I think you are right. It is interesting in my own life how my usual worries can be brushed aside when a true existential threat appears. The irony is that for our society, climate change is perhaps the biggest threat we face, but we are incapable as a whole to see it. The recent focus on individualism works against sacrifice for a collective goal.
4 Likes
I love the sense of humor! 
1 Like
- Same Katherine Hayhoe, similar interview [November 12 2024] Katharine Hayhoe’s Post-Election Advice: Fight Fear, Embrace Hope and Work Together.
- Piggy-backing on the OP, coincidentally I watched an interesting and informative
movie the other day on Prime Video: Kiss the Ground Film Trailer (2020). - Surprised me. The movie is based on Josh Tickell’s book, Kiss the Ground: How the Food You Eat Can Reverse Climate Change, Heal Your Body & Ultimately Save Our World
- Most fascinating bit: “Abandon Plowing.”
How about this… I suspect a factor are the holes in the ozone layer which is inhibiting the ability of plankton to convert CO2 to O2. These ozone holes are projected to heal completely by 2066. The balance of gasses in the atmosphere will take longer to go back to normal. So there should be plenty of time for the scaremongering to make lots of money and power for some people. On the other hand, if it doesn’t recover fast enough there could still be some catastrophic impacts. So maybe there is still money to be made promoting things like biofuels. How is that for a middle ground?
OK OK, so there is still all that carbon which took millions of years to store in fossil fuels converting the atmosphere to one with 20% oxygen. I doubt we want to reverse this process. On the other hand, I am not sure this adds up. Either we have most of the fossil fuels still left, or it is not enough to turn our atmosphere back to one of CO2 rather than O2. Either way, this does not sound like it is too late.
Maybe it is more pragmatic?
The point is that at face value the options fr the individual are very limited and virtually insignificant on a global scale. One wild fire or vulcanic eruption will do more damage than all the power saving options available to the individual can reverse, but on the other hand every little helps. It is more the way things are presented. I think people become immune to sensationalism or scaremongering. There must be a better way of encouraging without all the hyperbola.
Richard
Look what the leaders of the largest countries have done and you can see that even individuals can have a significant impact.
As ‘ordinary’ citizens we have less political and economic power than the leaders but actions and campaigns can make a difference, although at a smaller scale than what the top leaders can do. If a growing group of concerned people, voters and customers, are demanding a change, the politicians and business owners listen. The pessimistic attitude that ‘we cannot do anything significant’ becomes reality if that attitude stops us from acting.
The current political atmosphere is somewhat ‘anti-environmentalist’ and the topics of climate change and the ongoing extinction wave have been pushed to the shadows. The current or past situation is not a quarantee of what will happen in the future. Below the surface, there are currents that will lead towards an altered situation. Whatever others will do, it is my responsibility to do the correct choices and that can serve as an example for the others.
As in the discussion between Peter and Jesus, Peter looked at the others and asked ‘Lord, what about him?’. The answer of Jesus practically told that do not watch what the others do or what happens to them, just follow me in your decisions (John 21:21-22 liberally paraphrased and interpreted).
4 Likes
From my understanding, plankton are limited by resources other than CO2, namely nitrogen and phosphorous so it’s not as if the plankton speed up to keep some predetermined CO2 level. Rather, the ice records from the last million years indicate that CO2 responds to temperature, and that temperature fluctuates due to the Milankovitch cycles. Those levels topped out at 280 ppm, and we are currently at 420 ppm, a 50% increase over natural levels.
As temperature increased the warmer oceans can’t hold as much CO2, so it is released into the atmosphere resulting in an additional bump in warming. Humans have broken that trend by burning fossil fuels which is increasing atmospheric CO2 independent of any warming in the oceans.
There’s also the fact that the increase in CO2 over the last 100 years is rich in 12C compared to 13C, the same bias found in fossil fuels.
One of the major concerns right now is tipping points. One example is the melting of permafrost which contains a lot of trapped carbon. If permafrost starts to decay we will see an increase in methane release. That methane will have a strong initial effect, and then a longer effect as it is oxidized into CO2.
5 Likes
That would be for the growth of more plankton, right? But as I understand it, the UV coming through those ozone holes reduces the effectiveness of existing plankton.
But yes I agree… this is hardly going to make all that carbon released from fossil fuels go away. So no, it is not going to return CO2/O2 ratios back to what they were before.
So while I made fun of it, I very much do like the idea of biofuels. And I particularly like the idea of taking advantage of the increased CO2 levels to make a conversion of algae into biofuels more cost effective.
I like a general philosophy of going forward (finding technological solutions) rather than trying to go backwards (to some time before technology).
1 Like
The one weakness there is that if we rely too heavily on restorative agriculture all we will do is postpone disaster: we have to stop adding carbon to the atmosphere!
There’s another danger, though: if we stop adding carbon to the atmosphere, but go too heavily into restorative agriculture, we could actually trigger an ice age – the ability of restorative agriculture to sequester carbon is that powerful!
1 Like
This reminds me of something I noticed in my conservation work: the greatest impact on atmospheric carbon turns out to not be from the native trees we are planting but from the plants that show up on their own once a native canopy is restored – by my recent estimate the biomass of the latter has a ratio to the former of about 1.5:1 directly, and more indirectly since it is those ‘secondary’ species that contribute most to the amount of carbon retained in the sand (turning it to something that qualifies as soil).
Whereas in my conservation work I continually see the changes forecast by the models from the early 1990s happening steadily . . . .
And research has shown that introducing more nutrients to increase plankton growth has to be done very, very carefully!
That’s a hard concept to get across to most people.
I recall from university days talk about engineering some kind of atmospheric algae that would feed on methane and precipitate out of the atmosphere – a bit of a wild idea.
One of the “digesters” that was run here as an experimental program bubbled CO_2 (don’t know from where) bubbled through the tank to enhance the process (unfortunately though the results of the pilot program were great, bureaucratic rules killed it as an ongoing endeavor).
2 Likes
In some parts of oceans, iron may be the limiting nutrient. That is why the dust storms from Sahara can boost the production of algae in the Atlantic Ocean, in areas where some of the dust falls.
UV radiation only affects the surface of the oceans and lakes, the top one meter if I remember correctly. Anything deeper than a few meters does not suffer from the UV radiation.
The CO2 in the atmosphere can turn into minerals and stay away from the carbon cycle for a long time. The natural processes are very slow and do not help much in the current situation where the addition of CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere is faster than the natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. The methane stores in the permafrost have started to melt and it seems that the release of methane is accelerating. The methane emissions from human activity have also increased. In the near future, we may have a situation where methane releases are more influential than the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
Reducing CO2 emissions helps much but as long as the input is larger than the output, we are continuing towards a worse situation. We need to remove carbon from the atmosphere, not just reduce emissions. All methods are needed, for example the restorative agriculture mentioned by @St.Roymond .
The fear that this would trigger an ice age is not very realistic, at least within the next two centuries. The processes are very slow and what is happening now will affect the climate for centuries, unless we invent a method to remove most of the carbon from the atmosphere quickly. In real life, restorative agriculture is not sufficient for this.
2 Likes
- Robert Frost’s poem Fire and Ice, I suspect, had a different intent and purpose; but given the balancing efforts of those most interested in regenerative agriculture the benefits seem to encourage and facilitate a quicker and saner approach than the global course taken now.
- From PURCHASING GUIDE:
- “Regenerative agricultural systems produce healthier and tastier food, support clean air and water, and contribute to a future we can proudly pass on to our grandchildren. The following guide will illuminate the ways we can help build, support, and contribute to these systems right now.”
- “Regenerative Agriculture is a system of farming principles and practices that increases biodiversity, enriches soils, improves watersheds, and enhances
ecosystem services. It aims to capture carbon in the soil and above ground biomass (plants), reversing current global trends of atmospheric accumulation and climate change. At the same time, it offers increased yields, resilience to climate instability, and higher health and vitality for farming and ranching communities. (www.terra-genesis.com)”
- From PURCHASING GUIDE:
2 Likes
I wonder about that. I live in Canada where we recently got rid of our carbon tax and are now talking more about building pipelines to get our oil out. But at the same time, the country beneath us seems to have made moves that out-Al-Gore Al Gore even while claiming to do the opposite:
- A range of tariffs are depressing the shipping of goods and encouraging local production.
- Higher prices, either from tariffs or more expensive local labour, are bound to reduce unecessary consumption and encourage more durable goods over disposables.
- Financial market turmoil has likewise given many less disposable income and led to more selective purchasing.
- US tariffs and border measures have decreased the appetite for international travel.
- A number of inflammatory US actions have increased patriotism and protectionism worldwide, leading more to value local goods and local vacations.
- A global economic downturn, less travel and less shipping all put downward pressure on oil prices, making oil exploration and massive projects like pipelines less viable for oil companies.
I’m sure many more points could be added. The upshot seems to be that the US has done more than a carbon tax ever could do to lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And their policy is affecting the whole world, unlike the green initiatives of most countries that only reduce emissions for themselves. The difference, of course, is that a carbon tax aims to bring reductions without severe pain, financial and otherwise, while current events show that inflicting the pain may be even better at bringing reductions.
I wonder if God might be behind it. “Okay, I gave you a few decades to deal with this the nice way, but since you didn’t, I’m unleashing Leviathan to do it the painful way.”
(If my digression is better suited for a group PM, I’m fine with it being changed.)
4 Likes
There’s a bit of irony in that. Assuming humans are going to be around for the next several hundred millennia, we will have to face the prospect of an ice age at some point. We talk about terraforming other planets, but we may need a bit of that here at home.
3 Likes
That is a phenomenon that became visible during the Covid pandemic - when the economy goes down, there is less industrial production, building and transports, leading to lower emissions. The problem with this is that it is a short-term phenomenon. There is no or very little structural adaptation towards low carbon production that would have a longer-term effect.
3 Likes
Yes, the impact of the economic downturn is similar and only likely to last several years, but it remains to be seen how long the protectionism and tariffs and localizing production will last.
3 Likes
For me, the undeniable point is that we currently have the technology to lower our net carbon footprint down to near zero. It’s a question of economics and human psychology, not technology. If we look in the mirror and be honest with ourselves, the reason things aren’t changing is because we are stubborn and selfish. A non-fossil fuel electric grid is completely doable. Electricity can power most of our transportation, and synthetic renewable fuels can be used for the rest. Developing countries are going to need a lot of assistance, but there are no physical barriers stopping it from happening. Carbon capture is also completely doable.
4 Likes
At least here, the dark side of the phenomenon is that environmental goals are postponed or forgotten to boost the national economy. For example, after the import of wood from Russia ended (due to sanctions established because of the war in Ukraine), Finnish wood industry have bought more tree from domestic sources. Increased logging has turned Finnish forests into a source of carbon emissions - the forested land releases more carbon than it can bind to the new growth. Logging should be reduced to return the forests to carbon sinks and to slow down the loss of biodiversity. Because of the current economic situation, politicians are not willing to restrict the logging in any way - chop down, baby, chop down.
Your description hints about a comparable situation in Canada: ‘got rid of carbon tax’, ‘building pipelines to get our oil out’.
5 Likes
Two different studies I read concluded that if all current agricultural land plus marginal land were turned to regenerative agriculture the CO_2 in the atmosphere could be cut by 85% in just twenty years, the amounts involved coming in terms of tons of carbon per acre. That includes adding bio char from wood waste and a few other things that we currently just throw away. It’s kind of scary, actually!
Of course the question is how long it would take to alter practices, the interesting aspect being that doing it where agriculture has been industrialized would be the hardest part.
True. The current rate of adoption of such sane practices is not a problem; the trouble would be adopting it everywhere all at once.
FWIW, decreasing atmospheric CO_2 would also increase nutritional content of plant foods!
1 Like
A side effect there is that it is making the various processes for turning plastics and other petroleum-based compounds back into raw oil no longer profitable. In a way that’s sad since four-fifths of household and commercial (not industrial) waste could be turned into oil instead of going to landfills where it ends up producing methane.
No kidding! My mind boggled when I saw and checked the numbers; it was at the same time I was reading a study on global engineering of climate solutions including putting reflective mylar over the Arctic and having airlines scatter reflective dust in the atmosphere, and it struck me that we have the means to alter the globe right here on the ground.
Reminds me of a novel where a subplot was that the ecology of Madagascar had collapsed totally, and knowledge was being swapped between there and Mars over how to deal with their respective terraforming efforts.
1 Like