Hi Paul - great piece, and seems crazy to me this is not mainstream thinking. Are you aware of Spencer Glendon and his work at Probable Futures? May be a good sounding board for next steps as I know he thinks a lot about climate stability but I’m unsure how much he’s thought about things like SRM, etc, in addition to CO2 emissions. Also, the group at Spark Climate may have thoughts on this specific to methane as well?
Great piece summarizing the times; like that 1.5 has been breached is a clear and multiple medium message, being obfuscated- temperature is a physical state not a political declaration I think 2.7 F should go with that and the clearing up- what it means the disruption from 20th century climate compare today. The human risk of extinction has gone from near none to probable certainty at the current path, and the good and great news is the car wheel can be yanked back, but that is going to be major shifts, which we absolutely have the resources to handle , even more change to the human experience is locked in, with a lot of work and effort from a path to hell environment to the best one people have every had, on every measure including the ones we haven't been measuring like happiness
Ask yourself what blocked you from reaching this shift yourself for so long. Getting to the bottom of those blocks will make for a very compelling story and open up ways to bring others to a more realistic assessment of our predicament.
No new ideas under the sun, and many know. Sound a little preachy lots of folks claiming that space talking in it, some all in and most business practical or narrow focuses. the ideas are very old and Adam Smith, Malthus had sort of the same construct without all the defining of what a steady state would be but also part of the function of a tribe. That said I am sorry I did not get to meet Herman Daly, whose subscription I have had for many years though I let it get crowded out... I have developed and looking to begin a practical method for bringing that to the masses to make an impact, and how a million strong can make that happen.
Hi Herb, thanks for the question. A few reasons come to mind. First is that stability is a state, an outcome that feels recognizable and achievable. Second is that I think it's important to distinguish that even if we did embark on the ideal SRM plan to buy time for mitigation + CDR, that would not be a restoration of a past climate, but instead creating a new third climate that is novel. So I think restoration is the long term goal, but stabilization is what we need in the meantime.
Stabilization in a strict sense is no more possible than restoration in a strict sense.
It’s too late for that.
What can be restored is something approaching a safe and healthy climate even if it’s not identical to the 20th century climate.
Stabilization should be seen as you suggest as a midpoint along the journey that must ultimately lower temperature increases to well below 1° C for a mostly stable and a mostly livable world.
Perhaps I’m naïve or overly idealistic but I believe that showing the Climate Cognosenti that lowering temperature increases rather than just limiting the rate of future increases is entirely doable could bring an explosion of Hope and passion and interest in finding the best pathways to a restored climate in the coming decades.
Oh I agree with you in your last paragraph. And I do see stabilization as a midway point to a longer term restoration (which is dependent on massive CDR scaleup), but I envision that happening over the next couple of centuries, and stabilization could be the focus for the next few decades.
Hi Paul - great piece, and seems crazy to me this is not mainstream thinking. Are you aware of Spencer Glendon and his work at Probable Futures? May be a good sounding board for next steps as I know he thinks a lot about climate stability but I’m unsure how much he’s thought about things like SRM, etc, in addition to CO2 emissions. Also, the group at Spark Climate may have thoughts on this specific to methane as well?
Great piece summarizing the times; like that 1.5 has been breached is a clear and multiple medium message, being obfuscated- temperature is a physical state not a political declaration I think 2.7 F should go with that and the clearing up- what it means the disruption from 20th century climate compare today. The human risk of extinction has gone from near none to probable certainty at the current path, and the good and great news is the car wheel can be yanked back, but that is going to be major shifts, which we absolutely have the resources to handle , even more change to the human experience is locked in, with a lot of work and effort from a path to hell environment to the best one people have every had, on every measure including the ones we haven't been measuring like happiness
*d to today. The Human
Welcome to a movement that is now decades old and has been putting forward solutions all that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Daly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics
Ask yourself what blocked you from reaching this shift yourself for so long. Getting to the bottom of those blocks will make for a very compelling story and open up ways to bring others to a more realistic assessment of our predicament.
No new ideas under the sun, and many know. Sound a little preachy lots of folks claiming that space talking in it, some all in and most business practical or narrow focuses. the ideas are very old and Adam Smith, Malthus had sort of the same construct without all the defining of what a steady state would be but also part of the function of a tribe. That said I am sorry I did not get to meet Herman Daly, whose subscription I have had for many years though I let it get crowded out... I have developed and looking to begin a practical method for bringing that to the masses to make an impact, and how a million strong can make that happen.
I agree with your diagnosis and your prescription. I wonder however why you choose the language of stability rather than the language of restoration?
Hi Herb, thanks for the question. A few reasons come to mind. First is that stability is a state, an outcome that feels recognizable and achievable. Second is that I think it's important to distinguish that even if we did embark on the ideal SRM plan to buy time for mitigation + CDR, that would not be a restoration of a past climate, but instead creating a new third climate that is novel. So I think restoration is the long term goal, but stabilization is what we need in the meantime.
Hi Paul,
Stabilization in a strict sense is no more possible than restoration in a strict sense.
It’s too late for that.
What can be restored is something approaching a safe and healthy climate even if it’s not identical to the 20th century climate.
Stabilization should be seen as you suggest as a midpoint along the journey that must ultimately lower temperature increases to well below 1° C for a mostly stable and a mostly livable world.
Perhaps I’m naïve or overly idealistic but I believe that showing the Climate Cognosenti that lowering temperature increases rather than just limiting the rate of future increases is entirely doable could bring an explosion of Hope and passion and interest in finding the best pathways to a restored climate in the coming decades.
Oh I agree with you in your last paragraph. And I do see stabilization as a midway point to a longer term restoration (which is dependent on massive CDR scaleup), but I envision that happening over the next couple of centuries, and stabilization could be the focus for the next few decades.