateau at some point of course, but as long as the habitat remains healthy, the LCP will continue to function well into geological timeframes. ”
So the potential is likely far higher than this one paper concludes is possible. Good to know, but please define LCP if you have a chance, I’ve searched but can’t bring up a clear meaning.
and best wishes for your project. I appreciate your insights and experience in the field.
RC,
I forgot you were gone from this forum for quite a while. My apologies for using specialty field Jargon not in common usage. The LCP is short for the liquid carbon pathway.
The pathway (LCP) is a biochemical pathway that can be highly simplified into:
Photosynthesis to liquid plant primary productivity -> to root exudates -> to feed mycorrhizal fungi (and a whole interrelated web of symbiotic soil microorganisms) -> producing a stable class of soil glues produced by those fungi called glomalin which carbon based itself is very stable up to 100 years or more, -> but also “glues” smaller chain humic polymers together and attaches them to the mineral substrate of sand/silt/clay -> to create a type of soil structure called a mollic epipedon.
Bockheim J.G. (2014) Mollic Epipedon. In: Soil Geography of the USA. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06668-4_5
That mollic epipedon can then grow deeper and deeper until it reaches a state where it dominates the entire A horizon of the soil (and to a lessor extent the B horizon) and then is considered a Mollisol, the most important agricultural soil type in the world.
https://www.uidaho.edu/-/media/UIdaho-Responsive/Images/cals/programs/soil-orders/mollisols/1200×900-mollisols.jpg
“Mollisols have: (1) a mollic epipedon (thick, dark surface horizon); and (2) base saturation of at least 50 percent throughout the subsoil. (USDA-NRCS image)”
As stated earlier, mollisols can either just keep getting deeper and deeper and eventually the lower layers fossilize in situ, or they can erode and eventually they will deposit as sediments in oceans or other large bodies of water, and ultimately becoming new sedimentary rock and/or new fossil fuels, all of which is in geological timeframes out of the atmosphere.
Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124001
But the chemical bonds that create Mollisols are very strong. It is not impossible to break the connection of humic polymers with the mineral substrate, but even when that soil is eroded and flowing down a river, the carbon tends to hold onto the silt and clay particles especially. Now that might be reborn as alluvial soils, or it might end up at the bottom of a sea or ocean and become sedimentary rock eventually, but it is sequestered into geological timeframes useful for long term AGW mitigation!
“Glomalin eluded detection until 1996 because, “It requires an unusual effort to dislodge glomalin for study: a bath in citrate combined with heating at 250 F (121 C) for at least an hour…. No other soil glue found to date required anything as drastic as this.” – Dr. Sara Wright, USDA soil scientist
This pathway has been measured in agricultural trials to be about ~5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr under appropriate conditions. So the trick for using regenerative agriculture as an AGW mitigation strategy would be to get as many acres as possible using methods that achieve those conditions.
Liquid carbon pathway, Christine Jones, PhD https://www.amazingcarbon.com/PDF/JONES-LiquidCarbonPathway(July08).pdf
There actually are enough acres already under lessor forms of agricultural management that if we simply changed methods on all those acres, we would need a rate of approximately 8 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr to offset current man made emissions. 8 does indeed fall into the range of 5-20 measured in trials.
It would be a Herculean task, requiring as much effort as the previous “Green Revolution” in agriculture. But I suspect that could be done eventually. That’s not all either. We also could still replant deforested areas worldwide, like parts of the Amazon and Indonesian rain forests. There are vast grasslands so degraded they no longer are fit for agriculture that could be rewilded. I believe I saw that even the Mangrove forests on coastlines need significant effort in restoration and sequester large quantities of carbon as well as protecting inland areas from flooding. etc etc. I am not certain exactly what the quantified AGW mitigation potential for those areas would be, combined under the heading of wild ecosystem restoration, but I am sure it would be non-trivial as well.
But now here is the rub. We cant depend on these alone. It is too important. The risk is too high for emergent properties of the system to kick in and destroy all our hard work. So we need very much to also reduce fossil fuel use substantially too.
Lets say we are able to actually reduce man made emissions by ~50%. That would mean that we would simultaneously need to take up the slack with ~50% regenerative agriculture and ecosystem restoration combined to achieve net zero emissions, and a bit more to achieve drawdown. So not necessarily everyone needs convinced and trained right away, just enough to add to efforts on renewable energy.
Ultimately though, the biological carbon cycle is self regulating. as atmospheric CO2 begins dropping, we can expect the LCP to drop somewhat as well. There is a lot of uncertainty in that future, but these are the “good” kind of problems to deal with. Before we go making drama about what if we somehow get too much of a good thing in some distant future, lets just try and get enough of a good thing now? I really don’t care if we get there by 50/50 or 60/40 or even 80/20. I am fairly certain even just eliminating the highly destructive commodity crop “America’s corn system” if done world wide would at least get us 20% there with regenerative agriculture. Maybe 10% with tree planting and other forms of ecosystem recovery? Can the techie types get us the other 70% with renewable energy? Lets just get to drawdown and soon. I don’t want perfect to be the enemy of good enough.
It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/
nigel, where are your insults and denials?
I’m sure Scott can’t wait…
@Scott
Thank you for all that info. and the LCP explanation. Got it. Excellent. Really good summary, much appreciated.
a mollic epipedon (thick, dark surface horizon)
ah yes, I have read of this recently, and some other things you mentioned, though I cannot yet put it all together well, it’s ok,
and have heard of this too .. and eventually the lower layers fossilize in situ etc.
I don’t need to know it all, though I think I can adequately grasp the importance and use of these matters going forward re sequestration. as well as the variations in outcomes between regular ag doing that and regeneration ag applications. Happy to defer to those who know better. I get it’s complex, including from one place, or region, to another, and what the land is being used for… ag or rewilding etc. Looking forward to the necessary confirmations about soc uptake numbers and a consensus so a formal tick of approval and agreement is forthcoming. Progress has been very slow by the look of it.
Lets say we are able to actually reduce man made emissions by ~50%. That would mean that we would simultaneously need to take up the slack with ~50% regenerative agriculture and ecosystem restoration combined to achieve net zero emissions, and a bit more to achieve drawdown.
This kind of approach is how I had always envisioned things might play out, longer term. vs all fossil fuels being replaced by renewables …. with all electrified energy. and why nuclear is so critical imo, but the world ain’t ready yet for that at scale either. reforestation and rewilding grasslands scrub regions and degraded ag regions has always seemed so obvious/logical to me etc. Would be nice to stop destroying any more of it first.
Anyway, I hear what you’re saying, and what Killian says too. Eminently rational and down to earth practical and much sustainable longer term. (eventually – collapse or not) In the meantime, do the best you can. Thank you for the above.
I want to particularly point out on the limits issue, that 20% SOC is massive, and that has been measured in terra preta. Someone do me the math for 20% SOC for all “arable” land, grazing land, yards and gardens and potential food forests.
And then there’s stuff like this which supports what I had said about deep sequestration of C: The team analyzed a soil known as the Brady soil, which was formed more than 13,500 years ago in what is now Nebraska, Kansas and other parts of the Great Plains. It lies up to 6.5 m below the present-day surface and was buried by a vast accumulation of windborne dust known as loess beginning about 10,000 years ago.
“There is a lot of carbon at depths where nobody is measuring. It was assumed that there was little carbon in deeper soils. Most studies are done in only the top 30 cm. Our study is showing that we are potentially grossly underestimating carbon in soils,” Dr Marin-Spiotta explained.
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/soilscience/science-ancient-soils-rich-carbon-01944.html
ooops, important emphasis was NET Annual global emissions are estimated about 5PgC/year according to https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/
Land and ocean sinks absorb about half the anthropocentric CO2 emitted into the atmosphere
Killian has stated we can get from about 415ppm CO2 back to 280ppm in 10 – 20 years based on regenerative agriculture being adopted by all or most farmers and the techniques they use. This just makes me sceptical.
Why do you lie? None of the above is true. What is true? I have said:
We can get to 260~280ppm in as little as 20 years IF we
* Rapidly, massively simplify
* Adopt regenerative agriculture globally, everything from home gardens to farms
* Rapidly reduce consumption globally 80-90%
* Adopt Regenerative Design as the basis of decision-making
* Adopt Regenerative Governance, or something similar
You’re not skeptical, you’re a denialist and propagandist. You knew what you were writing was false.
it doesn’t matter much, but I think he doesn’t know what he writes is false. I think he often reads carelessly and thinks in a muddled manner and responds the same way. We all do some of that. Some of us do more of it than others. We can all do better if we try and if we choose to be less reactive.
I think the plan you lay out above might work as you think. It’s too bad that our species would rather die than change our way of life. I am not worried, even for the sake of argument, that overshoot on your plan would bring on a new ice age. That’s an idea that jumps the shark in my opinion.
Cheers
it doesn’t matter much, but I think he doesn’t know what he writes is false.
He’s been on this site since Dec. 2016. He and I have gone round and round on this precisely because he consistently and constantly employs such tactics.
It is true he is a crap analyst, is muddled, can’t keep the issues integrated in his mind to save his life, but the misrepresentations of what *I* say, not him stating his muddled opinion, is intentional. it’s far too consistent to not be. THANK GOD a couple others have finally said to him the same as you do above and I have since mid-2017: He is muddled, self-contradictory, quick to use a Straw Man, etc.
As you can see, it has him rattled. He’s gotten quite belligerent of late with others in a way he has mostly reserved for me. Maybe the mental and emotional strain will break through his obtuseness and let him begin to understand things?
mike: “I think he doesn’t know what he writes is false. I think he often reads carelessly and thinks in a muddled manner and responds the same way. “
And too hastily. There’s a set pattern there. The responses I have received are ethereal at times.
“That’s an idea that jumps the shark in my opinion. “
I was thinking early high school debating. Win at any cost? The truth be damned. A pity.
This is the same Mike who has:
1) several times insinuated I’m a luke warmer, despite my repeated, consistent statements that I think climate change is serious and caused by human activities.
2) called me a climate centrist despite me repeatedly and consistently saying I think the IPCC underestimate the climate problem, and are too conservative.
3)insinuated I was opposed to systems change, despite the fact I have repeatedly and consistently called for a new zero carbon energy grid.
4)has repeatedly insinuated I oppose money printing to help solve the climate problem when I’ve consistently and repeatedly said the exact opposite.
5) said I say we should go slow solving the climate problem, when I’ve repeatedly and consistently said we should aim to meet the Paris accord goals and ideally try to do better..
He might deny this, but the regulars here that I have some respect for know I’m right. I wonder what planet Mike lives on at times.:). I suspect he sees me criticising some of the more outrageous warmist claims and jumps to the conclusions I’m a luke warmer or climate centrist. I don’t know what else it could be unless his brain is muddled. Or perhaps he thinks that because I disagree with the latest ridiculous idea I oppose all change or something.
I don’t care if people robustly crticise my views, but when someone makes so many repeated false accusations about me, and as in his comment above is such a back stabber and hypocrite, I do get annoyed.
Stop jumping to the wrong conclusions Mike. Read carefully. The same goes for Killian who consistently misrepresents my position on things. Although he’s not quite as bas as Mike.
Stop jumping to the wrong conclusions Mike. Read carefully. The same goes for Killian who consistently misrepresents my position on things.
It must be genetic? He absolutely refuses to see himself clearly.
Nigel, no, you have the directionality backwards. This is what we are trying to get you to understand, and what I have been telling you since mid-2017. Let’s look at the first thing you said above:
1) several times insinuated I’m a luke warmer, despite my repeated, consistent statements that I think climate change is serious and caused by human activities.
You’ve heard it said, actions speak louder than words? Your fingers type that you are not a centrist and not a luke-warmer, but your actions are consistent with both.
Then you said, 2) called me a climate centrist despite me repeatedly and consistently saying I think the IPCC underestimate the climate problem, and are too conservative.
You have, for over four years now, said we can’t move too fast, we can’t change too much *no matter how many times it is pointed out that *risk* trumps what you want or wish for or think is plausible. If we fail to act rapidly and the worst-case scenario occurs, your feet-dragging will have helped end… everything. Mass extinction, and maybe even our own.
Your self-descriptions and your actions are *not* in harmony, but you so far have refused to accept that observation.
Etc.
I have fought this pitched battle with you all these years with only rare instances of others debating you. But I have called you out on your behavior, and now, finally, others have become fed up with it because,,, your rhetoric is directly contradicting them and their expertise. Finally, others have a personal reason to call you on your shit.
Thank god! You can never again try to label me as some mean, nasty malcontent: I respond to your maddening illogic and belittling.
Time for you to take stock of yourself.
Killian, not surprisingly I disagree. Although of course I’m not perfect.
“You’ve heard it said, actions speak louder than words? Your fingers type that you are not a centrist and not a luke-warmer, but your actions are consistent with both.”
Another typical falsehood and evidence free claim. Killian should be BOREHOLED. to spend all of eternity with JDS. Im sure they will love each others company.
“You have, for over four years now, said we can’t move too fast, we can’t change too much *no matter how many times it is pointed out that *risk* trumps what you want or wish for or think is plausible. If we fail to act rapidly and the worst-case scenario occurs, your feet-dragging will have helped end… everything. Mass extinction, and maybe even our own.
Another falsehood. One example. I have consistently and repeatedly said we should change over to renewable energy as fast as possible. Obviously it cannot and will not happen overnight. It takes time to build out new energy sources..
“Thank god! You can never again try to label me as some mean, nasty malcontent: ”
You misunderstand. me. I do label you as a nasty PERSON as far as your internet style of communication goes. But many people like you are brave and happy to personally demean others on internet, where people have anonymity and dont have to directly face others.
And of course there are other people who promote regenerative farming and wont like my criticisms so they fight back, eg Scott, Mike and Reality check. You are obviously like minded people, all hard left except maybe Scott. So you find common ground, and attack me and what I post.
All I’m saying is you make HUGE claims on how much and how fast things can be done, so show me citations and proper maths. Apparently asking that that makes me a “a school debater. ” ROFL
Or stop making unsubstantiated, crazy claims. If you were more realistic about things, I would be less critical support you more if you did that..
And nothing you have said falsifies what I said about Mikes comments.
I’ll take your word for it that it is theoretically possible to drop CO2 back to below 300ppm with the measures you list (looking at them together they seem virtually certain to work), but the question is how we persuade the global population, or even starting with the wealthiest nations, to adopt these measures? Scientists have been warning about climate change and its potential impacts for the last half century at least, and CO2 emissions are still increasing year on year. If we haven’t managed to even put the brake on emissions, never mind reduce them in that half century, why should I believe that the world’s population is suddenly going to see the light and do what you say is necessary over the next 20 years?
the question is how we persuade the global population, or even starting with the wealthiest nations, to adopt these measures?
I don’t think we do in the sense you mean it. “Hearts and minds” type stuff, old-style activism, none of that is going to work because we don’t have centuries to get this done. (Yes, centuries: How long have we been fighting inequality, economic injustice, racism and slavery, etc? Literally thousands of years, really, but certainly several hundred at the least.)
No, we do this by… doing it. My plan would in ways parallel things like Via Campesina, Transition Towns, Ecosystem Restoration Camps. In fact, we could use Regenerative Governance to bring all such movements under a single umbrella.
I concur. Something very profound and significant needs to change first. Until then, BAU rules the day in the real world.
I don’t know the details of Killian’s simplification and regenerative governance plan. I’ll just bow out and let him advocate his own ideas.
However, I myself have put a lot of thought to the problem of actually doing this in an organized way that just might stick. There is a little known economic theory called modular autarky that I think just might be the perfect transitional form to implement solutions without any net costs and only gradual minor disruption of societal norms, towards a much more adaptable, resilient and robust sustainable future.
It’s based on biomimicry and somewhat resembles “franchises” with important differences. (Not the least of which is it works bottom up with vertical stacking rather than top down with vertical integration). This reverses the monetary flow from the bottom up to a monetary flow from the top down. Principles include local ownership and autonomy and circular economics based on only a more general planned framework, all done in an organized cooperative effort much like farmers’ co-ops.. And it would require a start up seed, that will then expand and grow. But we are talking about a tiny one time seed compared to the trillions found in most mitigation plans. That’s because each module is stand alone sustainable and profitable, self replicating, while groups become even more so.
Much like a tree is stand alone capable of growth, but there are many more emergent properties in a forest that make it far more valuable than the sum of each tree. It is capitalistic, but follows the principles of abundance rather than the principles of scarcity (supply and demand) as found in modern economics. And most importantly of all, it is fully compatible with most current systems as a plug in. Only after it grows and multiples does it begin to take over. (survival of the fittest as it becomes the forest rather than a bunch of individual trees ie… the new normal)
I caution of course that I am not an expert in economics or business. So I am not certain if it would work or not. But it does follow many basic principles of permaculture design and holistic management, as well as basic farm economics 101 taught to all farmers in the USA. It could work in my opinion. Maybe one day I will get that seed and see if it germinates? Just a thought.
What a truly ridiculous claim you have made. You have just said everything I said was wrong and then said the numerical claims and time frames are correct. I left out simplification and those details for the sake of brevity and concentrating on the main issue about farming. That is the main POINT anyway.
Your comments on this are laughable. This is why nobody takes you seriously on this website except Mike. and Scott. Even they don’t seem too enthusiastic. Its why you get so much negative feedback form so many other people.
No, I really didn’t. I’m beginning to think there’s some mental illness involved here. Reality is not in play.
I mean no disrespect. I come from a psych/counseling background. You have twisted this around spectacularly.
Take a break, Nigel. Go on a little vacation or something. I have long thought you were not intellectually up to this challenge, but now I am beginning to think I misread you and there is something deeper at play.
Seriously, take a step back. Take a minute.
Ok I didn’t use the exact words you used. But I was right about you aiming to get back to approximately 280ppm, and I was in the same ball park in terms of time period, of around 20 years, as opposed to something like 5 years, or 50 or 100 years. So I think you are being needlessly pedantic.. I did my best to remember exactly what you said.
I didn’t say simplification because we are talking specifically about farming so things like tilling, mulching, herbicides etcetera.. Governance systems or de-industrialisation might be related but only indirectly.
I also have a psych. background. I did a couple of papers at university, and was in the top five students in an intake of about 150 people. I barely even tried. So don’t lecture me on the issues. We did operant conditioning, trained rats in mazes, perception ,motivation, neuropsychology etc. Most interesting.
The more you accuse other people of not being intellectually up to things the more you piss of the very people you need to convince. You don’t even have Ray Ladburys entertaining sense of wit..
So I think you are being needlessly pedantic.
No, you lied. Again. And, just to put a fine point on it, I have also added that 20 years is *possible*, but not likely because of inertia and the time needed to build awareness, etc., and that 50 years should be very doable and 100 should be easy.
All of this is known to you.
But you cherry-pick 20 to set up your lying straw man.
So sick of your dishonesty.
Re: Energy and simplification/degrowth
As I have said for 14 years, this is not a choice. I am supremely happy I had the luck to participate on The Oil Drum (TOD) while it was active. If one does not understand energy, one cannot understand Economics, politics, sustainability…. pretty much anything one needs to know to discuss humanity’s future.
I know Nate Hagens from TOD. He had been a Wall St. guy, “got religion” about the state of the planet, left Wall St., started studying issues of sustainability, went back to school, and ended up with a Ph.D. I first heard the term “discounting the future” from his posts pre-PhD.
Here is a small part of an over TWO HOUR presentation on the realities we face. I have not watched it all, only Myth #21 about energy. I do not always agree with Nate because, you know, I’m a better analyst than everyone else ( :-) ), but he gets an awful lot right.
His presentation is on Twitter and YouTube. He has – thank god! – created a Twitter thread with all the myths linked separately to the point in the total presentation where they begin. Ingenious idea for a really long video.
Anyway, biophysically (resource limits) degrowth is coming whether one accepts that or not. It’s not an issue of opinion, but of biophysical reality.
https://t.co/f2XzMwHRWo?amp=1
The whole video:
For some weird reason, I cannot get the URL to point to the beginning, so if you want to see the beginning of the video, just start the video then jump to the beginning.
I cannot get the URL to point to the beginning
That’s because there’s a timing addon “stamp” at the end of the url
see &t=405s ,, delete that part.
and look at the pinned comment at top … time stamp of the various sections … eg 6:45 — Myth #31: Humans Are Mostly Selfish
When using the Share option, there is a checkbox to use to set a particular time in every video.
Ah…. I am a technical dunderhead. It’s really ironic because I was graduating uni as the 80-88’s were still a thing and built my own first couple of computers. I became a life-long IBM/Microdeath user because we could customize vs Apple’s take-it-or-leave=it attitude.
I am truly lost these days!
Here’s a link to the Nate Hagens Twitter thread. The second post has a Table of Contents w/ time stamps.
https://twitter.com/NJHagens/status/1421928088787734532?s=20
Some of you are not gonna like Myth 30. After all, most of you seem to hate any form of society-wide sharing and cooperating – despite it being the true “human nature.”
99% of human history…. (It’s actually closer to 97%.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY&t=405s
—–
In Myth #25 he says we are less smart than we were 10k years ago. Yes! I think it was Jared Diamond who first got me thinking this. I always knew Aborigine people had to be at least as intelligent, but when you consider all they do, remember, problem-solve, etc., on a daily basis, it becomes clear they are using their brains far more actively.
This correlates with the myth of modern humans’ exceptionalism.
“Energy blind.” Indeed. This has a huge impact on the myths that resource limits either don’t exist or can be overcome because the reality of energy as work vs economic value is lost on people and they cannot accept the obvious: None of our energy systems are sustainable.
——————————
Myth #22 is fun: Money! While MMT is the correct explanation of how debt and taxes work, increased debt does not increase resources – but it does allow us to use them faster. We can use MMT to equalize economically, but like all economics, in the end it’s a fantasy and the physical realities of Nature impose themselves on our wishes to consume.
———————————
Myth #20: In the future we wont need oil due to Peak Demand!!
Love this one. I just laugh at people who talk about a non-carbon/decarbonized economy. They are thinking only of direct energy uses such as gasoline. But if you end all transport-related and energy consumption-related uses of oil, 2/3 of a barrel of oil goes into… stuff. Look around you: 95% of everything around you right now, no matter what town, city, or house you live in, requires FFs in some way, shape or form.
—————-
Myth #19: We Can Achieve Net Zero!! (by 2050 or any date)
“NetZero is biophysically impossible,”
Amen. And obviously so. NetZero does NOT include reducing consumption. It is, if anything, a scam that keeps oil gushing because the goal is to keep consumption ramped up… despite the fact all that “stuff” requires FFs.
———————–
Myth #17: Growth Is Forever
The energetic/resource-based impossibility of continued growth. Economists like Friedman, Nordhaus, et al., consider 2-3% a year economic growth healthy. That equals an economy 4x larger in 2100… on a planet already in overshoot with depletion of a range of resources already manifesting?
Crazy talk. Fantasy.
————————-
Myth #15: Overpopulation Is the Main Driver
It’s consumption, not population, though reducing both is ultimately needed for a good quality of life. Problem? Reducing population is economic suicide in the current economic system, as is reducing consumption, thus the faux #GND and #NetZero delerium.
———————————–
Myth #11: Climate Change Is the Core Problem > Climate Change is the Only Big Problem We Have
This is poor framing on his part, He describes the issue well, but that is a terrible title for this section. He means, we are facing a Perfect Storm of problems created by the economic choices we have made. Chemicals pervade the planet, soil destruction, land-use changes, ecosystem breakdown and fragmentation, e.g.
(con’t)
I really miss The Oil Drum… We used to debate and discuss this stuff all the time. Most people, and most of you here, really don’t understand the implications.
————————–
Killian the problem is that just because common ownership and group decision making works for hunger gatherers and some simple farming communities it doesn’t automatically follow that it would work well for an industrial society, even your scaled back version. It works for hunter gatherers because it fits with their hunger gathering lifestyle. Its doesn’t fit with industrial society. Private ownership and hierarchies work well for industrial society.. This is kind of obvious.
Concentrate on things that might actually work like the circular economy idea of living within biosphere constraints and recycling non renewables.
Shush, I am tired of your baseless assertions. Why do you keep bleating about things you have zero knowledge or experience with?
Cheran, Mexico: Modern city, 16k people. You know this. Why do you lie?
Killian, you cannot quote one or two examples like Cheran, that might work to an extent and expect it would suit every country, or scale up successfully globally. And Cheran is not a big industrial powerhouse. You also have the Quaker communities but its their religious convictions that enable them to stick to their lifestyle. Its just so much more complicated than you seem to think.
And most of these sorts of alternative (intentional) communities fail after a few years. That should tell you something. I wish it were otherwise. Refer:
https://aeon.co/essays/like-start-ups-most-intentional-communities-fail-why
No examples? Well, there’s Cheran. Why do we need more than one proof of concept? And you think that was the only one? How about pretty much every society prior to 10k years ago? And most up till 4k years ago? And hundreds that still exist.
More complicated than *I* think? You have no idea what I think, even after all these years. It is the opposite: I understand the issues and which ones are germane and which are not. You are cluelessly waving your arms and wagging your tongue at things precisely because you do not understand them with any depth whatsoever.
You really need to just close your mouth and tape up your fingers for a few years and force yourself to learn to think.
Cheran, Mexico.
Quiet, please. You have no knowledge, experience or expertise in this field.
Earth and Humanity: Myth and Reality
OK, well I do like that video Killian. A very pleasant clear voice as well. Great well thought out text.
This word ‘Reality’ keeps turning up a lot for me recently. It is clever placing a Myth icon top left, shifting to the Reality icon bottom right as he goes through the information he is sharing. Whether he did that with intent or not, it’s a neat trick to help “lock in” his key points, perhaps subconsciously.
I am really impressed how the beginning starts with Myth #33 : The Experts Have ALL the Answers
He is making a critical point. One that has been proven/shown to be undeniably true – pick it up here at 3:02 Mins. – https://youtu.be/qYeZwUVx5MY?t=182
“Most people think that when you get a bunch of experts in a room (or a discussion forum, a COP Meeting, a IPCC Working Group Review meeting) their expertise is somehow merged and everyone understands everything.”
“The reality is that information ultimately has to be synthesized in a single Mind. It is the only place it can possibly be synthesized.”
“Specialists need to learn, a lot, from other specialists to arrive at a generalist’s *aha moment* that puts the big picture together.”
“This is a problem for a culture (and sub-cultures such as science, academia, economics or politics) full of reductionist expertise but seeking wisdom.”
“In a similar way we have advocates and activists striving for policies that address their specific issues without a coherent overview of how their issue interconnects with other, perhaps equally important, future needs.”
“We have arrived at a species level moment where everything is connected but we lack both a vocabulary for the future and a corresponding systemic map. “
“Collective coordination of our upcoming challenges will not be possible without first having collective sense making. We are going to need both cleverness and wisdom. ”
Comments: Brilliantly put. The above underpins every Myth vs Reality that comes after.
Many might think or say “Well that is really obvious. We know that. It’s a given. We all understand this already.” Some might know it, theoretically, but we certainly have not practiced it in addressing the critical nature of Climate Change.
I also think the above by Nate Hagens again illustrates why the UNFCCC-COP systems are not fit for purpose. Why they have failed so dramatically despite giving lip-service to noble ideas like Collective Coordination for 30 years.
More COP commentary here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/07/forced-responses-july-2021/comment-page-10/#comment-793803 .
Yes. I meant to note he is describing exactly why I have had so much success with predictions/scenarios. I don’t have the memory or the temperament to DO the science, e,g, but I excel at the systems level, the Big Picture. My mind is where the data go to be analyzed.
This is why we need permaculturists and indigenous people deeply involved in these bodies that hold our futures in their hands.
Regenerative Governance is sense-making.
Yes!
“In Myth #25 he says we are less smart than we were 10k years ago. ”
Not hard to believe that at all. I’ll bet most folks 10K years ago didn’t have much trouble figuring out if they were a boy or a girl. Libraries of the future will be filled with examples of abject stupidity by people alive today. Maybe that’s not right – our collective stupidity today is so profound that any who survive the consequences of today’s idiocy will probably be cavemen and there will be no libraries.
;)
This new format has a software bug. After posting a reply the page goes to the blue block of information right at the bottom of the page.
Myth #10: Billionaires and Politicians Are in Charge
The keys here for me are:
1. Politicians and billionaires are not so much in charge as they are stuck on a runaway economic and ideological train.
2. Thus, they can’t solve our problems.
3. especially since they require degrowth, which is anethema to both the economic and political systems.
So, as I have said for many years now, the change that is coming *must* be bottom-up, not top-down.
Yes, that Myth 10 was a really good section. And the others surrounding it. There is a lot covered there to grasp, think about clearly. Myth #8: Stimulus Is Permanent is another critical aspect, piece of the puzzle box.
short quote about Myth 10: video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY&t=5564s
…… the super-organism dynamic of growth
is currently drowning out the wishes and
plans of politicians and elites.
it’s why people at Davos, (WEF/G7) and DC are so
concerned and feel powerless because the system
aka supporting financial markets that are
optimized for growth, as growth is waning.
This has taken on a life of its own
metaphorically the global economic
system is a runaway train, with an energy-hungry
amoeba as the conductor at least for now.
We are now in a perfect storm of challenges
which are bipartisan, systemic, abstract, complex,
not imminent until they are, and have no easy
answers within current institutional accepted
policy frameworks.
The minds of the people most capable of
addressing them are retreating from this storm
not envisioning and building life rafts.
In the same way that our individual minds have
increasingly little overlap with the physical world,
our political discourse has very little overlap with
the real policies our nation/s is going to need
because we have continually kicked the can on
our longer term problems (down the road.)
(spoiler: the discussion concludes pointing out the road ahead is now closed, it hits a dead end. Almost as long as gone with the wind will be a drawback. The people most in need to grasp these things holistically and re-orientate their thinking and motivations, will not watch it through. His Twitter posts in series for each Myth vs Reality doesn’t do the quality work he has put into it justice. Some things simply cannot be dumbed down or simplified like that. )
Same response as the other below: Top-down cannot solve our problems. We come at it from different perspectives, his esoteric, mine utterly pragmatic, but reach the same conclusion. That should scare people.
For him, it’s all about this overwhelming that, the system is out of control, etc., but none of that is quantifiable and all of it is subject to interpretation/opinion. This is why I advocate so strongly for a First Principles-based approach, a regeneative approach, a TEK-/Permaculture-based approach.
If we focus on problem-solving, we avoid any of the nightmare quagmires that come with trying to harmonize those things which can never, will never be universal: Beliefs, morals, ethics, ideologies. We can shift the questions:
1. Who can afford to eat? Who is allowed to eat? Who should be allowed to eat?
1b. How do we feed everyone?
2. Who deserves more? Who earns more? Who is more valuable?
2b. What needs some food? Who needs a roof thatched? Who needs a cane?
Etc.
When we solve problems rather than argue esoterica, we live well.
none of that is quantifiable and all of it is subject to interpretation/opinion
Yes, i can understand. He’s presenting a different framing, perspective and tone. It;s nebulous and yet there’s some clarity there too. He;s taking detailed hard facts and painting a graphic picture for the Mind to grasp. Not easy, and by defualt not entirely accurate either, it cannot be as each mind sees a little differently.
But I really like what he has shown up, from the minor details to grand vista.
So I feel that I can see your alt approach and why that’s good too. Principles, practical, down to earth. If this then that in situ. People focused. Community and so on. Brilliant.
Where do people imagine today’s culture and society arose from in the first place. And how it became so distorted and anti-humane despite any good intentions.
It’s like, hey, all economists are evil … they aren’t individually, but they are! It’s the System they live in which makes them promote evil and dysfunctional stupidity. Doesn’t matter. No big deal.
When we solve problems rather than argue esoterica, we live well.
So true, and simple. Thank you.
Kevin McKinney @411:
Existense proofs are the only true proofs there are in this world. (Mathematical proofs are something else.)
ALL of the examples you cited are FOAK units built by inexperienced organizations. The ONLY way to build ANYTHING at scale is to use experienced workforces in series production. So WHY are you citing the former to condemn the latter?
Look at the existence proofs again. THere are SEVERAL nuclear decarbonization success stories: Ontario, France, Sweden, to list a few. There are NO wind/solar decarbonization success stories; “renewable” Germany is an abject failure despite its scale-up, stuck at several times the per-kWh carbon emissions of nuclear France. The way to go is obvious.
It may not be easy, but it’s obvious.
@jgnfld @402:
A panacea is something that isn’t proven in real life. Check out France and Ontario; those are real life. Tell me I’m wrong.
(Geez, mods. You’re implementing the bad format and color scheme AGAIN? Just WHAT are you thinking?!)
Killian @406:
To support the population we have today and won’t be rid of naturally for at least half a century. Or do you intend to kill them?
Gobbledygook. You’re barking words. A simplified world saves lives, it doesn’t put them in jeopardy.
Sadly, this isn’t true regenerative farming as it uses pesticides, etc., though minimally *because* of the positive effects of regenerative techniques.
It does demonstrate how an intermediate step might be applied.
https://www.koco.com/article/we-really-could-change-the-world-oklahoma-producers-explore-new-approach-to-farming-ranching/37237197
Guardian has a cultural story about amaranth. I think amaranth can be grown without tilling soil, so I think it would fit in a regen ag model. I don’t know much about amaranth, but it sounds like a highly adaptable plant that will spread and survive, even in hot and dry climate, so maybe it could fit into a regen ag model.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/06/ancient-grain-amaranth-food-trend-indigenous?utm_term=dbbb320b6cac4b0d6d5be01ecd3f0e2a&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUS_email
another, older story on amaranth:
https://ourpermaculturelife.com/7-reasons-to-grow-and-eat-amaranth-a-simple-ancient-superfood/
The beautiful thing about true Regen Ag? Everything and anything fits under the umbrella. It is utterly and completely context-dependent because… Nature is.
Expanding our knowledge of plants is always a good thing as none of them are weeds. “Weeds” is a kind of bio-racism! If you have dandelions, save money, eat ’em!
I’m not sure about that. I have an allotment and have spent time at my workplace tyring to eradicate an invasive plant originally brought in from overseas (Himilayan Balsam).
I have only cultivated an allotment for about eight years so there is still a lot I have to learn, and learning through experience is a slow process. I try to minimise digging and never use pesticides or weedkillers. One of the problems in my part of the UK (and I suspect in a lot of places) is that there are a handful of plants that are often classified as weeds that are very aggressive, and without some management will just take over. My allotment is on a site with heavy clay soil which spends 11 months of the year damp or wet (because the UK has a damp climate). These conditions are optimal for bindweed, couch grass and creeping buttercup to take hold. These notorious weeds, which spread through underground rhizomes, if left unchecked will swamp a vegetable bed and uiltimately kill any traditional edible annual crops which are not strong or vigorous enough to compete (they won’t be good for perennial crops either). Digging them out will have limited success as even an inch of root left behind in the soil will spawn a new plant. In a prolonged dry spell, these weeds will get knocked back, but they will recover once the rains return.
To grow traditional staple UK crops like carrots, potatoes, brassicas, leeks and beans, there is going to have to be some management of the land to stop the aggressive perennial weeds/plants taking over. There is a reason why if you go on a walk in the country near where I live and the footpath has not been maintained, you will be wading through waste deep nettles and brambles, because they are some of the most aggressive (successful) native plants and they spread everywhere given the chance.
https://www.notcutts.co.uk/garden-advice/problems-pests/creeping-buttercup/
https://www.henrystreet.co.uk/battling-bindweed-in-your-garden/
https://www.notcutts.co.uk/garden-advice/problems-pests/couch-grass/
http://www.nodiggardener.co.uk/2017/12/how-to-kill-brambles_4.html
https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?pid=257
You really don’t want these around if you are trying to cultivate land for food.
@mike
amaranth. grows wild in Greece. During the bad times, during the war etc it kept people alive who had little to nothing. But they would use the entire plant, not the seeds only. Could even feed babies with it to replace missing mothers milk. It’s also well known in Asia and still used today.
A smart move would be to tackle methane emissions. That is the low hanging fruit if we are trying to reduce warming in the near term.
Reduce methane or face climate catastrophe, scientists warn
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/06/reduce-methane-or-face-climate-catastrophe-scientists-warn?utm_term=dbbb320b6cac4b0d6d5be01ecd3f0e2a&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUS_email
Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development and a lead reviewer for the IPCC, said methane reductions were probably the only way of staving off temperature rises of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, beyond which extreme weather will increase and “tipping points” could be reached. “Cutting methane is the biggest opportunity to slow warming between now and 2040,” he said. “We need to face this emergency.”
Cheers
Silos are not going to get it done. We change the system, or we fail. See: New paper much-posted re: AMOC.
There is one and only one pathway that de-silos our response by addressing everything simultaneously: Rapid, regenerative simplification.
1:32:44 — Myth #10: Billionaires and Politicians Are in Charge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY&t=5564s
by Nate Hagens (via Killian who shared it here)
I’m thinking about the COP system while listening to this section –
You might think of other systems under stress that also fits.
Quote: Because we have continually kicked the can on our
longer term problems, incremental tiny steps are the only
things that are now politically acceptable. Simply put the
political world is even less ready for the systemic
conversation than the general public.
Under this framing what can be stated politically are themes
like: Net Zero by 2050. We don’t need oil anymore due
to peak demand. Hydrogen and Renewables will replace
fossil fuels. Sustainable growth and others.
These (fiction) stories maintain a socially acceptable
conduit between politics and business sharing popular
societal goals, but lacking in biophysical reality.
I realize there may be some tough pills to swallow in this
presentation and that some may not agree with all these
myths and realities, but just for a moment imagine that
everything I am saying here is true.
Can you further imagine a G7 or a G20 meeting (or a COP
meeting) where heads of state admit that (Economic)
Growth is over, and the only way to solve climate change
is using considerable less energy and resources, shifting
to less material economies going forward, especially by rich
nations? And that we are papering over our (dire)
biophysical situation with unsustainable debt, and that oil
production peaked in 2018!
These things cannot be stated, for if they were it would
trigger a phase shift towards scarcity behavior.
For similar reasons I suspect the energy, money, growth
story will never be spoken in Congressional hearings or
on Fox, or on CNN, until it is well in the rear-view mirror
and obvious to everyone.
As individual human beings politicians billionaires and
civic leaders can understand the details of the human
predicament and over a few beers or whiskey muse on
what might be possible as interventions. But as
spokespeople the interventions society will truly need
cannot be voiced because the super-organism dynamic
of simple goals aligned with Growth stand between leaders
and the public, at least for now.
(end quotes)
I highly recommend bookmarking this video for later consumption and quiet consideration.
Earth and Humanity: Myth and Reality – May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY
And yet, when I say degrowth, the end of Capitalism, the end of economics, simplification, et al., is *necessary*, and that the current governmental/political/economic/NGO structures CANNOT solve our problems *because of* the nature of what they are, the principles by which they operate, the rudeness is not even slightly contained.
Fear is a great motivator of denial.
@Killian
I hear you. If I was you I’d be fed-up (or worse) too. Knowledge and the truth is wasted on fools. By their fruits thou shalt know them, be they wise or the fool.
(some misc random ideas) It’s good to be nice to others, but it’s even more important to be nice to yourself. You really have to love yourself to get anything done in this world. So make sure you don’t start seeing yourself through the eyes of those who don’t value you. Know your worth, even when they don’t.
If they make you feel like you can’t be yourself, or if they make you “less than” in any way, don’t pursue a connection with them. If you feel emotionally drained after hanging out with them or get a small hit of anxiety when you are reminded of them, listen to your intuition. There are so many “right people” for you, who energize you and inspire you to be your best self. It makes no sense to force it with people who are the wrong match for you.
Birds of a feather flock together. And are joyful doing it.
Or become a Duck. Ignore it all, like water off a duck’s back. Stuff them. Why care what other people say or think?
Reality Check said:
“Can you further imagine a G7 or a G20 meeting (or a COP
meeting) where heads of state admit that (Economic)
Growth is over, and the only way to solve climate change
is using considerable less energy and resources, shifting
to less material economies going forward, especially by rich
nations? And that we are papering over our (dire)
biophysical situation with unsustainable debt, and that oil
production peaked in 2018!”
No I cant imagine any government admitting that and suggesting those things, so this is why I don’t waste my time even suggesting it could be imagined. Best to promote things that can be imagined and that might actually happen.
Growth isn’t over, but its been gradually slowing down in developed countries. The party might be nearing the end!.
America gdp growth trends:
https://www.statista.com/chart/24056/annual-real-gdp-growth-in-the-united-states/
@nigel
#RealClear
OK then. Don’t. Ignore it all. I don’t care.
prl @419:
Who was implicitly speculating about fusion energy, which has conspicuously failed to pan out as expected at the time.
Fission energy has done quite well. Why aren’t we using it to best effect?
Sadly, more modern (and safer) forms of fission energy are expensive to set up and people are afraid. Using it to “best effect” has become impossible because fears are exploited. Most people don’t have the flexibility to understand that life is complicated and we need to choose the least bad options rather than running away from anything that distracts from our daily preoccupations.
Killian @437:
I really sat up and took notice when you mentioned terra preta.
The downside of the “slash and smolder” agriculture which built the terra preta in the first place is that it loses a great deal of fixed carbon to the atmosphere. We can deal with that by supplying the energy for the charring step from something other than the biomass itself, and electric power (from clean sources, of course) is well-suited to that task. Frank Shu’s supertorrefaction reactor would seem to be just the thing, as it converts 1 kg of wet wood chips into 550 grams of steam, 300 grams of solid char and 150 grams of mostly-combustible gases (of which a surprising amount is hydrogen). Wash the salt out of the char and you should be good to go.
Supposedly, a maize plant has about an equal yield of grain and other biomass. I realize that you won’t be getting 200 bu/ac yields with regenerative methods, but maybe 100 bu/ac is possible. That’s about 5600 pounds of grain and another 5600 pounds of stalks, leaves and cobs. If half of that is used as soil cover and the rest carbonized, you’d get about 840 lb of nearly-pure carbon char per acre per year. Hmmm, that’s not really very much, only about 0.3 ounces per square foot per year. Maybe this idea needs more work.
(And is there any chance we can get rid of this cockamamie color scheme and buggy page and go back to what works?)
You don’t understand what terra preta is. It is not created by slash-and-burn. Also, slash and burn does not add to the atmospheric load, it merely speeds the natural cycle because plants die and decompose slowly while burning them makes the cycle much, must faster. But nothing is added, only cycled more quickly.
Prof. Kevin Anderson again raising concerns about Net Zero, NETs, +1.5C Mitigation, ongoing Economic Growth to 2100, as the serious implications of COP26 looms.
News: “Drilling the Cambo oil and gas field will help the UK cut its carbon emissions, the head of the industry body has claimed.”
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/337981/cambo-oil-emissions/
Kevin Anderson @KevinClimate – August 6th
The real danger of ‘Net Zero’ exemplified on @BBCr4today when head of UK Oil & Gas Authority claimed proposed development of large new UK oil field (Cambo) is all part of delivering UK net zero. We urgently need to escape the deeply corrupt Net-Zero framing of climate change.
https://twitter.com/KevinClimate/status/1423561322491523073
I haven’t come across any framing of Net Zero that doesn’t rely on a series of ruses to justify weak near-term mitigation, including the CCC’s 6th budget report. As I’ve argued earlier, I’d prefer to see a set of separate & stringent commitments with no substitution between them.
https://twitter.com/KevinClimate/status/1423567229333934082
But the prospect of future negative emissions is already being used to weaken mitigation policies today. Hence real additional CO2 today is justified by a belief in NETs tomorrow. My point is there should be no substitution between these & we need 1.5-2°C mitigation policies now.
https://twitter.com/KevinClimate/status/1423573736461148160
The UK & CCC Net-Zero position is not based on Paris 1.5-2°C, but has been stealthily shifted to align with the Paris Agreement’s nebulous legal language of “highest possible ambition” (sub-clause, without major impacts on business as usual). At every turn we’re scamming Paris.
https://twitter.com/KevinClimate/status/1423613499113152514
Fact is Anderson, Mann, and RealClimate et al are not being seen on the 6 O’Çlock News or on Fox and Sky News. The decision makers at COP26 don’t care what is trending on Twitter – they have already decided the future.
Some related peer reviewed papers on the topic.
(New Pub) Urgent need for post-growth climate mitigation
Established climate mitigation scenarios assume continued economic growth in all countries, and reconcile this with the Paris targets by betting on speculative technological change.
Post-growth approaches may make it easier to achieve rapid mitigation while improving social outcomes, and should be explored by climate modellers.
Jason Hickel et al (Full Article)
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59bc0e610abd04bd1e067ccc/t/610aad405ae4b220c99de20a/1628089673888/Hickel+et+al+-+Urgent+need+for+post-growth+climate+mitigation+scenarios.pdf
1.5 °C degrowth scenarios suggest the need for new mitigation pathways
Lorenz T. Keyßer
Five years after the Paris Agreement, CO2 emissions are still
rising, … mitigation scenarios reported by the IPCC Special
Report on 1.5 °C (SR1.5) rely on controversial amounts of
carbon dioxide removal and/or on unprecedented technological
changes. Simultaneously, all of them assume continued growth
in gross domestic product (GDP)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22884-9.pdf
Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis
Jan C Minx et al Moral hazard, betting, and hubris
In our view, three issues in particular stand out in need of future ethical analysis (Lenzi 2018). These are first, that NETs might create a moral hazard against mitigation; second (and relatedly), that an implicit policy bet on NETs that are unproven at scale may lock in worse climate-related harms if they failed to deliver; and third, that the sheer scale of NETs deployment observed in mitigation scenarios is staggeringly hubristic.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b/meta
Hagens takes in NetZero, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY&t=2682s
Combined with the realities of renewables…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY&t=2682s
We’re getting a little bit of reality into the conversation.
The Net Zero url is this one Myth #19:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY&t=3301s
Well done on using the time based urls. In this case, what might have happened is when you went to copy the url it didn’t take, so you pasted the same url Myth #21: twice. see both have &t=2682s
It happens to me often too. So just do a check before hitting post. eg test the link in another tab.
Noting Myth 21: 46:50 mins
we often use a money in energy out lens — a money in energy out is only one way to see what’s happening and it is a narrow boundary perspective and therefore incomplete and misleading.
A systems perspective would use energy and materials in, energy and materials out math; and when viewed this way a more complete picture emerges
Math doesn’t lie. Only the people who use Math can do that.
@Killian getting a little bit of reality into the conversation.
Better than zero. I wonder if it will take?
I liked this turn of phrase by Nate:
In a 17 Terawatt Economy, 80% powered by fossil fuels,
Net Zero emissions is Biophysically Delusional.
but then: … accepting this biophysical reality will be Politically
Delusional, so maybe we can meet in the middle?
I’m not convinced reality can be that easily negotiated away. Accepting the present biophysical reality is what it is, seems to be the best if not the only place to start.
Mods and web designers:
You have obviously not thought this through. You are using SERIOUSLY unreadable text colors (text should be #000, BLACK, throughout). Distinguish things with mildly different background colors; the contrasts are far better.
Also, the threaded format is defective. When every comment is in sequence, they can be followed in sequence. You do not have any way to follow new comments in a subthread aside from bookmarking every one and tracking them individually. This puts the burden on the reader for something YOU should take care of.
My advice, as a long-term user of discussion boards: just give it up. You have not improved things, you’ve degraded them.
Some ideas turn out badly. Accept this.
@MichaelEMann (with short video)
My interview with @JonSnowC4 of @Channel4News UK on the devastating climate change-fueled wildfires we’re seeing this summer and the “implementation gap” in climate policy commitments going into #COP26:
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1423368431538249733
One reply points out the more compelling honest truth:
Great interview Sir. But we must be honest about the looming failure of the mitigation framework under the Paris Agreement. 1.5C consistent pledges won’t be made let alone implemented. We need a new means of rapid action & pressure. Please endorse this: Coal Elimination Treaty
Which states, I think accurately:
Under Paris, states have pledged non-binding emission reductions (Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs), which will only hold warming to 2.5-3°C (at best this century). Despite recent progress, major countries refuse to increase their pledges. UNFCCC voting rules enable a single state to block new initiatives and more accountability.
By using the General Assembly the CET empowers high-ambition states to create a new framework for action. While this means stepping outside the UNFCCC, it will support the Paris goals – coal reductions will support better NDCs. Like the 2017 nuclear ban treaty, the CET will create a powerful global norm against fossil fuel pollution and empower the vulnerable.
https://www.planetpolitics.org/coal-treaty
It may not catch on, but at least they are telling the truth at the same time. Whereas Michael Mann says he is more Optimistic than ever. I am not buying that for a second.
My view is those still following along with the UNFCCC/COP fiction are like the mice following the Pied Piper to their certain death.
There is no virtue in being stupid or gullible and suicidal.
(Final highlight of Myth vs Reality) This segment might help see past psychological limitations and blockages, as well as recognising misguided priorities about what we think is more important, but is not. Myth #28: We Care About the Future
Starts at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY&t=1278s
We Care About the Future, kind of, but
for biological reasons we resist doing
much about it.
Our recognition that the future exists
and that we will be in any of it, springs
from a very new brain structure the
neocortex, which has no direct connection
to the deep brain motivational centers
which can impart urgency.
from https://youtu.be/qYeZwUVx5MY?t=1321
During economic research subjects who
chose a larger long-term reward
had their prefrontal cortex activated.
Those who chose the smaller
short-term rewards showed neural
activity in the Limbic system or the
emotional brain.
Neuro-economic research has thus
uncovered that humans in effect
have two discount rates. Blue shaded
area here (rational and thinking brain)
shows our thinking discount rate which
is evidence that we can imagine
long-term issues, like climate change
or resource depletion.
But the steeper red line region is our
emotional discount rate which is
incredibly steep in favor of the present
(emotional feeling brain).
This is clear evidence that we make
decisions using different parts of our
brain. It also proves, (not that we
needed proof that emotions have
the ability to trump reason), this
results in dynamic inconsistency
in our lives.
from https://youtu.be/qYeZwUVx5MY?t=1398
We are emotionally blind to long-term
issues like climate change or energy
depletion, even though our neocortex
can imagine and care about them.
On most of the things that matter we
are addicted to the present. The
future isn’t real to us emotionally
and because of that it isn’t real in our
behaviors.
(end quotes)
Additional useful information:
Human Behavioral Biology Course: 1. Introduction
We think in categories. https://youtu.be/NNnIGh9g6fA
This is the guy in every natural disaster/apocalyptic movie that makes an earth-shattering discovery that no one pays attention to; everyone dismisses him because he’s a philosophical lecturer with a hippie beard — but then the main hero notices something off, investigates it, finds him, and together they make up the heroic brains/brawn duo that saves the day.
About Scott’s last comment, https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/07/forced-responses-july-2021/comment-page-10/#comment-793902 , Reminding me I already had this to hand, but it is only an abstract ref, no results yet.
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2020, abstract #GC119-0012
Pub Date:
December 2020 – Abstract only ref
–Uncovering mechanistic underpinnings of regenerative farming systems on soil organic carbon.
Separating SOC into particulate (POC) and mineral-associated (MAOC) forms, two SOC components that are fundamentally different in terms of their formation, persistence, and functioning, is now recognized as the leading strategy to understand and predict broad-scale SOC dynamics to provide recommendations to managers and policymakers.
We will quantify POC and MAOC stocks in soils collected from 24 farms (96 fields) enrolled in the General Mills regenerative agriculture initiative in Kansas. Combining SOC pools data with management, soil health, and biodiversity data we will advance our understanding of the mechanisms promoting SOC storage, and quantitatively assess the ability of a range of regenerative agro-ecological approaches to stimulate long-term SOC sequestration, as well as maintain soil health.
Results will be incorporated into a new generation biogeochemical model (MEMS) that can be used in decision support tools to scale up effects of management and provide an analytically tractable framework that can be used to test specific mechanistic hypotheses about C and N cycling in agroecosystems. Findings from this work will have broad impacts through integration with the numerous organizations coalescing around the regenerative agricultural initiative of which this project is part. We will present the overall conceptual framework, project design and initial findings.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AGUFMGC1190012P/abstract
Or, they could just ask some permaculturists to explain it all to them.
They’re doing better than in the past, but still very, very poorly. Note to all humans: When a corporation starts claiming they are testing something that, if it existed would put them out of business, take it with a grain of salt.
@Killian
#RealGoodPoints
I do take your last point especially. Seen it often. However, to be sure I hear you right, when you say *corporation*, you weren’t referring to the AGU were you in this case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union
(Not that I believe the GRU or it’s findings should be taken as perfect or final without good reasons. and some credible verification. )
More on Joseph Tainter.
Respected anthropologist Joseph Tainter thinks simplification is very difficult and problematic. He is an expert on social collapse theory. The following is a good interview with Tainter, and right up to date discussing current issues. This adds to material Mike posted recently. Just a couple of brief excerpts:
https://mcalvanyweeklycommentary.com/october-1-2014-dr-joseph-tainter-the-collapse-of-complex-societies/
“Dr. Tainter: No, and that is one of the recurrent theories about why societies collapse, that they depleted their resources. I don’t see that in looking at the historical record. What I see, instead, is that you have a situation where societies grow more complex and more costly. They reach a point of diminishing returns, and it becomes essentially impossible to solve future problems……”
“Dr. Tainter: You are absolutely right. We are trapped. We cannot simplify. We cannot withdraw from the way our system has evolved and the way we have set it up. We are at the point where we really are trapped in, I have to say, a downward spiral that we can’t get out of, or we will someday get out of it when a crisis occurs, but we can’t voluntarily withdraw from it because that would create too many other problems and politicians aren’t willing to create those kinds of problems.”
“David: This is the classic game theory, or prisoner’s dilemma, where we see the problem in front of us, as we are discussing it today, but to do anything about it would unhinge the system, because an exit is actually what may cause a triggering event for the collapse of the system……”
I have been concerned that simplification (which is essentially de-industrialisation /dramatically reduced consumption / new socio economic system) would cause huge problems well before I heard of Jospeh Tainter. Fixing the climate problem with simplification / deindustrialisation / huge reductions in consumption would require such massive and rapid changes the risk of inadvertedly causing a collapse would logically become acute. Some people might form simple living communities but by exiting the larger system that system could weaken significantly and destablises causing the collapse of essential services that will still be needed in a simplified world. Pulling so mcuh demand out of the system causes problems all down the chain. There is no governmentt showing signs that it could orchestrate a deliberate planned simplification, assuming such a thing could work. And the public show little appetite for some sweeping form of simplification.
Because of the climate problem we need a solution that we can be confident in and that can be implemented potentially quickly and will gain acceptance with the public. Building a new energy grid and transport system works and is starting to gain some traction. The public grumble about costs but renewables have become very cost competitive. Nuclear power should not be ignored either. It adds short to medium term complexity but to me this seems unavoidable.
I think we have to look carefully at what could be done that doesn’t cause chaos or inadvertently cause a collapse. The circular economy idea looks like it would be a step towards sustainability that would not cause chaos because it is not putting massive pressure on the existing structure of our system. It is not really simplifying (think recycling plant) but it isnt adding too much complexity.Economic growth is generally slowing in western countries and it may be ok to just accept that process as inevitable. Its about what will help stabilse consumption without moving so fast it collapses the current system by reducing demand and basic functionality.
Fix the climate problem with the conventional tools and worry about trying to deliberately simplify and de-industrialise at scale as a longer term project. Such a thing may be possible, it can’t be ruled out, but I don’t accept it is a viable quick fix or panacea applicable to the climate problem.
“Dr. Tainter: You are absolutely right. We are trapped. We cannot simplify. We cannot withdraw from the way our system has evolved and the way we have set it up. We are at the point where we really are trapped in, I have to say, a downward spiral that we can’t get out of, or we will someday get out of it when a crisis occurs, but we can’t voluntarily withdraw from it because that would create too many other problems and politicians aren’t willing to create those kinds of problems.”
Stop reading to support your massive bias against solving any problems and read what is written. Tainter’s point has nothing to do with simplification, it has everything to do with having painted ourselves into a corner, as he sees it, He does not say simplification would cause too many problems, but that the politicians will not *address* the problems. The problem is politics.
“David: This is the classic game theory, or prisoner’s dilemma, where we see the problem in front of us, as we are discussing it today, but to do anything about it would unhinge the system, because an exit is actually what may cause a triggering event for the collapse of the system…”
It is wrong to say it this way. Yes, simplification would alter the system for the reasons *I* have told you for years now. You do simplification locally, from the ground up, precisely because, again, as I have said over and over and over, the current incestuous economic/political system cannot function under a degrowth scenario. It is why Transition Towns and Doughnut Economics and Via Campesina exist: We need new structures. But those structures are not the problem and do not, will not *cause* collapse, per se. because that is already in process. However, done well, simplification will eliminate massive disruptions and allow a controlled collapse.
I have been concerned that simplification
Yes, we know: You are scared of anything that solves our problems.
Fixing the climate problem with simplification / deindustrialisation / huge reductions in consumption would require such massive and rapid changes the risk of inadvertedly causing a collapse would logically become acute.
Collapse is already underway. You cannot trigger something already begun. It will continue no matter what if we do not change the system, but your solution is to blame the solution for the cause? If you do not simplify you end up with a long, rising slope that becomes a Seneca Cliff. You are completely unaware you are arguing for a massive, sudden collapse. Dunning-Kruger. Again.
Some people might form simple living communities but by exiting the larger system that system could weaken significantly and destablises causing the collapse of essential services that will still be needed in a simplified world
Because you say so? Cause, gee, let me see, a simplified world would be a Commons where all services are available to all. What essential services? Workers cannot simply take over such services? Communities can’t? Is someone going to burn down all the hospitals and kill all the doctors and nurses?
Every transition is difficuly, but blaming the process for a controlled simplification for causing the collapse is a massive attempt at gaslighting and demonizing degrowth.
Shame on you.
Pulling so mcuh demand out of the system causes problems all down the chain.
Yes, Exactly. Opt out, the old dies, the new rises as people opt in. I have told you this many times, but you are trying to twist that into the cause of collapse rather than the solution for a soft landing.
There is no governmentt showing signs that it could orchestrate a deliberate planned simplification
Again, you are stealing my concepts and attempting to gaslight them. It is not that gov’ts won’t, though that is also true, it is that they cannot. They operate on principles that are the opposite of sustainability. Since gov’t cannot, we must. Luckily, simplification is ultimately local.
As Cuba showed, an overnight collapse of the economy and supply chains can be handled by simplification and a rapid shift to Regenerative Ag. They collectively lost 20lbs on average, but there were few deaths – and that was without any warning or planning whatsoever. An entire nation, millions of people, and they did it.
And the public show little appetite for some sweeping form of simplification.
You’ve been bleating this bullshit point for years. I repeat: They have not been told they have no choice. If you don’t tell them of the necessity, and how to do it, why in the hell would they be busy embracing the concept?
Besides, you are wrong. There are strong movements for simpler living across the industrialized world, even here in Korea.
Building a new energy grid and transport system works and is starting to gain some traction.
And is delusional. Will not be done. And, if it is done, it will lead to a massive Seneca Cliff as a wide range of resouces get depleted. Worse, if you maitain this consumptive society, you collapse the ecosystem, Climate Change or not. It will take many decades, which we do not have. And it will be confined to the “elite,” the rich countries, because under THID system you so dearly demand we hold onto, the poor don’t get shit. Poor countries will not be given free solar and wind. Poor people in rich countries will still have their utilities shut off and die.
Only a fool solves only for climate.
I think we have to look carefully at what could be done that doesn’t cause chaos or inadvertently cause a collapse.
You have no idea what that is. In this post you have called the solution the cause, said the cause is the solution and set out a point of view that will *create* the worst type of collapse, a Seneca Cliff.
The circular economy idea looks like it would be a step towards sustainability that would not cause chaos because it is not putting massive pressure on the existing structure of our system It is not really simplifying
Jesus christ… Circular economies ARE simplification. WTF is wrong with your head? And how do you justify implying recycling would somehow not be part of simplification, but is part of… simplification?
Muddled, confused thinking. Every. Time.
Enough… I need a shower after wading through this bullshit.
Killian.
“Dr. Tainter: You are absolutely right. We are trapped. We cannot simplify. We cannot withdraw from the way our system has evolved and the way we have set it up…..”
“Tainter’s point has nothing to do with simplification.”
No. He said ” We cannot simplify…” It couldn’t be clearer. He spends pages elaborating on simplification and the difficulties simplifying. I mean WTF?
“He does not say simplification would cause too many problems, but that the politicians will not *address* the problems. The problem is politics.”
He doesn’t say the problem is politics. Copy and paste where he says this.
“Collapse is already underway. You cannot trigger something already begun.”
You can make it a great deal worse by trying to simplify. Tainter clearly understands this.
“but your solution is to blame the solution for the cause? If you do not simplify you end up with a long, rising slope that becomes a Seneca Cliff. You are completely unaware you are arguing for a massive, sudden collapse. Dunning-Kruger. Again.”
I haven’t said that per se. Like Tainter says complexity CAN lead to collapse and requires a lot of work to avoid collapse, but deliberately simplifying can also trigger a collapse. Remember Mikes post? He could only find ONE society that successfully simplified by simplifying its military forces, so it was only a partial simplification anyway. I’m saying we MIGHT be able to simplify to some extent, but it would be a slow process needing a lot of care and that dreaded word “incremental change.”
Tainter is only saying broadly what I’ve always suggested about simplification. Nice to have my views confirmed by an expert.
“Some people might form simple living communities but by exiting the larger system that system could weaken significantly and destablises causing the collapse of essential services that will still be needed in a simplified world,…”
“Because you say so?”
Not because I say so, but because if you take people and demand out of the existing system on the relatively fast time frames you advocate it will probably trigger a huge economic depression collapsing the supply of essential services. The only way to stop that would be political command and control, but you have already indicated you have no faith in politics.
“Again, you are stealing my concepts and attempting to gaslight them. ”
Just please don’t be so ridiculous.
“As Cuba showed, an overnight collapse of the economy and supply chains can be handled by simplification and a rapid shift to Regenerative Ag. They collectively lost 20lbs on average, but there were few deaths – and that was without any warning or planning whatsoever. An entire nation, millions of people, and they did it.”
I did not know cuba simplified and adopted regenerative agriculture. Could you supply a link? What I do know is cuba is a relatively poor country with a poor standard of living and constant shortages of goods (healthcare system excepted), so its a pretty dreadful way of promoting simplification. How do you think the vast majority of people will respond to you saying look at how great Cuba did?
“And the public show little appetite for some sweeping form of simplification.”
“You’ve been bleating this bullshit point for years. I repeat: They have not been told they have no choice. If you don’t tell them of the necessity, and how to do it, why in the hell would they be busy embracing the concept?”
Its not BS. Its hard reality. People have been warned for years about the dangers of climate change and environmental degradation but obviously don’t get the message very well. Reality Check posted a good comment on the psychology of this below somewhere, and it’s similar to what I’ve posted previously namely that our brains are hard wired to respond well to immediate threats, but not to long term problems like climate change, even although they are serious. This suggests to me people will embrace some mitigation measures but not things like massive and rapid de-industrialisation. So this is why I advocate the things I advocate, like renewable energy and the circular economy concept (as normally defined (eg on wikipedia). Tired of repeating it.
“Building a new energy grid and transport system works and is starting to gain some traction.”
“And is delusional. Will not be done. ”
It is being done, and may be locked in because the costs of wind and solar power are now very competitive.
“And, if it is done, it will lead to a massive Seneca Cliff as a wide range of resouces get depleted. ”
This is a risk factor. But its survivable, because communities will adjust. Like I said before, the end game is it could force some form of simple living to happen, so you get what you appear to advocate anyway.
“Worse, if you maitain this consumptive society, you collapse the ecosystem, Climate Change or not. It will take many decades, which we do not have. ”
Only if its badly done.
“And it will be confined to the “elite,” the rich countries, because under THID system you so dearly demand we hold onto, the poor don’t get shit. Poor countries will not be given free solar and wind. Poor people in rich countries will still have their utilities shut off and die.”
Dealing with poor people is a political problem. Sensible countries help their poor people. I assume you do realise your simple living communities will have the same problem of how to deal with poor people, – in the sense of non productive people etc, etc. I just suggest it will always be a political sort of problem. Maybe your system would do it better. Who knows.
“You have no idea what that is. In this post you have called the solution the cause, said the cause is the solution and set out a point of view that will *create* the worst type of collapse, a Seneca Cliff.”
I haven’t said that per se. Like Tainter says complexity CAN lead to collapse and requires a lot of work to avoid collapse, but deliberately simplifying can also trigger a collapse. Remember Mikes post? He could only find ONE society that successfully simplified by simplifying its military forces. I’m saying we MIGHT be able to simplify to some extent but it would be a slow process needing a lot of care and that dreaded word “incremental change.” Tainter is only saying broadly what I’ve always said.
“Jesus christ… Circular economies ARE simplification. WTF is wrong with your head? And how do you justify implying recycling would somehow not be part of simplification, but is part of… simplification?”
Not really. The conventional definition of the circular economy is living within the restraints of the biosphere, (so not over fishing for example,) and recycling non renewables. Recycling plant actually adds complexity although in a useful way. But even if you say the circular economy is a form of simplification, it looks like something that could be integrated with our current overall system without causing the sort of collapse Tainter talks about. For example many countries already use recycling and it doesn’t destabilise their economy. It probably all depends on what definition of the circular economy you use. From what I’ve read opinions certainly differ.
@Killian
#RealClear
#RealDirect
#RealHonest
#RealHelpfulifUnderstood
In a nutshell?
“Collapse is already underway. You cannot trigger something already begun.”
Correct.
“In this post you have called the solution the cause, said the cause is the solution and set out a point of view that will *create* the worst type of collapse, a Seneca Cliff.”
Correct. But it is only one person’s opinion. Or, no big deal at the end of the day.
e.g. “There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, and those who cannot see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci
It is what it is. Systems thinking is hard and rare.
n: I have been concerned that simplification
K: Yes, we know: You are scared of anything that solves our problems.
BPL: No, he just thinks your particular solution won’t work, and I concur. Since we have other solutions available, we don’t need your particular crackpot, impossible, pie-in-the-sky anarchist fantasy.
@Barton Paul Levenson
#RealHyperbole
#RealBigLies
we have other solutions available
There are none as yet.
Remaining under +1.5C is a crackpot, impossible, pie-in-the-sky Dr. No fantasy at present and the foreseeable future.
The fantasy belief that solutions are available is not grounded in the hard sciences nor mathematics. It’s fools gold.
Ridiculing Killian and his suggestions will not change that Reality nor anything else. Desperate attempts to make him wrong does not and never will make you right. Give it up.
Pick a Door – The Inconvenient Truths, or A Room full of Alluring Lies?
Don’t accuse me of lying, you repulsive little twerp. Killian’s idea that we can contract the economy by nine tenths in a few decades or less is idiotic. On the other hand, we can fight global warming by switching to renewable energy, stopping the destruction of forests, and if necessary, removing CO2 from the air. We don’t need to give up high technolo9y or industry.
To BPL bc of truncated thread:
Barton Paul Levenson says
9 Aug 2021 at 7:38 AM
Don’t accuse me of lying
You do lie. Regularly. Why should he not say so? Your claim he called you a liar is lie! He did not even imply it.
you repulsive little twerp.
You are one of the core problem people on this site. The hypocrisy is unreal. You said you don’t attack without cause. That, too, was a lie. Do you not read the very words you type?
Killian’s idea that we can contract the economy by nine tenths in a few decades or less is idiotic.
It’s not even close to idiotic. It’s something we can actually do. Your tech-based approach? True fantasy. Literally cannot, will not be done, in every way: Resources, finance, justice, political will, etc. I have pointed out the reasons over and over. Bauxite alone makes it a joke.
On the other hand, we can fight global warming by switching to renewable energy
We already have enough in many industrialized nations – just not for the consumption levels you refuse to even consider reducing.
stopping the destruction of forests
But food forests are crazy talk, eh?
and if necessary, removing CO2 from the air.
Tech does not exist at a scalable, affordable level. You don’t plan a rescue mission for 9 billion+ based on a non-existent industry. You do it the safe way, THEN take advantage of any tech that comes online later.
We don’t need to give up high technolo9y or industry.
Who said give it up? Another Straw Man lie. Never said it. Massively reduce it? Yes, but always bearing in mind and planning with Embedded Energy.
You make no attempt to have an actual conversation about sustainability. You repeat these same false representations and omissions in every instance.
That’s called dishonesty, aka lying.
These are serious times. We need serious people. Do better. Be better.
Nice post, but this – from an article that is sideways to this discussion – voices my worry about how we are being programmed by media and marketing, while our entertainment (sports) is ever more about glamor, cosmetics, and materials-intensive spectacle, and we are encouraged to “upgrade” with ever more toxic waste. The article is about rich privilege but I see the same thing among those who have less. We are taught to envy the ability to waste and exploit.
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/07/white-lotus-rich-people-vacation-privilege/619450/
“We’re so hardwired to want to accumulate things—possessions, money, experiences, even people—that sacrificing any of them feels harder and more painful than unhappiness itself. As Mark and Nicole’s son says toward the end of the series,“We’re all just parasites eating the last fish and throwing our plastic cr*p in the ocean.”
Yes exactly Susan. Perhaps it is because our ancestors just grabbed what they could when they could simply to survive, and so now we just go on doing this even in a world of plenty, so we often end up over consuming or hoarding. Our behaviour also reminds me of a squirrel hoarding nuts for the winter. And humans are status conscious animals and conspicuous consumption is a way of demonstrating status. So our entire evolutionary psychology pushes us to high levels of consumption. I suspect its not easy changing this, which seems obvious when you just look around us.
You can tell people to slown down their consumption because it hurts other people in the future or hurts the environment, but it falls on deaf ears. I’m not hugely materialstic myself but many are. Overall I tend to think de-industrialisation is the pontifications of well meaning academics who mostly fly around the world talking about it and drinking fine champagne. Levels of consumption will eventually fall dramatically all right, but probably ONLY when forced to do so by actual shortages.
However there are some thing that may help the problem. Eliminating waste helps solve various problems and might help stop consumption levels increasing. Substitution is also a factor. It may be possible to change from owning huge homes and cars to having more lesiure time. So the form of consumption changes from resource intensive things to less resource intensive things. And it is possible to reduce the consumption of electricity by increasing the efficiency of how its used, to a modest extent. Germany has proven this. This all helps. I’m interested in realistic things like this. Huge and ambitious doctrinaire ideas – not so much.
@nigel
#RealGoodPost
#RealQuotes
#RealReferences
#RealHonestOpinions
And Tainer says: societies collapse, … it becomes essentially impossible to solve future problems……”
Nate Hagens says the very same things in his Earth and Humanity: Myth and Reality presentation this year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY
Have you watched any of it Nigel? And understand it?
And We are trapped. We cannot simplify. We cannot withdraw from the way our system has evolved and the way we have set it up and we will someday get out of it when a crisis occurs
Nate Hagens says the same kinds of things.
The prisoner’s dilemma is a theoretical mind game. In the real world, confronted with such conditions some of the prisoners escaped by realizing what the mindset traps were and broke out of them. And most didn’t. Realizing one is caught in a prisoners dilemma you don’t give up and say nothing can solve this, and lay down like a dog.
Well actually, some will. They will not fight, They will deny they can see the reality they are in. And then pretend everything is going to be alright, even if they can do nothing about it anyway. You cannot challenge the system, because it will destroy the system, and we can’t have that.
Left to their own devices some people could not think their way out of a wet paper bag. Solutions should never be developed to accommodate the puerile needs of such people. They either follow or get left behind. The wise actors among us should never look back.
Nigel: There is no government showing signs that it could orchestrate a deliberate planned simplification … (or any solution for that matter)
Nate Hagens says the same thing. Then he explains why that is so. Several extracts already posted to RC.
Nigel: Because of the climate problem we need a solution that we can be confident in and that can be implemented potentially quickly and will gain acceptance with the public.
If that is what you wish Nigel, if that is what you believe is possible, then you need to start praying now for a Miracle. That’s the only way your dream will happen. Unfortunately, it will not happen.
Nigel: The public grumble about costs …
Actually they do not. It’s the Politicians, the Corporate Boards and CEOs, the Bankers, the Deniers, the greenwashers, and naysayers who grumble about costs. It’s a weak excuse for having nothing of value or true to say on the matter.
Nigel: The circular economy idea looks like it would be a step towards sustainability that would not cause chaos because it is not putting massive pressure on the existing structure of our system.
Says who? Where’s the evidence to support such assertions? Who decided the current *System/s* is so Sacred it will never to be replaced root and branch? Name names.
Nigel: Economic growth is generally slowing …. to deliberately simplify and de-industrialise at scale — I don’t accept it is a viable quick fix or panacea applicable to the climate problem.
Your beliefs and opinion has been noted and recorded for posterity on RC.
Let’s jump to the artciles conclusions:
David says: “Energy has two different ideas, here. One, obviously, there was energy required for a complex system (known as the work of human beings) long before there was such a thing as fossil fuels, plus we have the notion today that the global economy is dependent on cheap fuel.
It sure is. One thing I learned from Nate Hagens was the true value of the Energy captured in one barrel of Oil:- jump to here https://youtu.be/qYeZwUVx5MY?t=1785
“… one barrel of oil does almost five years of the work of one human essentially making it indistinguishable from magic on any human time scale.
“… if we add up the billion barrels of oil equivalent of fossil energy used annually in our global economy this equates to around 500 billion human’s labor worth of work. “
But let’s leave the last word to Joseph Tainter shall we :- “… as we discussed with Joseph today, we are unable to get out of this particular system. We are grinding forward in terms of our progress, until we come to a grinding halt.”
What an optimistic and encouraging future that is from Tainter – not.
I have been told it is bad to be pessimistic and apathetic about climate change. It is better to be positive and optimistic. It is critical we maintain the belief remaining below 1.5C is achievable – while consumption, standards of living, and Economic Growth continues on forever – if we are to have any hope at all. However, we are totally screwed.
Pick a Door – The Inconvenient Truths or A Room Full of Alluring Lies?
Reality Check,
Good points.
“Left to their own devices some people could not think their way out of a wet paper bag. Solutions should never be developed to accommodate the puerile needs of such people. They either follow or get left behind. The wise actors among us should never look back.”
This sounds like a very Darwinian survival of the strongest stuff and sounds I bit merciless. However I may be totally misinterpreting you. But surely we have to help those who are a bit useless? Just common humanity. Although even then there is only so much you can do. I suppose people could just abandon the system and be self sufficient on their own plot of land and leave everyone else to their fate. I have pondered this and would buy a farm if things got really bad. However in good conscience for me I hope 1)the socio economic system could be improved, 2) environmental outcomes improved and 3) people saved all at the same time.
“Nigel: The public grumble about costs …”
“Actually they do not. It’s the Politicians, the Corporate Boards and CEOs, the Bankers, the Deniers, the greenwashers, and naysayers who grumble about costs. It’s a weak excuse for having nothing of value or true to say on the matter.”
The people you list do indeed grumble loudest about costs, but they speak for various constituencies as well. Plenty of the general public do as well where I live. But its interesting that in America the public largely support a carbon tax from polling, but the politicians wont implement one. This does tend to underline what you are saying.
“Nigel: The circular economy idea looks like it would be a step towards sustainability that would not cause chaos because it is not putting massive pressure on the existing structure of our system.”
“Says who? Where’s the evidence to support such assertions? Who decided the current *System/s* is so Sacred it will never to be replaced root and branch? Name names.”
I did previously point out many countries (eg like New Zealand) are already adopting circular economy measures like recycling and it doesn’t appear to be causing unanticipated problems to the overall economic system. It appears this form of ‘simplification’ might escape the problems Tainter identifies of simplification triggering a collapse. Could be wrong of course and its just my anecdotal observation.
Whether the current socio-economic system should be replaced seems like a different issue. Yes it could be replaced in theory. Capitalism has a whole lot of problems associated with it, but for me nobody has articulated a fundamentally different system that would be viable and useful.
“But let’s leave the last word to Joseph Tainter shall we :- “… as we discussed with Joseph today, we are unable to get out of this particular system. We are grinding forward in terms of our progress, until we come to a grinding halt.”
“What an optimistic and encouraging future that is from Tainter – not.”
Yes this is where I also find Tainter a bit too pessimistic. Although I think he’s basically right that civilisations typically head to some sort of collapse generated by their own complexity plus other factors, and we have to try to work hard to prevent that, and it may require even more complexity, and that “simplification” could actually trigger a collapse. But Tainter did find ONE civilisation that simplified successfully. There may be SOME form of simplification where we can avoid triggering a collapse and I’ve suggested a few things on that. But I doubt that it would include deliberate, massive and RAPID de-industrialisation. That would be like a multiple amputation with no antibiotics and anaesthetic.
@nigelj
But surely we have to help those who are a bit useless? Just common humanity.
Of course. The only way to help them to do what is right, best under the circumstances. Based on valid up-to-date knowledge, evidence and scientific rigor and morally good sense.
The alternative is next time Gavin gets involved in an attribution study, he makes allowances for the uselessness of a Cliff Mass .. lest he hurt his feelings, or impinges on his make believe freedom of speech rights and liberty to vote for more useless idiots to go to Congress.
For example, Trump is useless. Victor and KIA are useless. Tol is useless. Most of the GOP and half the Dems are useless. Many billionaires are useless and rank idiots. the Politicians, the Corporate Boards and CEOs, the Bankers, the Deniers, the greenwashers, and naysayers who grumble about costs are useless.
People who complain when others objectively lay out the real implications of climate change to the environment, to society, or the economy misspelling them as pessimists or apathetic, are useless too. No different then the self-indulgent over-consuming wasteful wealthy, they should not be accommodated by minimizing the truth in public discourse to ease their emotional torment of hearing the truth about Reality.
It’s a really long list. Some are even climate scientists. I said, Solutions should never be developed to accommodate the puerile needs of such people.
Makes perfectly good sense to me.
If people spoke more like Nigel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j_OtZhJzzA
(A humorous take on this awful fact of life)
Political Speak
The art of changing two way discourse into one-way communication; sticking to the party message no matter what the other is saying. The abbreviation for political speak is BS.
When was the last time you saw a Nigel give a straight answer to a question being asked of them? Political speak is when Nigel is asked a straight question and he answers with a response that has nothing to do with the question, but rather propounds his opinionated message on the topic of the day. Thus transforming what was a two way discourse into a one way diatribe with very little if any meaningful content.
Unlike climate change, in this case there actually is only one viable solution.
RC, you suggest I dont give straight answers to questions, and go off on some sort of tangent, although you give no examples. I can therefore only assume you must mean your last post where you asked:
1)”Have you watched any of it Nigel?”
Sure I didn’t answer that question. I haven’t had the TIME to watch it yet. Too busy watching the Olympics.
2)”Says who? Where’s the evidence to support such assertions?
I GAVE you my answers and it was direct on topic: “I did previously point out many countries (eg like New Zealand) are already adopting circular economy measures like recycling and it doesn’t appear to be causing unanticipated problems to the overall economic system”. So you should have realised I don’t have any experts I can quote on this but was giving you my personal view.
3)”Who decided the current *System/s* is so Sacred it will never to be replaced root and branch? Name names.”
I never suggested the current system was so sacred it couldn’t be changed. I did respond that I thought it could be changed.
So are you asleep or something ? :)
Nate Hagens says the same thing. Then he explains why that is so. Several extracts already posted to RC.
And guess who said it before Nate…
MIchael Mann? BPL? Nigel? Susan?
I give up, who said it? :-)
It’s better to laugh about these things.
More evidence Nordhaus gets his maths wrong: “The mortality cost of carbon”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w
“Important constraints on soil organic carbon formation efficiency in subtropical and tropical grasslands”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15807
Working out what carbon soils can usefully sequester is a complex business. Lots of science involved.
@nigelj
#RealObviousKnownComplexity
The ref paper says: We used isotopically labelled residue (13C) to determine the fate of residue C inputs into short-lived particulate organic matter (POM) and more persistent mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM) across a broad climatic gradient (ΔMAT 10°C) with varying soil properties.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.15807
3rd time in 3 days MAOM gets a mention. I wonder what the paywall research paper actually says.
From the above page, a recommended paper has full access:
Conceptualizing soil organic matter into particulate and mineral-associated forms to address global change in the 21st century
Ultimately, we propose the POM versus MAOM framework as the best way forward to understand and predict broad-scale SOM dynamics in the context of global change challenges and provide necessary recommendations to managers and policy makers. in 2019.
… but we have demonstrated that we currently have sufficient scientific evidence on which to base broad-scale measurement and predictions of POM and MAOM
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14859
#RealGoodRead
Australia Govt Dept input a decade ago –
However, due to the complex web of factors that governs the C balance of any particular soil, quantitative predictions of SOC sequestration rates will likely always entail a large degree of uncertainty.
https://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/blocks/research-and-development/csiro-soil-c-review.pdf
Not a lot has changed in a decade, they still don’t know much about SOC with any broad consensus. More research required, as usual. Very rare to find papers and research focusing upon Regenerative Agriculture domains only.
Alt-2000 paper
A rapid transfer of plant inputs through active and intermediate C pools into mineral-dominated pools is the ultimate outcome required for building and stabilizing the SOC stocks.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337481402_Soil_Organic_Carbon_Dynamics_in_Tropical_and_Subtropical_Grassland_Ecosystem
With many of the Ref’d papers offering full text access for the curious.
#RealResearchContinues.
Environmental progress looks like this:
Indian Point’s share of New York electricity was completely replaced by fossil fuels, with the share of New York’s generation from fossil fuels rising by 14 percentage points, from 30.5 percent to 44.5 percent, between 2019 and 2021.
https://environmentalprogress.org/indian-point
“When you’re in a warming climate and the presence of ice, you have these pulses of rapid collapse of ice and that’s what we have to look forward to,” Wanless said. “We just started melting ice in about 1990, and we’re seeing this rapidly accelerate in both polar areas.”
Pulses of rapid collapse. Climate change is *not* linear and these pulses can happen at any time, as we are now experiencing since 2016 and the rapid warming and ramping up of disasters globally.
Risk. It’s all about long-trail, existential risks.
The link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/greenland-mass-ice-melting-event-is-latest-worrisome-sign-of-climate-crisis-202900038.html
It’s hard to watch these things happen as we knew and have warned for the past several years. Meanwhile, a lot of folks are scrambling to find a past quote somewhere in their history that sounds even slightly alarmist so they can say, yeah… I saw that coming.
Some of have taken a fair amount of heat for “peddling alarmism” over the years and IPCC 6 sounds like they are quoting us to a certain extent.
I understand that scientists need to be cautious and not overstate the issues, or even make a simple slip in language that will allow the “go slow” folks to jump on them for creating alarm.
It’s really a shame that our species is so trapped in the dialectics of cultural conflict and that so many individuals are completely boxed in by their historical understanding of how humans should live because we do need to change the way we live now to minimize the catastrophe. The change has to be significant. The Nordhaus experiment and fantasy has failed miserably and the scope of that failure will grow day by day now as the warming gathers energy and speed thanks to feedbacks and tipping points.
I don’t think there is any reason to engage with the folks who are been slow to comprehend the catastrophe of global warming. Even if they are doing a bit of baiting, who cares? The facts on the ground are getting very hard to ignore or discount.
But you may feel differently about that and that is your prerogative.
Cheers
Mike
I think, Mike, that I need to find an editor and a publisher.
I am having a conversation tonight with a gentleman who wants to help fund a 150-home-strong ecovillage. Hopefully, my concepts will resonate with him.
I have multiple concepts that an NGO/501(3)(c)/501(7)(c) could use to help ramp up change:
** RegenGov (of course)
** Regen Community Incubators
** Adopt-a-Neighborhood (A variation on a theme w/ localization and adoption melded)
** Community Micro-grids (not an original concept, but I advocated for them as a necessary element of change in 2008)
** The Perfect Storm World Simulation
Then there’s an animated script concept, a novel and scrpt concept that extends a book from a well-known author into a second book that is sci-fi with cli-fi, and a creative non-fiction how-to approach to climate/collapse.
I’m only a writer on small scales. I need a kick in the ass from a good editor and publisher and funding to allow me to write and do activism full-time.
Maybe Patreon? A kickstarter or gofundme for the simulation?
Analysis paralysis!
@nigelj:
Because they suffer from huge diseconomies of scale due to externalized costs. The only way they’ve gotten anywhere is because natural gas is readily available for backup at most places and times. Gas has been crowding out every other dispatchable source because the capital cost is so low; gas plants can make money at spot prices, while nothing else can without subsidies. “Renewables” get subsidies, coal and nuclear do not.
When fracked NG became cheaper per BTU than coal, the writing was on the wall. The system as a whole doesn’t properly value guaranteed availability, though, and that’s going to be a bigger and bigger problem going forward. Just-in-time delivery of NG carries a lot more risk to the system than a 3-month supply of dirty black rock, and the GHG emissions of both of them are also externalized.
(I am NOT going to use the messed-up threading format. It does not allow tracking of new comments in subthreads, which is destructive to real discussion. I will post all my comments at base-level with links to and quotes of the parents, which is what the web designers of this site should have encouraged at the beginning; whatever they were thinking, it was misguided in the extreme. They have not thought anything through, nor learned from their mistakes.)
I will post all my comments at base-level with links to and quotes of the parents …
Houston, we have a problem.
Here is the url to your comment above. Click on it and watch what happens.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/07/forced-responses-july-2021/comment-page-10/#comment-794172
@E-P When fracked NG became cheaper per BTU than coal, the writing was on the wall.
Yes, of course. And the writing is already on the wall for when the fracking system of oil and gas output collapses (and that won’t take very long to bite in the US. ) Currently, relatively “cheap Gas” is underpinning the electricity networks.
That will end once the political myth of grandiose US energy self-sufficiency is outed as the lie it is. The faster existing nukes keep being shutdown the faster that will unfold.
E-P: ““Renewables” get subsidies, coal and nuclear do not.”
BPL: What parallel universe do you live in where this is true?
I was told at the car dealer that I would get a HEFTY subsidy if I bought an EV. I asked how much I’d get if I bought a FF vehicle. They said I’d get nothing.
I was told at the mechanical supply house that if I bought a solar water heater I’d get a HEFTY subsidy. I asked how much I’d get for a NG water heater and they said I’d get nothing.
I was told when I build my McMansion that if I installed PV panels, inverters, batteries, etc for my electrical system that I’d get a HEFTY subsidy. I asked how much I’d get if I installed a traditional grid system and they said I’d get nothing.
Maybe he lives in that universe. ;)
Clearly, you have never been to coal country. It’s full of denuded mountain tops where the coal has been exctracted, streams polluted by the tailings and hovels where the people who once mined the coal have been discarded. I commend to you the late, great John Prine, who we lost to COVID last year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEy6EuZp9IY
Actually, the area mentioned in the song, Muhlenberg County, is full of mostly green land – fields, forests, probably some clear-cuts, etc as can easily be seen on Google Earth. Yes, the town of Paradise was destroyed by TVA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_Kentucky
Muhlenberg County looks like nice country. Yes, you can see several blackened coal mines/coal piles/ etc but they are a tiny part of the landscape.
Someday, perhaps someone will do to the coal mines what they did to the rock quarry that is now Butchart Gardens:
https://www.butchartgardens.com/our-story/
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/butchart-gardens
And Kentucky, for all its mineral wealth remains one of the poorest states in the country, with no work for the people once the coal train has hauled all the coal away.
Maybe you should take a look at places from closer than 40000 feet.
@Killian in lecture mode:
No, YOU said so. You said that terra preta self-renews at ~1 cm/yr once established. That sounds like an unstoppable process on the order of the “oxygen catastrophe”. Take responsibility for your own words.
@Susan Anderson:
Those fears are fading as the climate issue comes more and more to the fore. News like Hansen’s appraisal that nuclear energy has already saved 1.8 million lives through elimination of air pollution is getting more and more mindshare.
Some schemes like Thorcon and Elysium promise to be cheaper than coal, and Elysium claims a sub-zero fuel cost for at least the first few units. If we were taking the climate issue seriously, we would already have a Manhattan project-scale effort going and have prototypes of both in operation.
We’ll see how long that lasts. The “environmental” organizations which take their money and marching orders from the FF industry are going to take it in their shorts this decade, mark my words.
E-P: The “environmental” organizations which take their money and marching orders from the FF industry
BPL: Exist entirely in your mind, and nowhere else.
As I’ve mentioned before, the Manhattan Project wasn’t all that big in expenditure terms. Its Wikipedia entry says it “cost nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $23 billion in 2019).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
It cost considerably less in current dollars than, say, the Apollo Program: “$25.4 billion (1973), $156 billion (2019)”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
Let’s see, terra preta creates 1cm/year. Hmmm… and how much of that might get used up in new agriculture every year? Why can’t a gardner/farmer choose to mulch – which it is claimed basically sequesters almost no C – instead of add to more terra preta?
1. Don’t just react, *think.*
2. Try to stay out of issues you are completely ignorant of.
@Killian:
I wrote “smolder”, not “burn”, you pedantic nitwit. If you do a search you’ll find that exact phrase used time and time again to describe it. Biochar is quite the up-and-coming thing these days. Our main problem is not having enough raw material for it.
RC,
Thanks for the links to the articles about MAOC (in the LCP). I’ll look at them the best I can in the coming week and get back to you.
Climate prognosis remains poor.
This is good on biochar, because it looks at both sides of the argument: “Refilling the Carbon Sink: Biochar’s Potential and Pitfalls. The idea of creating biochar by burning organic waste in oxygen-free chambers — and then burying it — is being touted as a way to cool the planet. But while it already is being produced on a small scale, biochar’s proponents and detractors are sharply divided over whether it can help slow global warming.”
https://e360.yale.edu/features/refilling_the_carbon_sink_biochars_potential_and_pitfalls
Who cares what a bunch of eggheads at Yale have to say on something they *don’t do?* The leading expert in the field has written multiple books on the subject. You refuse to read what true experts have to say. You are a solutions denialist.
If you aren’t willing to read “Burn”, just STFU on bio-char until you are.
Note Killian’s classic use of ad hominem. He makes no effort to even read what Yale has to say; he simply dismisses them from the outset by saying only “his” experts matter. Much like the global warming deniers, he couldn’t survive without poisoning the well.
BPL’s classic drive-by comment without substance of any kind, and dishonesty.
How the hell do you know what I do or do not know about what Yale had to say? You do not. That makes you a hypocrite and a liar. This is not a new thing for you.
What I am certain of based on how you react here and past evidence, is you, like nigel, have never read “Burn,” which makes you a hypocrite.
Finally, whether I read what Yale360 had to say or not is largely irrelevant: I have followed their crap for years and it is consistently technocopian nonsense. I could dismiss almost anything they produce out of hand as non-regenerative.
There is no ad hom, you damned fool. An ad hom is to insult to discredit an argument. I did not do that: Yale360 does not know regenerative systems any more than you do. .Like you and Nigel, they DON’T know. Fact.
Killian
“There is no ad hom, you damned fool. An ad hom is to insult to discredit an argument. I did not do that:”
No wrong. An ad hominem is an attempt to discredit an argument by trying to discredit the person making the argument, or their qualifications, or experience, or other personal attributes, and that is exactly what you did as follows: “Who cares what a bunch of eggheads at Yale have to say on something they *don’t do?” . Of course you managed to insult them as well calling them a bunch of egg heads.
Killian, except that I didn’t say don’t use biochar. I’m somewhat undecided.
And what is a true expert? The author of Burn is Albert Bates and he has a law degree and permaculture certificate, going by his wikipedia profile. So he doesn’t look any more of an expert than the guys at the Yale School of the Environment.
BPL is so right about you.
Killian, except that I didn’t oppose the use of biochar. I’m somewhat undecided.
And what is a true expert? The author of Burn is Albert Bates and he has a law degree and permaculture certificate, going by his wikipedia profile. So he doesn’t look any more of an expert than the guys at the Yale School of the Environment.
BPL is so right about you.
Killian, except that I didn’t oppose the use of biochar. I’m somewhat undecided.
Straw Man.
Again.
And again.
Muddled. As ever.
Not a strawman. The subject is biochar. You accused me of being “a solutions denialist”. You said “If you aren’t willing to read “Burn”, just STFU on bio-char until you are. So what is solutions denialist referring to if not biochar?
Like I said I’m undecided about biochar. You write complete crap and with all the clarity of mud.
KIA: Define “just society”.
BPL: Aristotle defined justice as giving to each person what they deserve. Thus a just society would not hand out rewards and punishments on any other basis, e.g. race, sex, class, or religion. A just society would treat people as individuals first and as members of groups later, if at all. And a just society would not countenance murder or theft, however conducted.
If you live in a leftist-dominated location (s-hole), try telling that to your local school board, your city council, or your state legislature.
;)
Well, undoubtedly things are much better in red counties and states, where everyone is on a ventilator due to COVID.
Don’t believe everything the lame stream media tells you.
What astounds me is when the folks who question the “lame-stream” media proceed to put their credence in peddlers of conspiracy theories. I also find it astounding that these same imbeciles don’t think Faux News is main stream. Faux News is just the main stream lies.
#RealTruth Retweeted by Michael Mann
jamin:
Being alarmed/scared to some extent is good – and only natural if you’re looking at where things are heading – but not to the point that it detracts from action.
Second: you don’t need to be a vegan, boycott air travel or have a zero-carbon footprint to be on the right side of the fight (although all these things are great). Carbon-shaming & putting the focus on the individual is a tactic of the inactivists to detract from systemic change.
Oil companies and inactivists will continue to put the onus on the individual, and drive a wedge between the community looking to seek action as best they can through blame and in-fighting (‘wedge tactics’, as Mann’s book discusses)
https://twitter.com/JaminEatWorld/status/1381583772110426113
This is a very serious problem…
Oil companies and inactivists will continue to put the onus on the individual, and drive a wedge between the community looking to seek action as best they can through blame and in-fighting
…but not how you might think. Basically, saying individual behavior is not important/not key/is not a primary issue is completely incorrect. It ignores pretty much every important aspect of the problems we face and steers us toward solutions that cannot work. In short, it’s anti-systemic and or ignorance of systems dynamics.
Capitalism: INDIVIDUAL ownership. What individuals do with their resources cannot be separated from consumption, period. In fact, in a Capitalist society (and by that I mean all modern economic systems because they all currently include private ownership; there really is no such thing as socialism anymore, just variants of Capitalism – and don’t @ me on this: If you disagree, so what) the way you end a corporation or business you don’t like is to just. stop. buying. their. goods. Companies die because other companies come along and do it better or cheaper. But that doesn’t kill them. If they had a loyal customer base, they could go on making a profit. It might be a stagnant profit, but a profit is a profit. What kills them is if customers no longer want their product(s).
Similarly, if individuals organize into blocks of citizens to choose to reward or punish companies for their actions, they can be the kingmakers of the economy. The problem is individuals are fractured, no splintered. Let us become organized, we rule the world. That was, is, and always will be true: In the end, if The People demand is or choose to make it so, it will be so. But it requires being out from under the thumbs of corps and gov’t, and that means… being communities.
The more that becomes the reality, the faster things change.
Sustainability is ultimately local. There is no such thing as top-down sustainability because a person in Washington cannot possibly fully understand your life in your neighborhood in your town or city or area and bio-region. They. Cannot.
Principles:
*Small, slow solutions
*Build in chunks
We put whole-site designs together, but we never implement them in one go. That is the opposite of how modern design is done – which is why modern design destroys the environment rather than enhances it. Add elements slowly. Take time to be sure they function as plan, then either revise or continue as appropriate. This prevents entire designs having to be redone which makes the process very efficient in that sense.
What we do at home and in our neighborhoods is the cornerstone of sustainability, not a secondary or tertiary consideration. Yet, all our efforts are focused on utility-scale power, massive farms, massive tree plantings, massive new industries to solve problems that already have safe solutions (CO2 capture). But if every home, every small community is sustainable, the world is, by default. The opposite is not true, and is not even possible. How can a Senator or city councilperson know how best to use resources in your neighborhood?
Finally, this is a RESOURCE ABUSE ISSUE. Pretty much all of our environmental and climatic issues are. And resourcd abuse comes primarily from… consumption.
Yes, companies are to blame for bullshit, demented advertising. It’s intentional. But we are not without agency. If we talk to each other. Choose to act as communities together, produce locally together… we can change everything.
Certainly, we can say corporations have blame for lying, for making products to fall apart, for advertising that is meant to turn our brains into goo. All that is true. but there are two fully equal sides to this coin and the “don’t blame us poor consumers!” meme is suicidal. It doesn’t let corps off the hook, it balances the picture. They can’t be bad unless we let them, and we can’t be manipulated unless we choose to be.
Communities are the only ones who can localize… communities. Gov’t can only 1. facilitate (but won’t really do much because it’s suicidal for them) and 2. get out of the way (which they won’t do because it is suicidal for them.)
Individual action is not only important, it is the single *most* important part of solving all of our problems.
@Killian, I don’t have any issue with your reply, in what you have said. Though it seems like you have taken the quote and extended the meaning there far beyond it’s (and my) original intent and context.
I was pushing the limits of what an Inactivist might be. Could I put that another way?
The way some people here choose to continually undermine, misrepresent, twist and criticize the known facts of, and the potential of regenag and rewilding etc. to sequester SOC and improve farming ag pastoral dynamics simultaneously might be a good example of how a typical Inactivist acts.
Some might even say they wholeheartedly support RegenAg, but refute your or Scott’s version of it … while not once ever doing or saying a thing that actually does support or promote the use of RegenAg methodology. They’ll never be able to show you their email to their local politician or Prime Minister asking them to support it.
An activist would do those kinds of things. An Inactivist would not. See?
They approach matters publicly, and face to face, through blame and in-fighting to drive a wedge between the community (all genuine initially) looking to seek (good mitigation) action as best they can.
An Inactivist might say your regen ways are BS or Anarchistic while suggesting that Direct Air Capture is simply brilliant (despite being less effective, more energy intensive) and must be supported no matter what the cost to the tax payer and society or the Commons.
An Inactivist might say society is not ready for your extremely radical proposal even though it is scientifically valid and proven, while they continue to push the essential requirement of a global Carbon Tax system, and ignore the literature that challenges their positions. .
In a similar way, FF/Oil companies have now come out publicly declaring their support for a carbon price … knowing full well it will never get up in the USA and elsewhere.
Makes them look good to the public giving the appearance they support something when in reality they are working against such thing in backrooms constantly – funding the election of politicians who vote against a Carbon price.
Both approaches place subtle pressure on individuals who stand up for X actions … Inactivists attack them if anything appears not socially palatable – like actions to reduce consumption and waste, or reduce demand on mining, or cuts GDP growth …. sometimes saying things like, yeah but you’re not a scientist, where is your proof, what published papers have you got, you don’t know how scientists think, and what are you doing about cutting you own personal emissions and consumption down etc etc etc.
It’s only Human behaviour. The criticisms get personal. They place the onus on the individual to prove everything themselves and win a “debate” against mounting logical fallacies and denials and distortions — instead of relying on the actual knowledge, the facts, the ethics, the social benefits and the evidence of X mitigation action is a good idea.
The classic undermining method? Give a dog a bad name and it sticks. There’s nothing like AD Hominem slurs to undermine the validity of a recommended action. Works all the time. Go watch any political debate. The facts are irrelevant.
Because people are not persuaded by logic or evidence. Pick a Door – The Inconvenient Truths, or A Room full of Alluring Lies? The alluring lies win almost every time.
Alluring lies such as “We have all agreed to instigate plans which ensure we can keep Warming below +1.5C all this century.”
The Inactivists believed them and refuse to face the reality they have been lied to. Again.
It’s Denial:101 and Cognitive Dissonance at work now. Go look at how many are Optimistic the new agreements at COP26 to cut emissions will set us all on the right track to avoid the catastrophic climate crisis.
“Let’s be positive. We just need to cut GHG emissions rapidly. And we will.”
Inactivists!
RC. You are a complete and utter hypocrite., because you accuse people of being “inactivists” for criticising regenerative farming, while you have posted dozens of comments criticising the viability of renewable energy, carbon taxes, and direct air capture. We could equally label YOU as an “inactivist”.
All I said about regenerative agriculture is Killian’s claims on yields and carbon sequestration look exaggerated and he cant provide citations. This does not make me an inactivist. It makes me a REALIST. I’m all for regenerative agriculture because it has multiple benefits.
Back in the real world of sequestering carbon, we will probably need a combination of approaches, like regenerative farming and direct air capture and crushed rock weathering to make a difference. There is no panacea. But it will probably not include BECCS, because it uses far too much land and fertiliser to be practical.
What you accuse him of is incorrect. It is not hypocritical to critique things, it is hypocritical to consistently and pejoratively critique things you have a personal beef about because you have a dislike of the primary person on a forum supporting said issue. He does not deny facts to fit his agenda, you do.
E.g. the 30% claim when even one counterargument proves it false, let alone a handful of them, yet you continued (still?) to repeat that false claim long after the facts made it abundantly clear it could not be true. But your motive is not the issue, it is to prove me wrong. I understand why you are frustrated. You have become increasingly angry and antagonistic towards not just me, but a widening circle of people.
But there was no hypocrisy.
Again, you’re just wrong.
“Individual action is not only important, it is the single *most* important part of solving all of our problems.”
Nah, whenever I point this out, the statists come out of the woodwork and tell us all how we have to send our $$ to the government to solve all of our problems. They say: “If we just had a tax for this problem we could solve it.” The tax never goes away and the problem only gets worse!!!!! Look at leftists in the USA today – they want government to solve every problem – as if individuals are not responsible for their own actions.
That is because you are a glibertarian imbecile, who wants to put the onus of action on those who actually acknowledge physical reality, while you and your robber baron friends shirk responsibility. It is going to take both individual sacrifice coupled with massive government action to tackle this problem. It is THE existential crisis of this century.
We can see from the COVID crisis that right-wing, authoritarian regimes fared quite poorly–mainly because they made addressing the threat the responsibility solely of the individual. We’re seeing it again as the bodies pile up in states where Republican governors oppose vaccination efforts and public health mandates. Unfortunately, every time capitalism is confronted with a serious problem it has utterly failed to address it. Capitalism seems to be very good for creating billionaires, but that is not what society needs now.
Well said Ray.
There’s a mythology about the American frontier that embraces the ‘rugged individualist’ out there on ‘his’ own–perhaps with a wife (whose hair magically stays immaculately coiffed even as she hoes the corn), and a couple of mischievous but cute blonde kids to reassure us about ‘his’ masculinity. What a guy!
And there’s a kernel of truth there; my great aunt Marie used to say that in the early years of homesteading, she’d get so lonely that she’d watch the train go by, as the closest approach to company during the day.
But somehow the mythology fails to embrace or even acknowledge the reality that communal barnraisings, sewing bees, and the like were enormously consequential to the success or failure of homesteaders. So was direct economic assistance, in labor or in kind, in time of trouble. Isolation made everything enormously more difficult.
That reality was taken for granted; everyone knew that good neighbors were like money in the bank. There was community because its value was directly demonstrated on an ongoing basis in everyone’s lives.
There were downsides, of course; pressure to conform to community norms could be fierce, and community norms could well include ‘values’ that most today would find reprehensible. If your neighbor helps you, then he or she also has a stake in your behavior.
But today the balance has swung so far toward a radical (and IMO radically unhealthy) individualism that large numbers of Americans truly believe, apparently, that taking basic, self-evidently sensible public health precautions is an unwarrantable intrusion on their individual liberty. It’s frankly sick–literally AND metaphorically.
Individuals are important, yes, and individual rights deserve respect and protection. But individuals cannot thrive in isolation, and communities cannot nurture healthy individuals, if there is no reciprocity, no responsibility–in the end, no sense of duty.
Yes, there is a tension between duty and freedom. But it’s a creative tension. Resolve it one way or the other and society either falls, or petrifies into oppression.
Kevin McKinney:
So, all those MAGA people who are conforming to their community’s norms by not wearing a mask and not getting vaccinated are examples of “individualism”?
6 words to Zebra:
A cult is not a community.
Kevin McKinney:
“A cult is not a community”.
Ah, thanks for the correction.
So, all those MAGA people who are conforming to their cult’s norms by not wearing a mask and not getting vaccinated are examples of “individualism”?
“Oil companies and inactivists will continue to put the onus on the individual, and drive a wedge between the community looking to seek action as best they can through blame and in-fighting”
Mann is right about that. Some of the anti capitalists do the same because they think wind and solar farms are just a tool to enrich billionaires. Refer to the Planet of the Humans movie.
Mann is actually wrong. He is one of those who thinks Big Tech and Big Gov are the solution. That is why he wants us not talking about making personal and community-level changes.
He doesn’t really understand the system, the thermodynamics, etc.
Here’s an interesting video
A guy goes hunting with an aboriginal group.
He asks questions about life and whatnot. Apparently happiness is eating meat.
https://youtu.be/TAGjuRwx_Y8
https://youtu.be/Ny4bHOnSg0o
Does this have to be #RealClimate:101 – To act like the characters in an 18th century Jane Austen novel – continually watching, judging and gossiping about others and, in turn, being watched, judged and gossiped about. Because, it is what it is, so when in Rome …
I have said EVs are a non-solution that damages the environment and locks us into the current socio-economic and political structures we now have, thereby ensuring our failure in addressing climate and collapse.
Confirmed:
A phalanx of billionaires are backing a new mining initiative in Greenland, in what they hope will boost access to minerals used to manufacture electric cars.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dangerous-scientists-gates-bezos-backed-174236135.html
So in your simplified world with its technology backbone of healthcare, recycling plant, long distance transport and communications how will ambulances and fire trucks operate? Do you expect to use a horse and cart? How do people get to work if distances are quite large? What powers long distance trains? You will need a significant number of electric vehicles, buses and trains.
All asked and answered repeatedly. Please stop trolling.
I do not recall any answers to those specific questions. Give me a clear answer: Do you accept there will be a need for electric vehicles for emergency services, and medium to long distance transport in at least some circumstances? Yes or no?
I do not recall any answers to those specific questions.
So you always claim.
I have told you many times: You either cannot or simply do not keep the whole context in mind. You constantly revert to siloed issues, secondary or tertiary points that ignore First Order points made, etc.
Sorry, 4+ years is all you get of wasting my time.
Here is a really good example of ‘optimism and positivity.’
The climate outlook isn’t good. Be part of the solution
Here are ten reasons to hope. If enough of us get involved, we can get there.
https://www.climateandcapitalmedia.com/the-climate-outlook-isnt-good-be-part-of-the-solution/
And it’s also another example of putting the onus on the individual.
I find that disgusting. God, how arrogant! NOTHING on localization. NOTHING on living regeneratively or sustainably. Nothing in indigenous people.
Yuck!
Re-orientating this issue back to Forced Responses where it best belongs.
Several links to info and research were posted to the AR6 WG1 1.5C related page on RC:
Paris goals to remain under 1.5C requires a NET/CDR in the order of up to 1000 GtCO2 to be CCS/sequestered under ground (this century as per the SR15 Report 2018).
The Avg Annual CO2 is tracking near 40 GtCO2 emissions. 40 x 25 years = 1000
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-ipccs-special-report-on-climate-change-at-one-point-five-c
http://kevinanderson.info/blog/the-hidden-agenda-how-veiled-techno-utopias-shore-up-the-paris-agreement/
55:01 — Myth #19: We Can Achieve Net Zero!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY&t=3301s
https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_cancelled.html
The global experts on CCS https://co2re.co/FacilityData ???
On BECCS
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618302998
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2020.553400/full
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12695
(my rough estimate only for perspective) RegenAg SOC land use changes of maybe initially 2 GtC per year (8-10 GtCO2/yr) – ramping up from there if done universally at global scale.
At no additional energy use and minimal up front costs; ultimately paying for itself.
versus
To deliver the UK Committee on Climate Change BECCS scenario of 67 Mt (0.067 Gt) of CO2 removal per year by 2050 would require approximately 22 × 500 MW power stations across the United Kingdom, and 52 Mt of bioenergy feedstock.
Published: 06 October 2020 – 10 months ago
Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need
A Review of the Literature on Industrial Carbon Removal
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5
Pulp Fiction: The European Accounting Error That’s Warming the Planet – https://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/
versus article from 2018?
Direct air capture of CO2 looks feasible, cost effective and scaleable.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air
and it’s supporting paper
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118302253
note: whenever someone posts something here, a good idea is go back to the original source, the research etc. and check it out fully – how much is conjecture how much is data driven findings? What’s the context? The scope? The purpose? In research papers I usually go straight to the Conclusions Discussion sections first, then go back up through the rest. It’s good to remain skeptical, Remain aware of your own biases, and ask probing questions. That being said there’s nothing wrong in holding to your own opinions about various solutions, plans and govt policy. But being offended by the opinion or information others provide and being nasty about it is unnecessary and irrational.