Mar 21, 2023·edited Mar 21, 2023Liked by Richard Crim
The summary of policy makers is nothing compared to the full report. In this full report, that of course politicians will never read, scientists are already seeing degrowth as a viable mitigation pathway, because as you know, all the models rely on CCS and DAC, which today are still problematic and the amount of carbon they suck is minimal, it is more benefitial to restore an ecosystem than deploying CCS. The whole chapter 5 is about reducing consumption and a subtle mention to this. P.524 Chapter 5 from the Full Report of WGIII, and the word degrowth has also several mentions in the whole report. In private, I'm sure the majority of environmental scientists support degrowth, but right now, the political implications of telling that in public would be enormous.
NOBODY wants to hear that the "Late 20th Century American Lifestyle" is about to be GONE FOREVER. Saying that makes you a DOOMER and people tune you out. That's why Economists like Friedman and Nordhaus find an audience.
They preach that "THE MARKET" will fix everything and people don't have to do a thing.
CCS and DAC have been growing in significance in the IPCC studies since the late 90's. Most people don't have a clue that it has been "built in" for decades that we were committing future generations to cleaning up our mess.
Most people also don't realize that 2100 is not PEAK WARMING.
It's just what we expect the observable warming to be in 2100. We have known from day one it would get warmer after that. Hence the built in assumption that "in the future" we will probably have fusion power and new tech. Stuff that will let us "easily" fix Global Warming in the 22nd Century.
What has always boogled my mind is that we just went with this hare brained INSANE RISKS plan without a debate or a vote. We just "let" the Fossil Fuel Elites gamble with the future of civilization without even forcing them to even explain what they were doing.
Mar 21, 2023·edited Mar 21, 2023Liked by Richard Crim
I know, the thing that even bothers me more, is that actually the things that we need to do in order to mitigate/stop climate change for the most part would also improve our lifes on every aspect.
Let's hope "the economy" collapses soon. Because that will be easier to deal with, and create political possibility for the needed paradigm change, than environmental collapse. There will be a chance at something beyond civilization as we know and practice. A chance.
When the delusion is ripped away, the revealed reality will not be gentle for most minds.
Absolutely. I have written about what I call the "Great Climate Awakening" barreling towards us. It's going to wrack our world like nothing ever before.
It's not going to be a "come to Jesus" epiphany moment that inspires everyone to "vote Green". If you found out that your FUTURE had been stolen from you and "life as you knew it" was about to be over. How would you react, what would you do?
There's going to be a LOT of RAGE.
Things will get very weird after that. Lots of hedonism, lots of casual violence, lots of dropping out, lots of "bucket list" kinds of things. All in Epic numbers because it's going to be everyone at once.
There are countervailing forces at work trying to block/retard that narrative. Both from the existing governmental systems and the Fossil Fuel Elites.
The EU recently released a big study arguing that "positive stories" are what's needed. The diplomat from Costa Rica who brokered the Paris Accord has also called for "Climate Optimism".
Even here on SubStack the "Climate Optimists" label writers like me as "Doomers" and say openly in their articles that we are worse than Deniers, deluded, and misunderstand "the science". They openly say that telling people it's the end of life as they know it, isn't an effective communications strategy. EVEN IF IT'S TRUE.
On the Fossil Fuel side, they are EXTREMELY motivated to obscure their responsibility as long as possible. I have a parable that explains why.
In some of the Maya cities that died in the Great Drought centuries, they built walls at the end. Not around the city. Around the Elite areas.
In these cities you find the Elite cores burned out with evidence of fighting. Broken weapons and bodies laying unburied where they fell.
Men, women, children, and infants laying where they fell.
When the Elites failed them. When they couldn't control the weather and bring the rains. The people realized they were going to die and slaughtered them all. Then burned it all to the ground.
They are going to use every level at their disposal to confuse the public narrative as long as possible.
The summary of policy makers is nothing compared to the full report. In this full report, that of course politicians will never read, scientists are already seeing degrowth as a viable mitigation pathway, because as you know, all the models rely on CCS and DAC, which today are still problematic and the amount of carbon they suck is minimal, it is more benefitial to restore an ecosystem than deploying CCS. The whole chapter 5 is about reducing consumption and a subtle mention to this. P.524 Chapter 5 from the Full Report of WGIII, and the word degrowth has also several mentions in the whole report. In private, I'm sure the majority of environmental scientists support degrowth, but right now, the political implications of telling that in public would be enormous.
NOBODY wants to hear that the "Late 20th Century American Lifestyle" is about to be GONE FOREVER. Saying that makes you a DOOMER and people tune you out. That's why Economists like Friedman and Nordhaus find an audience.
They preach that "THE MARKET" will fix everything and people don't have to do a thing.
CCS and DAC have been growing in significance in the IPCC studies since the late 90's. Most people don't have a clue that it has been "built in" for decades that we were committing future generations to cleaning up our mess.
Most people also don't realize that 2100 is not PEAK WARMING.
It's just what we expect the observable warming to be in 2100. We have known from day one it would get warmer after that. Hence the built in assumption that "in the future" we will probably have fusion power and new tech. Stuff that will let us "easily" fix Global Warming in the 22nd Century.
What has always boogled my mind is that we just went with this hare brained INSANE RISKS plan without a debate or a vote. We just "let" the Fossil Fuel Elites gamble with the future of civilization without even forcing them to even explain what they were doing.
I know, the thing that even bothers me more, is that actually the things that we need to do in order to mitigate/stop climate change for the most part would also improve our lifes on every aspect.
"Faster than expected" from here on out.
Let's hope "the economy" collapses soon. Because that will be easier to deal with, and create political possibility for the needed paradigm change, than environmental collapse. There will be a chance at something beyond civilization as we know and practice. A chance.
When the delusion is ripped away, the revealed reality will not be gentle for most minds.
Absolutely. I have written about what I call the "Great Climate Awakening" barreling towards us. It's going to wrack our world like nothing ever before.
It's not going to be a "come to Jesus" epiphany moment that inspires everyone to "vote Green". If you found out that your FUTURE had been stolen from you and "life as you knew it" was about to be over. How would you react, what would you do?
There's going to be a LOT of RAGE.
Things will get very weird after that. Lots of hedonism, lots of casual violence, lots of dropping out, lots of "bucket list" kinds of things. All in Epic numbers because it's going to be everyone at once.
There are countervailing forces at work trying to block/retard that narrative. Both from the existing governmental systems and the Fossil Fuel Elites.
The EU recently released a big study arguing that "positive stories" are what's needed. The diplomat from Costa Rica who brokered the Paris Accord has also called for "Climate Optimism".
Even here on SubStack the "Climate Optimists" label writers like me as "Doomers" and say openly in their articles that we are worse than Deniers, deluded, and misunderstand "the science". They openly say that telling people it's the end of life as they know it, isn't an effective communications strategy. EVEN IF IT'S TRUE.
On the Fossil Fuel side, they are EXTREMELY motivated to obscure their responsibility as long as possible. I have a parable that explains why.
In some of the Maya cities that died in the Great Drought centuries, they built walls at the end. Not around the city. Around the Elite areas.
In these cities you find the Elite cores burned out with evidence of fighting. Broken weapons and bodies laying unburied where they fell.
Men, women, children, and infants laying where they fell.
When the Elites failed them. When they couldn't control the weather and bring the rains. The people realized they were going to die and slaughtered them all. Then burned it all to the ground.
They are going to use every level at their disposal to confuse the public narrative as long as possible.
A helluva time to be alive. It won’t be boring!