Two weeks ago, I spent four days at the Global Tipping Points conference in Exeter listening to scientists describe civilization-threatening catastrophes.
I've had past experiences with climate activists that resonate with what you're expressing here. They envision the world through their own biased lens and then apply a logic that leads to a very limited answer: stop consuming, turn into vegetarians, quit the growth mindset, etc. At its absurd limit, we should all turn into bicycle-riding vegetarian monks, an image that brings to mind the uniforms that Mao forced upon China when when he tried to impose his version of equality.
In one such meeting, I asked why businesses had not been invited. Shouldn't climate activists seek to form broad alliances to increase their reach and effectiveness? Their frosty silence to my question was as telling as it was telling for yours. This was outside the accepted norms of their groupthink: business was the problem, therefore couldn't be part of the solution.
Our world is diverse and it is unbelievably haughty for a handful of scientists to set their narrow terms onto everyone else. When looking for climate solutions, everything should be on the table and open to scrutiny, with fair questions asked. And everyone should participate, not only a group of self-appointed climate aristocrats. Solutions will emerge from these many voices, not from a few.
In times of crisis, humanity has come together and acted with resolve. The Marshall Plan is one example of this, the global distribution of billions of doses for Covid is another. When the global financial system was threatened in 2008, the spigots of money were opened full blast and the system was stabilized. We're facing the same catastrophic threat. What could we do when the spigots of money are once again opened wide and we focussed all our efforts on solving the climate crisis?
I think you’re absolutely right regarding the absence of the acknowledgment of negative human system tipping points and positive earth system tipping points.
From my conversations and a couple of the questions asked of the panelists it seemed that there was a significant undercurrent of appropriate skepticism about positive tipping points.
Here’s a talk I gave to open a London Climate Week event the previous week.
I attempted in 10 minutes to give my perspective on what’s needed to potentially stop and reverse the climate crisis which again seems very compatible with your post
I was also at the conference and had a very similar experience and set of reactions as you so able articulate.
Most of the Climate scientists I spoke with at the meeting were very cool - no pun intended - towards SRM but a number of non-scientists who are there were much more open.
Here is an interview I conducted with Johan Rockstrom at the conference on behalf of the Climate Emergency Forum.
Midway through the interview I asked him about Oliver’s comments and I was surprised at his response even though I knew that he had previously articulated reservations about SRM.
Thanks for sharing that interview Herb. I understand the arguments he made there:
* SRM would be hard to get right, and it comes with its own risks
* the governance would be very challenging
These are true and correct. But that's not sufficient reason not to research, or not to include it in the scientific discussion.
I believe that the negative vs positive tipping points framework is missing something here.
There are negative Earth system tipping points, but there are also negative human system tipping points (e.g. increased warming > increased migration > political instability > rise of populism, etc.) Similarly, there are positive tipping points for both Earth systems and human systems. We spent a lot of time at the conference discussing negative Earth system tipping points, and positive human system tipping points, but very little attention on the other two. The overall analysis seems incomplete without incorporating all four of those.
I've had past experiences with climate activists that resonate with what you're expressing here. They envision the world through their own biased lens and then apply a logic that leads to a very limited answer: stop consuming, turn into vegetarians, quit the growth mindset, etc. At its absurd limit, we should all turn into bicycle-riding vegetarian monks, an image that brings to mind the uniforms that Mao forced upon China when when he tried to impose his version of equality.
In one such meeting, I asked why businesses had not been invited. Shouldn't climate activists seek to form broad alliances to increase their reach and effectiveness? Their frosty silence to my question was as telling as it was telling for yours. This was outside the accepted norms of their groupthink: business was the problem, therefore couldn't be part of the solution.
Our world is diverse and it is unbelievably haughty for a handful of scientists to set their narrow terms onto everyone else. When looking for climate solutions, everything should be on the table and open to scrutiny, with fair questions asked. And everyone should participate, not only a group of self-appointed climate aristocrats. Solutions will emerge from these many voices, not from a few.
In times of crisis, humanity has come together and acted with resolve. The Marshall Plan is one example of this, the global distribution of billions of doses for Covid is another. When the global financial system was threatened in 2008, the spigots of money were opened full blast and the system was stabilized. We're facing the same catastrophic threat. What could we do when the spigots of money are once again opened wide and we focussed all our efforts on solving the climate crisis?
love your fresh and thought-provoking perspective on geoengineering Paul!
I think you’re absolutely right regarding the absence of the acknowledgment of negative human system tipping points and positive earth system tipping points.
From my conversations and a couple of the questions asked of the panelists it seemed that there was a significant undercurrent of appropriate skepticism about positive tipping points.
Here’s a talk I gave to open a London Climate Week event the previous week.
I attempted in 10 minutes to give my perspective on what’s needed to potentially stop and reverse the climate crisis which again seems very compatible with your post
https://youtu.be/jsbp3ClHpvM?si=Qk2wWS-NxhVSjP5k
I was also at the conference and had a very similar experience and set of reactions as you so able articulate.
Most of the Climate scientists I spoke with at the meeting were very cool - no pun intended - towards SRM but a number of non-scientists who are there were much more open.
Here is an interview I conducted with Johan Rockstrom at the conference on behalf of the Climate Emergency Forum.
Midway through the interview I asked him about Oliver’s comments and I was surprised at his response even though I knew that he had previously articulated reservations about SRM.
https://youtu.be/tG-hh-gSKFQ?si=h59SLGNiwCUz7hHQ
Thanks for sharing that interview Herb. I understand the arguments he made there:
* SRM would be hard to get right, and it comes with its own risks
* the governance would be very challenging
These are true and correct. But that's not sufficient reason not to research, or not to include it in the scientific discussion.
I believe that the negative vs positive tipping points framework is missing something here.
There are negative Earth system tipping points, but there are also negative human system tipping points (e.g. increased warming > increased migration > political instability > rise of populism, etc.) Similarly, there are positive tipping points for both Earth systems and human systems. We spent a lot of time at the conference discussing negative Earth system tipping points, and positive human system tipping points, but very little attention on the other two. The overall analysis seems incomplete without incorporating all four of those.