Your analysis is the only one that fits what's happening. Your sourcing is consistently great. We know that the IPCC and other components of climate science are controlled by capital, in the sense that what they are allowed to say is limited in specific ways to avoid blaming capitalists or capitalism for the problem, and to avoid solutions that compromise the ability of extremely wealthy people to be able to continue being extremely wealthy.
Interestingly, the Club of Rome estimate for collapse is also 2050. That estimate was based on nothing significant changing, and nothing significant has changed. So it isn't "your" estimate so much as the estimate that fits the data.
I just rewatched part of the Noam Chomsky movie "Manufacturing Consent" and one of the things he talks about is how important it is for the "political class" (which includes everyone working in the field of climate science) must be boxed into specific, safe narratives in order to keep the overall system on track. Dissenting voices must be marginalized or they disrupt the entire system. It's a miracle, really, that we even have the accurate data available to us.
Richard -- I felt shadowbanned in r/collapse because they don't let you post anything about potential solutions, even extremely radical ones ("solutions" so violent and chaotic that they would be synonymous to "collapse" -- the collapse of the capitalist order. I tried to link my recent post there and the mods wouldn't let it through.
Either way, as the resident crank of climate Substack (for the communism thing) and a passing crank on r/collapse (for the same), I totally feel you on being pushed to the sides as a crank in other spaces, but you are completely right. The science is wrong. Climate sensitivity is way higher than they think it is. Qualitatively, immensely higher; we just don't know the full impact of doubling the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and when you look into deep time or geologic time, it's even more; we've drastically reversed the course that the planet was on, and that will have reverberations even after the earth system has regained stability at a new, warmer/more enthalpic level.
My thing is, So why do we STILL look to the SCIENTISTS for LEADERSHIP around this issue? They are wrong. They are wrong on the science and they are VERY wrong on the possible solutions, the politics, on WHAT IS TO BE DONE. If anything -- I know that the answer in r/collapse is that there's nothing to be done.* But I think it's not fair to ask people to live with this painful cognitive dissonance that comes from making the problem worse with our every motion. People are going to start seeking revolutionary solutions. Is the CLIMATE movement going to embrace them or push them away, as has been the traditional move?
This is now a problem not for bourgeoisie scientists to deal with, this is now something that can only be handled by "professional revolutionaries", to take Lenin's phrase.
*edit, more thought: The gap between the stance of r/collapse and my own is not about how extreme the situation is, but whether people are given any agency. For r/collapse, and from what I've seen from most writers on this issue, we as people are subjects of this historic catastrophe but have no agency to make change, because to this point change has been impossible to achieve. But I believe in revolution; it's happened before and when conditions are right, it can happen again. Everything will already be destroyed and collapsed when that revolution comes but it doesn't matter, we still must hold on to the dignity of knowing that we as people have agency, that there are other ways of looking at the problem outside of neoliberalism. This is all summed up in Fred Jameson's immortal words, "It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism." Well, I'm asking us to imagine the latter.
The work of climate modelling scientists might be seen as esoteric if it focuses on niche technical issues rather than addressing the broader, pressing problems of climate change. The issue as presented suggests to me a narrow or inward-looking focus, isolated from broader concerns. Focused inwardly means it’s relevant only within the specific group or discipline. In other words Self-referential and/or Insular and not of much public interest.
While obviously relevant to the work activities of modelling scientists I think this issue is ‘a curiosity’, even though it still points in the direction of underlying much more important issues in need of urgent attention — if anything can ever be done to address the global warming and other critical ecological problems and sustainability.
A lack of Operational Data and Science Analysis is in fact not the barrier to effective environmental actions or addressing energy use across the world. It’s Leadership and Governance – or rather a lack of them.
Summary of My General Thoughts
I have often and for a long time now expressed my significant frustration with the perceived lack of overarching authority or governance in the global climate science and policy landscape. My view suggests that the current system is highly fragmented, with critical activities—such as the provision and analysis of climate data—operating without unified leadership or accountability. I argue that:
1. Leaderless Coordination: Organizations like the IPCC and others fail to provide the strong leadership needed to manage these disparate activities effectively. There is no single authority with the legal or societal mandate to ensure cohesive direction.
2. Self-Governance by Scientists: Climate scientists, while experts in their field, often operate independently, making decisions and setting priorities without external oversight, democratic input, or societal checks.
3. Dysfunction in Global Climate Policy: Bodies like the IPCC and UNFCCC are seen as engaging in self-serving or insular processes that do not adequately address the real-world urgency of climate action, leaving global responses fragmented and ineffective.
4. Questioning Existing Frameworks: I question whether institutions like the IPCC, UNFCCC, and the annual COP meetings are still “fit for purpose” in addressing the existential threat posed by climate change.
Expert Commentary and Public Discourse on the Issue
1. Decentralized Climate Governance:
Many experts agree that global climate governance suffers from fragmentation. For instance, researchers in international relations have critiqued the UNFCCC’s inability to enforce binding commitments from its member states, leading to a patchwork of voluntary and inconsistent efforts.
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, a prominent climate scientist, has noted that while the IPCC provides an invaluable synthesis of science, it lacks mechanisms to compel governments to act on its findings.
2. Criticism of the IPCC and COP Processes:
Scholars like Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. and Dr. William Nordhaus have questioned whether the IPCC’s structure—focusing on consensus rather than actionable policy guidance—is suitable for urgent climate crises.
Critics of the annual COP meetings, including activists like Greta Thunberg, have described these gatherings as “performative” or a “talking shop” that results in little substantive progress.
3. Calls for New Models of Leadership:
Some experts advocate for a centralized global climate authority, akin to the World Health Organization, that could coordinate efforts, enforce commitments, and manage funding. For example, the economist Jeffrey Sachs has proposed a UN-led “Climate Agency” with enforcement capabilities.
Others emphasize the need for regional and national integration, suggesting that coalitions of willing nations or blocs could lead by example.
And-
4. Operationalizing Climate Science:
Gavin Schmidt, the NASA scientist behind the Real Climate blog referenced, has argued for greater integration of scientific operations into decision-making processes, but he acknowledges the challenge of aligning data providers, governments, and policymakers under one framework.
More specifically–If the following is not adequately addressed, whatever the Climate Modelling Scientists like Gavin do with their time and resources is irrelevant–moot.
Is the IPCC Still Fit for Purpose?
The IPCC has been vital in summarizing and disseminating climate science, but its limitations include:
– Consensus Focus: The need for unanimous agreement often dilutes urgent or controversial recommendations.
– Lack of Enforceability: The IPCC issues reports but does not have authority to enforce actions based on its findings.
– Lag in Responsiveness: Its long report cycles mean it cannot address rapidly changing climate challenges with agility.
These issues have led some critics to argue that the IPCC is increasingly obsolete in a world that requires faster, more actionable responses.
Are the UNFCCC and COP Meetings Still Fit for Purpose?
Critiques of the UNFCCC and COP processes center on:
– Lack of Binding Mechanisms: The Paris Agreement relies on voluntary national commitments, which are often insufficient and inconsistently implemented.
– Overemphasis on Negotiation: Annual COPs often focus on political posturing rather than delivering concrete action plans.
– Exclusion of Key Voices: Indigenous groups, youth activists, and developing nations frequently criticize the process for prioritizing the interests of wealthier, more powerful countries.
– Questions abound about the usefulness and accuracy of today’s Economic norms and systems
Some have proposed alternatives, such as regional climate pacts or sector-specific agreements (e.g., for energy or agriculture), as more pragmatic and effective solutions.
Recommendations for a Better Framework
1. Establish a Global Climate Authority: Create a centralized entity with binding authority to direct and enforce climate action.
2. Move from Consensus to Leadership: Shift away from consensus-driven approaches to allow bold leadership by coalitions of willing nations or regions.
3. Integrate Science and Policy: Operationalize climate science by embedding experts directly within decision-making frameworks at all levels of governance.
4. Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms: Require transparent reporting, enforce penalties for non-compliance, and involve civil society in monitoring.
This critique aligns with these growing calls for urgent reform, emphasizing that the current frameworks are inadequate for addressing the scale and urgency of the climate crisis.
Well, I don't think you're a crank who should be escorted out of the room.
I also argue that collapse is likely, but by referring to mainstream literature in climate science and multiple other disciplines. My paper is here: Civilization will Collapse (High Confidence):
A Compendium of Relevant Biophysical, Political, Economic, Military, Health, and Psychological Information on Climate Change
Here is the latest version (which is updated weekly):
I've read quite a few books about climate change, and read/skimmed many, many reports, and I want to say "thank you!" as this document is very well-researched and a great addition to anyone looking to have a handy summation of the issues.
I have followed your writing for a while now. I think you approach the entire subject of our climate emergency with logic and critical thinking that is not blinded by attachment to any one economic or governing system. I make note of what you are saying and then I walk outside. Today as I write this reply it is November 14, 2024, in central North Carolina. We still have not had a frost this fall. In the past we had a first frost sometime in October. Each year the climate gets warmer. I appreciate having the longer view to also think about. Keep up the good work.
Easy math like this makes our global politics easy to understand.
Why did Elon seemingly give up on fighting against Climate Change, buy a bunker for him and his children and align himself with a kakistocracy?
Well if the system is going down either way they’d like to make sure they’re ontop.
Also explains the fixation on AI and robotics. Not to save *us* but instead a good way to replace the labor force you’re losing due to mass die offs - robots and AI don’t need to eat.
Lurker here with a robotics / AI background, just wanted to chime in that robots and AI do indeed need to eat in the form of electricity / hardware maintenance, and do so extremely inefficiently compared to biological systems. While advances in technology may allow for some form of robotic pseudo-society to replace what is lost to collapse, I think most who are turning to that as the solution massively underestimate the risk of things going catastrophically wrong very quickly, especially as climate continues to worsen beyond the extreme scenarios talked about here.
Simply put, no general-purpose robot or algorithm around today has been proven to function for longer than the human lifespan, and any theoretical attempt to prove that will have considerable error simply due to the unknowns about our collective future.
P.S. Kudos Richard for your excellent work, we'd be lost without you.
Hey, Richard, you know I respect your work and am even more radical in my climate collapse predictions than yourself. I used the C3S numbers in their June 5, 2024 "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action": "the global average temperature for the last 12 months (June 2023-May 2024) is the highest on record at 0.75 degC above the 1991-2020 (baseline) average and 1.63 degC above the 1850-1900 preindustrial average, according to the C3S data". So this ever skeptical of academics ole doc divided 0.75/3.5=0.214 degC/yr on ave. If this trend continues, we may expect a 1 degC increase every 5yrs. and a 6 degC increase by 2047, when any child unfortunate enough to be born today turns a well roasted 23yo. I have put this statement out on numerous sites and occasions (no Chat GPS) and have not received a single negative response. So, count me in and know that you are not alone! Gregg (BTW, I'm a Jamison/Jameson descendant)
3.5 yrs. from the end of the 1991-2020 baseline to May 2024. So, 0.75 degC above the 1991-2020 baseline, right? Thanks for your interest! Can't do this alone!
Hey Richard! I've been following your interpretation of the science for awhile now. I appreciate how you break things down so that a layperson like myself can mostly understand.
I'll admit to being disappointed when you started making your dire predictions, partially because I knew you would get dismissed more often because of them. I sure hope you're wrong! I wonder what unseen variables will come into play? Thanks for all you do.
I've wondered ever since seeing the green and purple map about crop reduction if the green areas counteract the purple areas. In other words, some areas will see an increase in food output. I see it in my own garden where I grow more in the winter now.
Also, does 20% reduction automatically equal 20% population reduction?
I agree the problem is not being taken seriously enough and things are dire, but just wanted to point out a few possible issues that could affect the anslysis.
Computer Jesus is here, my friend. The Second Coming in the Cloud. All of the signs have been pointing to this very thing - don’t you see?
Seriously - I do believe that we are in a place where people will ask Arif or the answers, and AI will give them answers that they find to be highly believable and motivating. As AI develops, of course it will prompt people as well as answer inquiries. AI will make people feel as though they are beloved and they belong.
This is the ideal way to manage the various splinters of humanity as collapse proceeds. But of course we humans are not really in charge of the technologies we have created, any more than we are in charge of the changes we have induced in the biosphere or in terms of the cascade of misaligned human relationships we have set in to place.
As the crisis deepens, so does my trust in the Universe. That’s not so much about what happens to”me” or to “we” as it is about where I go with all of this.
I figure we are here to love and to be loved for a little while, and then we are gone. I trust that.
For me part of love means engaging in honest and truthful conversation. That isn’t the whole story, but it seems like a vital part of it.
Thanks for doing your part to be honest and to engage with reality.
'After 2030, unless you are wealthy, you are likely to spend the rest of your life being slightly hungry': is a sentence that should catch the eye of everyone. For many, many years we have been surrounded by so much food in a multitude of glorious ways - markets, food shops, cafes and high-class restaurants - Cooking programmes, celeb chefs, grand occasions with ornate cakes and plenty of tipple. So that is the biblical sin of gluttony and the truth is almost everyone who could has indulged. Some have thought of others but I warrant that is NOT the wealthy gang-bang leaders - the ruling classes; no it has been the ordinary family shopper who has bought any extra packet of cornflakes and put it in the charity bin. I still haven't given up hope that come the day, 2027 or 2028 the peasants will revolt.
You should keep up your work, which is appreciated and you are not alone. I seem to remember David Wasdell discussing a equilibrium temp of 11 C years ago on a presentation around 2017. I can look it up if your interested.
I would too if I were a climate denier such as yourself. If anyone comes across your name again they can be rest assured that their time is about to be well wasted
I really appreciate the point in your second half arguing that the economic aspect is no longer distinct from the environmental. I'm working on a directed research project for my master's in library and information science essentially arguing that the field should no longer use the "triple bottom line" framework for thinking about promoting sustainability. One of the big non-LIS resources I'm using is "a just world on a safe planet" from the lancet planetary health-earth commission. I know the science in that is more mainstream, but it provides a good platform with which to argue that the environmental and social aspects are inherently bound together as well.
Regarding ChatGPT, I personally avoid it, and think many of the criticisms against the commenter were valid, even if their tone was not. Personally, your predictions sound valid to me, but I'm studying to be a librarian, not a climate scientist. Like, I don't even know what the threshold would be for run away greenhouse gas emissions to tip us over into a venusian like atmosphere. I mean I know it's theoretically possible, but I've heard it's unlikely. Then again I learn about theoretically possible fresh new hells regularly when reading about climate science. Like imagining a world without clouds is just as depressing to me as imagining 80% population loss. Of course if we lost all cloud cover, 80% would probably be on the low end for estimated population loss.
Regarding Geo engineering, I think it would be smarter to pursue putting something large at a Lagrange point than it would SOx in the atmosphere. I think I've seen the futurist/sci-fi writer Karl Schroeder talk about this in his newsletter. Again, though, I'm a librarian not a climate scientist, and due to the cost and lack of political will this solution is probably less likely than seeding the atmosphere.
Here's a link to Karl Schroeder's Substack. He isn't talking about putting something in orbit in this particular newsletter, but it gives a good example of his very interesting type of thinking regarding Geo engineering, oh and his sci-fi novels are pretty great too:
I broadly agree with your analysis, particularly the vulnerability of food production and supply. I'd add a couple of points:
Food production is especially vulnerable in America and Canada because of the huge fossil inputs to industrially farm it, 10 calories of fossil energy for one calorie of food to the market, for example, and yet more when that food is processed into ready meals and delivered.
As the EROEI of fracked fossil fuels approaches zero, then mined fossils will increasingly be reserved for essential purposes according to national priorities. Obviously food production and distribution in times of peace, but increasingly military and policing in times of troubles, internal or external. Project 2025 recognises this and its solution is more fossil production, but that reduces alternative energy investments,and hastens both the climate collapse, and the accelerating collapse of fossil supplies.
Migration will increasingly become the major factor in world population collapse. Climate migrants, political migrants (even Americans leaving America?), economic migrants, disaster migrants, will all run into modern militarised borders and increasingly aggressive policing. Most migrant are quickly stripped of their resources and have nothing left to deal with a crisis, such as a heat wave or water or food shortage whist stuck at a border crossing, and such deaths will likely be unreported, even hidden.
Lastly, the problems are not evenly distributed. 6 years ago I moved from a country with an economy built on fossil fuels and that imports energy and half of its food, to a country with surplus electricity from nuclear and hydro, and a net exporter of food. At the moment few recognise the differences, they just compare by GDP and consider both economies as much the same. But I believe in the next 20 years those differences will be crucial.
I will add one more point. Trump's and Vance's Presidency and the implementation of Project 2025 will give absolute control and priority to the rich elites and their corporations, and will likely divide the populations into supporters and objectors, and pit one group against the other. But it will probably also support its supporters with better access to essentials, like medical care, even housing and food and fuel, much as Nazis in 1930's Germany were favoured. And the internet, and having a voice. In a modern world of Theil's Palantir and massive data manipulations and AI, the supporters and objectors are easily identified from their online presence, and the many current reports of automated censorship for 'aberrent' views are simply the tip of the iceberg for the future. I have seen a few people online saying goodbye to followers as they say they are deleting all social media accounts - probably too late already (the info still exists, the analysis already done). I wonder how long before we'll be unable to find anything online except the Party View?
I am eminently approaching anarcho-syndicalist filth gatherer age, (I'm not old!), and wanted extend my gratitude for your work. I enjoy reading your writing and keep coming back to it. And the knowledge presented so I can see more clearly through a fog of war moving forward. Thanks again!
I know I’m not the only fellow collapse redditor that gets excited when we realize it’s a TG post. He brings the receipts, and I always hope for a better discussion in those posts. I had no clue you got shadow banned, but par for the course as you say.
Your analysis is the only one that fits what's happening. Your sourcing is consistently great. We know that the IPCC and other components of climate science are controlled by capital, in the sense that what they are allowed to say is limited in specific ways to avoid blaming capitalists or capitalism for the problem, and to avoid solutions that compromise the ability of extremely wealthy people to be able to continue being extremely wealthy.
Interestingly, the Club of Rome estimate for collapse is also 2050. That estimate was based on nothing significant changing, and nothing significant has changed. So it isn't "your" estimate so much as the estimate that fits the data.
I just rewatched part of the Noam Chomsky movie "Manufacturing Consent" and one of the things he talks about is how important it is for the "political class" (which includes everyone working in the field of climate science) must be boxed into specific, safe narratives in order to keep the overall system on track. Dissenting voices must be marginalized or they disrupt the entire system. It's a miracle, really, that we even have the accurate data available to us.
Richard -- I felt shadowbanned in r/collapse because they don't let you post anything about potential solutions, even extremely radical ones ("solutions" so violent and chaotic that they would be synonymous to "collapse" -- the collapse of the capitalist order. I tried to link my recent post there and the mods wouldn't let it through.
Either way, as the resident crank of climate Substack (for the communism thing) and a passing crank on r/collapse (for the same), I totally feel you on being pushed to the sides as a crank in other spaces, but you are completely right. The science is wrong. Climate sensitivity is way higher than they think it is. Qualitatively, immensely higher; we just don't know the full impact of doubling the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and when you look into deep time or geologic time, it's even more; we've drastically reversed the course that the planet was on, and that will have reverberations even after the earth system has regained stability at a new, warmer/more enthalpic level.
My thing is, So why do we STILL look to the SCIENTISTS for LEADERSHIP around this issue? They are wrong. They are wrong on the science and they are VERY wrong on the possible solutions, the politics, on WHAT IS TO BE DONE. If anything -- I know that the answer in r/collapse is that there's nothing to be done.* But I think it's not fair to ask people to live with this painful cognitive dissonance that comes from making the problem worse with our every motion. People are going to start seeking revolutionary solutions. Is the CLIMATE movement going to embrace them or push them away, as has been the traditional move?
This is now a problem not for bourgeoisie scientists to deal with, this is now something that can only be handled by "professional revolutionaries", to take Lenin's phrase.
*edit, more thought: The gap between the stance of r/collapse and my own is not about how extreme the situation is, but whether people are given any agency. For r/collapse, and from what I've seen from most writers on this issue, we as people are subjects of this historic catastrophe but have no agency to make change, because to this point change has been impossible to achieve. But I believe in revolution; it's happened before and when conditions are right, it can happen again. Everything will already be destroyed and collapsed when that revolution comes but it doesn't matter, we still must hold on to the dignity of knowing that we as people have agency, that there are other ways of looking at the problem outside of neoliberalism. This is all summed up in Fred Jameson's immortal words, "It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism." Well, I'm asking us to imagine the latter.
I really like your and Richard's approach and thinking. Here is a comment I made recently on this matter-
ABOUT--Operationalizing Climate Science 17 Nov 2024 by Gavin Schmidt (and Zeke H. related)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/operationalizing-climate-science/
The work of climate modelling scientists might be seen as esoteric if it focuses on niche technical issues rather than addressing the broader, pressing problems of climate change. The issue as presented suggests to me a narrow or inward-looking focus, isolated from broader concerns. Focused inwardly means it’s relevant only within the specific group or discipline. In other words Self-referential and/or Insular and not of much public interest.
While obviously relevant to the work activities of modelling scientists I think this issue is ‘a curiosity’, even though it still points in the direction of underlying much more important issues in need of urgent attention — if anything can ever be done to address the global warming and other critical ecological problems and sustainability.
A lack of Operational Data and Science Analysis is in fact not the barrier to effective environmental actions or addressing energy use across the world. It’s Leadership and Governance – or rather a lack of them.
Summary of My General Thoughts
I have often and for a long time now expressed my significant frustration with the perceived lack of overarching authority or governance in the global climate science and policy landscape. My view suggests that the current system is highly fragmented, with critical activities—such as the provision and analysis of climate data—operating without unified leadership or accountability. I argue that:
1. Leaderless Coordination: Organizations like the IPCC and others fail to provide the strong leadership needed to manage these disparate activities effectively. There is no single authority with the legal or societal mandate to ensure cohesive direction.
2. Self-Governance by Scientists: Climate scientists, while experts in their field, often operate independently, making decisions and setting priorities without external oversight, democratic input, or societal checks.
3. Dysfunction in Global Climate Policy: Bodies like the IPCC and UNFCCC are seen as engaging in self-serving or insular processes that do not adequately address the real-world urgency of climate action, leaving global responses fragmented and ineffective.
4. Questioning Existing Frameworks: I question whether institutions like the IPCC, UNFCCC, and the annual COP meetings are still “fit for purpose” in addressing the existential threat posed by climate change.
Expert Commentary and Public Discourse on the Issue
1. Decentralized Climate Governance:
Many experts agree that global climate governance suffers from fragmentation. For instance, researchers in international relations have critiqued the UNFCCC’s inability to enforce binding commitments from its member states, leading to a patchwork of voluntary and inconsistent efforts.
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, a prominent climate scientist, has noted that while the IPCC provides an invaluable synthesis of science, it lacks mechanisms to compel governments to act on its findings.
2. Criticism of the IPCC and COP Processes:
Scholars like Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. and Dr. William Nordhaus have questioned whether the IPCC’s structure—focusing on consensus rather than actionable policy guidance—is suitable for urgent climate crises.
Critics of the annual COP meetings, including activists like Greta Thunberg, have described these gatherings as “performative” or a “talking shop” that results in little substantive progress.
3. Calls for New Models of Leadership:
Some experts advocate for a centralized global climate authority, akin to the World Health Organization, that could coordinate efforts, enforce commitments, and manage funding. For example, the economist Jeffrey Sachs has proposed a UN-led “Climate Agency” with enforcement capabilities.
Others emphasize the need for regional and national integration, suggesting that coalitions of willing nations or blocs could lead by example.
And-
4. Operationalizing Climate Science:
Gavin Schmidt, the NASA scientist behind the Real Climate blog referenced, has argued for greater integration of scientific operations into decision-making processes, but he acknowledges the challenge of aligning data providers, governments, and policymakers under one framework.
More specifically–If the following is not adequately addressed, whatever the Climate Modelling Scientists like Gavin do with their time and resources is irrelevant–moot.
Is the IPCC Still Fit for Purpose?
The IPCC has been vital in summarizing and disseminating climate science, but its limitations include:
– Consensus Focus: The need for unanimous agreement often dilutes urgent or controversial recommendations.
– Lack of Enforceability: The IPCC issues reports but does not have authority to enforce actions based on its findings.
– Lag in Responsiveness: Its long report cycles mean it cannot address rapidly changing climate challenges with agility.
These issues have led some critics to argue that the IPCC is increasingly obsolete in a world that requires faster, more actionable responses.
Are the UNFCCC and COP Meetings Still Fit for Purpose?
Critiques of the UNFCCC and COP processes center on:
– Lack of Binding Mechanisms: The Paris Agreement relies on voluntary national commitments, which are often insufficient and inconsistently implemented.
– Overemphasis on Negotiation: Annual COPs often focus on political posturing rather than delivering concrete action plans.
– Exclusion of Key Voices: Indigenous groups, youth activists, and developing nations frequently criticize the process for prioritizing the interests of wealthier, more powerful countries.
– Questions abound about the usefulness and accuracy of today’s Economic norms and systems
Some have proposed alternatives, such as regional climate pacts or sector-specific agreements (e.g., for energy or agriculture), as more pragmatic and effective solutions.
Recommendations for a Better Framework
1. Establish a Global Climate Authority: Create a centralized entity with binding authority to direct and enforce climate action.
2. Move from Consensus to Leadership: Shift away from consensus-driven approaches to allow bold leadership by coalitions of willing nations or regions.
3. Integrate Science and Policy: Operationalize climate science by embedding experts directly within decision-making frameworks at all levels of governance.
4. Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms: Require transparent reporting, enforce penalties for non-compliance, and involve civil society in monitoring.
This critique aligns with these growing calls for urgent reform, emphasizing that the current frameworks are inadequate for addressing the scale and urgency of the climate crisis.
Sounds like we need a vanguard political party to lead the climate movement; a petrosocialist party aware of class struggle. https://thespouter.substack.com/p/petromarxismpetrocommunism-overview
Well, I don't think you're a crank who should be escorted out of the room.
I also argue that collapse is likely, but by referring to mainstream literature in climate science and multiple other disciplines. My paper is here: Civilization will Collapse (High Confidence):
A Compendium of Relevant Biophysical, Political, Economic, Military, Health, and Psychological Information on Climate Change
Here is the latest version (which is updated weekly):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xHvUneUT-1xx1W72yZTXpqrtNfIqUKB5oooOvwcw1OM/edit?usp=sharing
A slightly older version is available on the EarthArXiv preprint server:
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/6520/
(Version 8, November 12, 2024)
Thank you for the links I have downloaded a PDF version to read offline.
I've read quite a few books about climate change, and read/skimmed many, many reports, and I want to say "thank you!" as this document is very well-researched and a great addition to anyone looking to have a handy summation of the issues.
I have followed your writing for a while now. I think you approach the entire subject of our climate emergency with logic and critical thinking that is not blinded by attachment to any one economic or governing system. I make note of what you are saying and then I walk outside. Today as I write this reply it is November 14, 2024, in central North Carolina. We still have not had a frost this fall. In the past we had a first frost sometime in October. Each year the climate gets warmer. I appreciate having the longer view to also think about. Keep up the good work.
Easy math like this makes our global politics easy to understand.
Why did Elon seemingly give up on fighting against Climate Change, buy a bunker for him and his children and align himself with a kakistocracy?
Well if the system is going down either way they’d like to make sure they’re ontop.
Also explains the fixation on AI and robotics. Not to save *us* but instead a good way to replace the labor force you’re losing due to mass die offs - robots and AI don’t need to eat.
Lurker here with a robotics / AI background, just wanted to chime in that robots and AI do indeed need to eat in the form of electricity / hardware maintenance, and do so extremely inefficiently compared to biological systems. While advances in technology may allow for some form of robotic pseudo-society to replace what is lost to collapse, I think most who are turning to that as the solution massively underestimate the risk of things going catastrophically wrong very quickly, especially as climate continues to worsen beyond the extreme scenarios talked about here.
Simply put, no general-purpose robot or algorithm around today has been proven to function for longer than the human lifespan, and any theoretical attempt to prove that will have considerable error simply due to the unknowns about our collective future.
P.S. Kudos Richard for your excellent work, we'd be lost without you.
There’s that word, Kakistocracy, it’s so new to me and I just heard it for the first time last week.
Hey, Richard, you know I respect your work and am even more radical in my climate collapse predictions than yourself. I used the C3S numbers in their June 5, 2024 "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action": "the global average temperature for the last 12 months (June 2023-May 2024) is the highest on record at 0.75 degC above the 1991-2020 (baseline) average and 1.63 degC above the 1850-1900 preindustrial average, according to the C3S data". So this ever skeptical of academics ole doc divided 0.75/3.5=0.214 degC/yr on ave. If this trend continues, we may expect a 1 degC increase every 5yrs. and a 6 degC increase by 2047, when any child unfortunate enough to be born today turns a well roasted 23yo. I have put this statement out on numerous sites and occasions (no Chat GPS) and have not received a single negative response. So, count me in and know that you are not alone! Gregg (BTW, I'm a Jamison/Jameson descendant)
Forgive me, where did the 3.5 number come from? How’d you come by that I should say?
3.5 yrs. from the end of the 1991-2020 baseline to May 2024. So, 0.75 degC above the 1991-2020 baseline, right? Thanks for your interest! Can't do this alone!
No, thank you. My ADHD brain was never one for math.
Huh? 0.75/3.5=0.214 degC per year since 2020. 5X0.2=1 degC every 5 yrs. This is middle school math. Good luck.
No, I can do your equation, I just wasn’t able to follow where you pulled 3.5 from. Math should never be involved in a paragraph.
Hey Richard! I've been following your interpretation of the science for awhile now. I appreciate how you break things down so that a layperson like myself can mostly understand.
I'll admit to being disappointed when you started making your dire predictions, partially because I knew you would get dismissed more often because of them. I sure hope you're wrong! I wonder what unseen variables will come into play? Thanks for all you do.
I've wondered ever since seeing the green and purple map about crop reduction if the green areas counteract the purple areas. In other words, some areas will see an increase in food output. I see it in my own garden where I grow more in the winter now.
Also, does 20% reduction automatically equal 20% population reduction?
I agree the problem is not being taken seriously enough and things are dire, but just wanted to point out a few possible issues that could affect the anslysis.
Computer Jesus is here, my friend. The Second Coming in the Cloud. All of the signs have been pointing to this very thing - don’t you see?
Seriously - I do believe that we are in a place where people will ask Arif or the answers, and AI will give them answers that they find to be highly believable and motivating. As AI develops, of course it will prompt people as well as answer inquiries. AI will make people feel as though they are beloved and they belong.
This is the ideal way to manage the various splinters of humanity as collapse proceeds. But of course we humans are not really in charge of the technologies we have created, any more than we are in charge of the changes we have induced in the biosphere or in terms of the cascade of misaligned human relationships we have set in to place.
As the crisis deepens, so does my trust in the Universe. That’s not so much about what happens to”me” or to “we” as it is about where I go with all of this.
I figure we are here to love and to be loved for a little while, and then we are gone. I trust that.
For me part of love means engaging in honest and truthful conversation. That isn’t the whole story, but it seems like a vital part of it.
Thanks for doing your part to be honest and to engage with reality.
'After 2030, unless you are wealthy, you are likely to spend the rest of your life being slightly hungry': is a sentence that should catch the eye of everyone. For many, many years we have been surrounded by so much food in a multitude of glorious ways - markets, food shops, cafes and high-class restaurants - Cooking programmes, celeb chefs, grand occasions with ornate cakes and plenty of tipple. So that is the biblical sin of gluttony and the truth is almost everyone who could has indulged. Some have thought of others but I warrant that is NOT the wealthy gang-bang leaders - the ruling classes; no it has been the ordinary family shopper who has bought any extra packet of cornflakes and put it in the charity bin. I still haven't given up hope that come the day, 2027 or 2028 the peasants will revolt.
You should keep up your work, which is appreciated and you are not alone. I seem to remember David Wasdell discussing a equilibrium temp of 11 C years ago on a presentation around 2017. I can look it up if your interested.
What a vivid imaginations you all have I suspect the future will be far more boring
I would too if I were a climate denier such as yourself. If anyone comes across your name again they can be rest assured that their time is about to be well wasted
I really appreciate the point in your second half arguing that the economic aspect is no longer distinct from the environmental. I'm working on a directed research project for my master's in library and information science essentially arguing that the field should no longer use the "triple bottom line" framework for thinking about promoting sustainability. One of the big non-LIS resources I'm using is "a just world on a safe planet" from the lancet planetary health-earth commission. I know the science in that is more mainstream, but it provides a good platform with which to argue that the environmental and social aspects are inherently bound together as well.
Regarding ChatGPT, I personally avoid it, and think many of the criticisms against the commenter were valid, even if their tone was not. Personally, your predictions sound valid to me, but I'm studying to be a librarian, not a climate scientist. Like, I don't even know what the threshold would be for run away greenhouse gas emissions to tip us over into a venusian like atmosphere. I mean I know it's theoretically possible, but I've heard it's unlikely. Then again I learn about theoretically possible fresh new hells regularly when reading about climate science. Like imagining a world without clouds is just as depressing to me as imagining 80% population loss. Of course if we lost all cloud cover, 80% would probably be on the low end for estimated population loss.
Regarding Geo engineering, I think it would be smarter to pursue putting something large at a Lagrange point than it would SOx in the atmosphere. I think I've seen the futurist/sci-fi writer Karl Schroeder talk about this in his newsletter. Again, though, I'm a librarian not a climate scientist, and due to the cost and lack of political will this solution is probably less likely than seeding the atmosphere.
Here's a link to Karl Schroeder's Substack. He isn't talking about putting something in orbit in this particular newsletter, but it gives a good example of his very interesting type of thinking regarding Geo engineering, oh and his sci-fi novels are pretty great too:
https://open.substack.com/pub/kschroeder/p/audacity-and-folly
I broadly agree with your analysis, particularly the vulnerability of food production and supply. I'd add a couple of points:
Food production is especially vulnerable in America and Canada because of the huge fossil inputs to industrially farm it, 10 calories of fossil energy for one calorie of food to the market, for example, and yet more when that food is processed into ready meals and delivered.
As the EROEI of fracked fossil fuels approaches zero, then mined fossils will increasingly be reserved for essential purposes according to national priorities. Obviously food production and distribution in times of peace, but increasingly military and policing in times of troubles, internal or external. Project 2025 recognises this and its solution is more fossil production, but that reduces alternative energy investments,and hastens both the climate collapse, and the accelerating collapse of fossil supplies.
Migration will increasingly become the major factor in world population collapse. Climate migrants, political migrants (even Americans leaving America?), economic migrants, disaster migrants, will all run into modern militarised borders and increasingly aggressive policing. Most migrant are quickly stripped of their resources and have nothing left to deal with a crisis, such as a heat wave or water or food shortage whist stuck at a border crossing, and such deaths will likely be unreported, even hidden.
Lastly, the problems are not evenly distributed. 6 years ago I moved from a country with an economy built on fossil fuels and that imports energy and half of its food, to a country with surplus electricity from nuclear and hydro, and a net exporter of food. At the moment few recognise the differences, they just compare by GDP and consider both economies as much the same. But I believe in the next 20 years those differences will be crucial.
I will add one more point. Trump's and Vance's Presidency and the implementation of Project 2025 will give absolute control and priority to the rich elites and their corporations, and will likely divide the populations into supporters and objectors, and pit one group against the other. But it will probably also support its supporters with better access to essentials, like medical care, even housing and food and fuel, much as Nazis in 1930's Germany were favoured. And the internet, and having a voice. In a modern world of Theil's Palantir and massive data manipulations and AI, the supporters and objectors are easily identified from their online presence, and the many current reports of automated censorship for 'aberrent' views are simply the tip of the iceberg for the future. I have seen a few people online saying goodbye to followers as they say they are deleting all social media accounts - probably too late already (the info still exists, the analysis already done). I wonder how long before we'll be unable to find anything online except the Party View?
I am eminently approaching anarcho-syndicalist filth gatherer age, (I'm not old!), and wanted extend my gratitude for your work. I enjoy reading your writing and keep coming back to it. And the knowledge presented so I can see more clearly through a fog of war moving forward. Thanks again!
I know I’m not the only fellow collapse redditor that gets excited when we realize it’s a TG post. He brings the receipts, and I always hope for a better discussion in those posts. I had no clue you got shadow banned, but par for the course as you say.