What We Have, What’s at Stake, and What Can Be Done

What We Have:

At Bonn Climate Conference June 2022

Leading up to COP27 November 2022

in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt

 

Maybe we can agree

to discuss having a discussion

about the discussion

if we can first agree

what to call the discussion

but we can’t.

What’s at Stake:

Used with permission of CSER Cambridge.

In 2020 I posted a brief chart about impacts of  “What 2C, 3 C, 4 C, and 5 C Mean,” but the above video is much more detailed. It is my recent favorite climate video, and was made by writer/advisor (for The Maldives, Government of the Netherlands, “and vulnerable countries”) Mark Lynas and host Luke Kemp. It was posted Feb 4, 2022, and as of today 9/12/2022 has 25,010 views, but it deserves over two million views.

This post is taking longer than usual because my wife is scolding me to take out the garbage, and do other chores. “Uh, I’m helping save all human and nonhuman life on Earth if that’s okay with you,” I said. She said it wasn’t okay.

What Can Be Done:

In the above video Mark Lynas argued human behavior change is not a realistic plan to respond to the climate issue so we must focus on scalable technology solutions. He may be right, but what if scalable technology solutions are not possible, given fast rate of change, before human societies fall apart? Interviewer Luke Kemp responded to the issue of “stratospheric aerosol injection” which I noted in a previous post, according to Corey Gabriel, Executive Director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Masters of Advanced Studies in Climate Science and Policy, is not currently possible at large scale: “Professor Gabriel said large-scale geoengineering is a challenge because the least expensive method of using sulphate particulates is not currently possible over 1 C above the 1850 baseline when they fall from the sky, and we are at or over 1 C now [1.2 C as of September 2022]. Therefore, he believes more research is needed, but [he said] small-scale geoengineering will do more good than harm.”  Kemp noted in the above video, ”I think that it’s likely to happen in uncoordinated unilateral fashion. [ . . . ] This is what the modeling almost never actually accounts for. They always kind of assume this coordinated [ . . . ] best-case scenario in terms of governance. I think if it does happen, it’s probably going to happen in a much more ramshackle fashion. And I can’t see us doing it if it stays at 1.5 but once things get to 2 degrees or 3 degrees [C above 1850 preindustrial baseline] if the impacts you [ Mark Lynas . . . ] laid out here do come to fruition, I think it only takes one country to spend a couple billion. They’re going to.”

 

I agree with Kemp as I wrote in my aforementioned post, “Scientist and Forbes writer James Conca noted September 10, 2019, '[ . . . . ] The Chinese have specifically said they will do exactly this [small-scale solar geoengineering] if things get too out of hand with global warming. And they have a robust research program already underway.'"

 

So what next?  I was impressed with inventor and MacArthur Fellow Saul Griffith’s idea in another Forbes article, “Climate Change Ponzi Scheme” April 6, 2009. Griffith wrote, “You know those adults who don't let you stay out late, don't let you see certain movies, don't let you vote--and don't install enough solar cells and wind turbines? Well, you hold something in your hands that scares the willies out of them: their own self-interested future. Next time they refuse you a reasonable request, like a beer on your 18th birthday, the keys to the Prius, or a regulated carbon market, on the grounds that it's irresponsible, simply reply: 'Then I won't cover your health care costs and you can rot in your rusty wheelchair with no dentures to speak of.'"