There was a GREAT moment when Rachel abruptly noticed the word, ‘magic’ being employed as a kind of technical proxy ( improvised door stop ? ) to keep a notional exit propped open as she & Peter were trying to rationally explore what our civilizational situation & prospects really amount to… as in can we escape this trap !
Also AMAZING to listen to was Rachel’s pointed frustration with the utter uselessness of the last ‘50+years of alarming data’ juxtaposed w/ Peter’s calmly enunciated, expository swoops thru insanely vast multi-million year swatches of time… entire epochs deftly sorted & revealed one after the other like a casino dealer smoothly flicking a deck of tarot cards across a familiar blackjack table … while onlooking gamblers gaped in sudden surprise.
I rather like Scrooge's question of the third ghost: "Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of the things that May be only?" Dickens had the right idea. We know very little for sure other than things are going to get worse if we do nothing. No timetable we can rely on and even what is predicted to happen may or may not happen or may happen at a very different time than we thought and other things may happen that we never even thought of. All we can do is act as if it is happening.
We are developing energy capture and storage technology at breakneck speed and we are going to need this whatever. We are developing viable regenerative farming practices which farmers in the Northern hemisphere are adopting in ever-greater numbers (perhaps elsewhere too - I've no information on this). This is something that will see us into the future and improve our lives regardless of whether we are all unnecessarily dooming or not.
There is much else, of course, that needs to happen that is not currently being done and while we all do need to start in our homes and in the community around us we also need to organise to persuade our governments that business as usual is about as sensible as putting a rope around your neck and jumping off a cliff. Its a very short buzz!
"We know very little for sure other than things are going to get worse if we do nothing. No timetable we can rely on and even what is predicted to happen may or may not happen or may happen at a very different time than we thought and other things may happen that we never even thought of. All we can do is act as if it is happening."
For the following reasons:
"When a sense of urgency is added to solving perceived existential threats while they remain vague, it results in hastily implemented remedies that lack careful consideration, while neglecting rigorous real-world testing. Responding to poorly defined crises with ambiguous remedies translates into what could be termed “wicked solutions” for *wicked problems. If the outcomes reflect even more wickedness, in the form of contradictory results, unintended consequences, and additional complexity, it shouldn’t come as a surprise.
* So-called ‘wicked problems’ have been described as difficult-to-explain issues, which can make them confusing. Understanding these problems proves challenging because they span multiple disciplines, crossing traditional boundaries. Considered existential threats, ‘wicked problems’ are believed to require immediate attention. In brief, they are described as “hard to understand but urgent to solve”.
I agree that we all need something to believe in, but we should be wary of destructive dogmas. Belief systems can be very destructive, as history tells us. Are we able to learn from history?
"Many people have stopped believing in traditional religions, you know? So, they don’t believe in God, but they need something beyond themselves to believe in. What could be more noble than saving the planet?"
(Elimination of CO2 is a suicide pact – Professor William Happer on climate change misconceptions and hysteria).
None has suggested that all CO2 be eliminated from the atmosphere. The role of CO2 in photosynthesis and the greenhouse effect is well understood. Happer has no expertise nor credibility in climate science.
Rachel, love your conversations with Simon and Nafeez. They are great sources of useful information, and you ask all the right questions. They have the problem defined accurately, but their solutions are a bit complicated. I am a renewable energy engineer in the States..we have a strategy to deal with the buffer issue that is simple and cost effective. .Is there any way to send you info. Its too much to post here. If you want to keep your email private, mine is westbrookandfoster@gmail.com. I think you will find our info useful.
Despite the absence of cars, planes, or industries causing massive carbon emissions during the Roman Empire, temperatures were generally higher back then. Moreover, Rome was flourishing. Furthermore, carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere were also higher during that period. The decline of the Roman Empire coincided with a subsequent drop in overall temperatures, suggesting a cyclic pattern of empires rising and falling in conjunction with temperature fluctuations.
I assume you're talking about a climatic abberation that lasted less than 200 years and we have no way to verify with any sort of precision. Furthermore I wonder if the fine people over at EnergyShifts.net could possibly have an ulterior motive in trying to squash grass roots movements on the internet. No war but class war, and I assume the grunts shit-posting all day aren't in the top 1%. Thanks for half assing it at least.
I have done my homework unlike you and Ms Donald (and many of her interviewees).
As for "trying to squash grass roots movements", here is my view on the (so-called) grassroots movements of today:
"It seems that grassroots environmentalism has been displaced and overtaken by pseudo-environmentalism. However, in truth, the modern environmental movement has always been used as a platform to advance political, social, and commercial interests that are not directly linked to the environment.
By invoking environmental concerns, assertions of morality and ethics are made to advocate for the phasing out of fossil fuels. However, authentic environmentalism would require questioning the damaging effects of implementing renewable energy solutions for the energy transition.
Environmentalists might be taken more seriously if they campaigned against fast fashion and planned obsolescence, both of which are prime examples of replacing goods rather than recycling them.
Activists may consider it ‘unfair criticism’, but the reality is that most of them use Smartphones for their online campaigning, wear fast-fashion items to their protests, and travel to their campaigns and protests in automobiles that run on fossil fuels.
To state the obvious, for the environment to be protected, clothes and electronics would have to be produced in a way that extends their lifespans, reducing waste and making them more recyclable. However, the current model dictates that items must be replaced with lower quality products that are often not properly recyclable, resulting in more frequent discarding.
Surprisingly, this ongoing state of affairs is still rarely addressed compared to other
"It is noteworthy that in the face of alternative facts,
environmentalists generally tend to stick to their guns, suggesting that environmentalism is a dogma-driven phenomenon, akin to a secular religion. This aspect was recognised by depth psychologists decades ago. "
Davis, W. J. (2023). Mass extinctions and their relationship with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration: Implications for Earth's future. Earth's Future, 11, e2022EF003336. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003336
The majority of extinction events occur in the CO2 concentration range of 700–1,100 ppmv.
Many plants die when CO2 falls below 150 ppm due to oxygen starvation and they struggle to flourish below 200 ppm. We are now at around 400 ppm, so we are only about 200 ppm above CO2 starvation levels. The 700 - 1,000 ppm levels that you mention are much further away from 400 ppm [our current levels] than 200 ppm.
Excellent interview, despite the somber tone! Definitely an eye opener 👀
There was a GREAT moment when Rachel abruptly noticed the word, ‘magic’ being employed as a kind of technical proxy ( improvised door stop ? ) to keep a notional exit propped open as she & Peter were trying to rationally explore what our civilizational situation & prospects really amount to… as in can we escape this trap !
Also AMAZING to listen to was Rachel’s pointed frustration with the utter uselessness of the last ‘50+years of alarming data’ juxtaposed w/ Peter’s calmly enunciated, expository swoops thru insanely vast multi-million year swatches of time… entire epochs deftly sorted & revealed one after the other like a casino dealer smoothly flicking a deck of tarot cards across a familiar blackjack table … while onlooking gamblers gaped in sudden surprise.
E
I enjoyed this. Thank you for the determined and continued search for solutions to this intangible series of problems.
I rather like Scrooge's question of the third ghost: "Are these the shadows of the things that Will be, or are they shadows of the things that May be only?" Dickens had the right idea. We know very little for sure other than things are going to get worse if we do nothing. No timetable we can rely on and even what is predicted to happen may or may not happen or may happen at a very different time than we thought and other things may happen that we never even thought of. All we can do is act as if it is happening.
We are developing energy capture and storage technology at breakneck speed and we are going to need this whatever. We are developing viable regenerative farming practices which farmers in the Northern hemisphere are adopting in ever-greater numbers (perhaps elsewhere too - I've no information on this). This is something that will see us into the future and improve our lives regardless of whether we are all unnecessarily dooming or not.
There is much else, of course, that needs to happen that is not currently being done and while we all do need to start in our homes and in the community around us we also need to organise to persuade our governments that business as usual is about as sensible as putting a rope around your neck and jumping off a cliff. Its a very short buzz!
I would disagree strongly with this part:
"We know very little for sure other than things are going to get worse if we do nothing. No timetable we can rely on and even what is predicted to happen may or may not happen or may happen at a very different time than we thought and other things may happen that we never even thought of. All we can do is act as if it is happening."
For the following reasons:
"When a sense of urgency is added to solving perceived existential threats while they remain vague, it results in hastily implemented remedies that lack careful consideration, while neglecting rigorous real-world testing. Responding to poorly defined crises with ambiguous remedies translates into what could be termed “wicked solutions” for *wicked problems. If the outcomes reflect even more wickedness, in the form of contradictory results, unintended consequences, and additional complexity, it shouldn’t come as a surprise.
* So-called ‘wicked problems’ have been described as difficult-to-explain issues, which can make them confusing. Understanding these problems proves challenging because they span multiple disciplines, crossing traditional boundaries. Considered existential threats, ‘wicked problems’ are believed to require immediate attention. In brief, they are described as “hard to understand but urgent to solve”.
[Truth and Energy at the Crossroads]
We clearly have very different views. I hope yours work for you. We all need something to believe in.
I agree that we all need something to believe in, but we should be wary of destructive dogmas. Belief systems can be very destructive, as history tells us. Are we able to learn from history?
"Many people have stopped believing in traditional religions, you know? So, they don’t believe in God, but they need something beyond themselves to believe in. What could be more noble than saving the planet?"
(Elimination of CO2 is a suicide pact – Professor William Happer on climate change misconceptions and hysteria).
https://www.biznews.com/global-investing/2022/11/04/co2-happer
None has suggested that all CO2 be eliminated from the atmosphere. The role of CO2 in photosynthesis and the greenhouse effect is well understood. Happer has no expertise nor credibility in climate science.
"Net-Zero" ...
Prof Happer was a presidential scientific adviser (twice).
So what.
"Happy warriors", yep, why not make it fun!
Rachel, love your conversations with Simon and Nafeez. They are great sources of useful information, and you ask all the right questions. They have the problem defined accurately, but their solutions are a bit complicated. I am a renewable energy engineer in the States..we have a strategy to deal with the buffer issue that is simple and cost effective. .Is there any way to send you info. Its too much to post here. If you want to keep your email private, mine is westbrookandfoster@gmail.com. I think you will find our info useful.
Despite the absence of cars, planes, or industries causing massive carbon emissions during the Roman Empire, temperatures were generally higher back then. Moreover, Rome was flourishing. Furthermore, carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere were also higher during that period. The decline of the Roman Empire coincided with a subsequent drop in overall temperatures, suggesting a cyclic pattern of empires rising and falling in conjunction with temperature fluctuations.
Everything is cyclic, including mass extinctions: Here's a millions-of-years timeline that shows our CO2 levels are presently near the low end of the historical scale, not at the high end: https://jimdo-storage.freetls.fastly.net/image/226539733/d3b53e95-a292-43eb-bf65-a5100125d5fb.jpg?format=pjpg&quality=80,90&auto=webp&disable=upscale&width=1280&height=576&trim=0,0,0,0
I assume you're talking about a climatic abberation that lasted less than 200 years and we have no way to verify with any sort of precision. Furthermore I wonder if the fine people over at EnergyShifts.net could possibly have an ulterior motive in trying to squash grass roots movements on the internet. No war but class war, and I assume the grunts shit-posting all day aren't in the top 1%. Thanks for half assing it at least.
Please see references numbers 3-11 at the bottom of this page that supports my comment above:
https://archive.ph/ZVliB
As for the chart above, the million of years part is based on one of the most credible and referenced studies on CO2 levels:
https://typeset.io/papers/geocarb-iii-a-revised-model-of-atmospheric-co2-over-4jxmgwzkl6
I have done my homework unlike you and Ms Donald (and many of her interviewees).
As for "trying to squash grass roots movements", here is my view on the (so-called) grassroots movements of today:
"It seems that grassroots environmentalism has been displaced and overtaken by pseudo-environmentalism. However, in truth, the modern environmental movement has always been used as a platform to advance political, social, and commercial interests that are not directly linked to the environment.
By invoking environmental concerns, assertions of morality and ethics are made to advocate for the phasing out of fossil fuels. However, authentic environmentalism would require questioning the damaging effects of implementing renewable energy solutions for the energy transition.
Environmentalists might be taken more seriously if they campaigned against fast fashion and planned obsolescence, both of which are prime examples of replacing goods rather than recycling them.
Activists may consider it ‘unfair criticism’, but the reality is that most of them use Smartphones for their online campaigning, wear fast-fashion items to their protests, and travel to their campaigns and protests in automobiles that run on fossil fuels.
To state the obvious, for the environment to be protected, clothes and electronics would have to be produced in a way that extends their lifespans, reducing waste and making them more recyclable. However, the current model dictates that items must be replaced with lower quality products that are often not properly recyclable, resulting in more frequent discarding.
Surprisingly, this ongoing state of affairs is still rarely addressed compared to other
environmental issues."
https://archive.ph/HRkmB
I'm not reading that lol. Thank you again for wasting your time.
Thanks for confirming:
"It is noteworthy that in the face of alternative facts,
environmentalists generally tend to stick to their guns, suggesting that environmentalism is a dogma-driven phenomenon, akin to a secular religion. This aspect was recognised by depth psychologists decades ago. "
[Truth and Energy at the Crossroads]
👍
Davis, W. J. (2023). Mass extinctions and their relationship with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration: Implications for Earth's future. Earth's Future, 11, e2022EF003336. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003336
The majority of extinction events occur in the CO2 concentration range of 700–1,100 ppmv.
we're halfway there.
Many plants die when CO2 falls below 150 ppm due to oxygen starvation and they struggle to flourish below 200 ppm. We are now at around 400 ppm, so we are only about 200 ppm above CO2 starvation levels. The 700 - 1,000 ppm levels that you mention are much further away from 400 ppm [our current levels] than 200 ppm.
CO2 levels have not been this high in 14,000,000 years. The CenCO2PIP Consortium, Science 382,
eadi5177 (2023). DOI: 10.1126/science.adi5177