I have rubbed shoulders with some of these types at dinner parties of they hyper wealthy, the oil men whose only ambition in their later years is to maintain their income, and pay for pretty girls to come to such parties on their arm. They don't particularly care, and most are not particularly smart, but I met nobody who thinks they are killing civilization.
They have been told for decades that the economic consequences are tiny, not to worry. Over and over, they have been told this. So have politicians. At +4 to +6C, maybe 2% economic damages. No worries! (With a few CYA words buried deep in papers few actually read beyond the abstract.)
William Nordhaus is the person guilty of this crime. Nordhaus' farcical Nobel is a crime against humanity. Nordhaus' acolytes control climate economics today. For all practical purposes Nordhaus' acolytes ARE climate economics today. Their double-think, arrogance, and stupidity are astonishing to deal with.
Gernot Wagner, James Rising, and Simon Dietz are the most recent group to continue this crime against humanity. Their mendacity is on full display in their 2021 paper and their response to our criticism. Their PNAS "Economic impacts of tipping points in the climate system" is an appalling piece of garbage built on meaningless modeling that Nordhaus created. The criticism of these models is eviscerating. That it was passed through PNAS referees tells you everything you need to know about how completely farcical the 'climate economics' subfield is. All of it, every bit, is garbage, and they are why we continue to ignore this problem that will destroy global civilization.
Climate economists - every single one - are the people that you should be attacking with the intent to destroy their careers. These are the people that should shunned by sane society. They are the most guilty ones. All of them should be cast out of every university or "think tank" they work for, and tried for treason and crimes against humanity. This is no exaggeration.
But this also indicts every mainstream economist in the world. Those economists have allowed this monstrosity of corruption or profound incompetence and good-old boy clubbiness to be perpetrated on society. All of them just sit by and mouth platitudes and nonsense while proclaiming that NOBODY ELSE could POSSIBLY comprehend the tradeoffs.
Yes, you too, Paul Krugman. You too. You are ALL guilty of this atrocity.
I agree. For this, we need a new narrative. I have started using the phrase "you cannot eat more and shit less". Mainstream economists claim it to be possible. As Bertrand Russell said: "People are born ignorant, not stupid. Stupidity requires an education."
Thank you - but I am slightly confused and would like to check my logic. If the price of a barrel of oil goes up massively, and the oil companies take their profits from the rich, as you suggest - and in parallel, you want there to be less oil (and other fossil fuels used) - you must be implying that the price would mean that the increased price would lead to one, less demand (from poorer people, right?) and in general (by everyone) an increased demand for the (now relatively cheaper) non-fossil solutions. Is that correct?
Hi Nicola. The easiest way to think about this is the following: With GCC, the fossil-fuel companies will have not choice but to raise the price to compensate for the fee. This means that every customer (airlines, carmakers, plastic manufacturers) will see a big increase in their production costs due to fossil fuels. Therefore, they will all think about ways to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, by improving their products or changing their business models. This will lead to a drop in demand for oil and gas, leading to lower revenues for the oil companies. It will also lead to inflation, which is why the redistribution mechanism is necessary. We cannot ban the extraction of fossil fuels before we have decarbonized the value chains of the economy. I have no idea how fast this can happen, which is why GCC works with a fee. There is no point in limiting the supply of oil because we do not know what the effect on society will be. I hope this helps.
Henrik, your words are like a punch in the mouth as you lay out this sad story. The big decisions have already been made BUT no one wants to accept it. The rage inside many of us wants to shut the whole vile system down but as you say, without a viable alternative the likely outcone would be chaos, death and suffering. We tried working with the elite but they just lie to our face. So what's left? Can we really distribute wealth more evenly? Wouldn't the elite fight back to protect their ill-gotten gains? At this point, I'm wondering...are there other ways to use the system against itself? Or is this the next and possibly the last chapter for Homo Sapiens.
I am sure a lot of people will fight back. What I like about GCC is that it focuses the outrage of the people on a small group of organizations, who are asked to do something very reasonable. Only the fossil fuel companies will have to do something and it will not kill their business immediately. The goal is to make it less painful for a fossil fuel company to sign up to GCC than not to do so. This will not be easy, but it just might be doable.
Henrik, let's not forget that these hundreds of fossil fuel companies own most of the worlds politicians and they have the power to raise their price which will cause massive instability in the global economy and in the lives of billions of people....leading to some opportunist to gain a political foothold and dismantle any gains that we could achieve. I'm not suggesting that it's not a good idea or that's it's not possible - I'm just thinking through how it might be received.
Stopping FF use is not the most important thing we need to do. This will take time, as you know, will create more warming, as you know, and meanwhile, Earth's rising temperatures will breach deadly levels ruining our ecosystem. The climate takes too long to process the gradual reduction in GHGs brought about by a slow phaseout of FFs, along with naturally occurring GHG emissions on top of the rising population and increasing energy demands on the FF that are being phased out, to avoid deadly heating. What we cannot fail to do is enact SRM as soon as possible to get ahold of temperatures before it's too late. None of the GHG management techniques (trees, DAC, etc.) can possibly have, even when combined, a meaningful impact on total GHG concentration to change this.
Intelligent solar radiation management as suggested by Ye Tao (https://www.planetcritical.com/p/buying-time-with-geoengineering-ye) could have some impact and there is not reason not to try. Unfortunately, simply blocking the solar influx with aerosols is like reducing your body temperature by shooting yourself in the head. People who suggest that have not understood the concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. On a sustainable planet, the sun is the only source of energy we will have. It might not be a good idea to block it.
After "unfortunately" you are right, until "might not be a good idea." SAI isn't the answer, nor is MCB. Reflectors is vastly superior. Blocking a tiny portion of sunlight clearly will not remove our energy source, just modify it. If we don't do this, nothing else you have mentioned, or anyone else has mentioned (that I've heard anywhere) will stop us from going over the edge. So we MUST do it.
Then we agree. Global Climate Compensation would be an excellent way to fund the building of the reflectors whilst making fossil fuels less attractive. There are many technical solutions, but we first have to solve the global Tragedy of the Commons or Prisoner's Dilemma: most of the reflectors will have to be built in countries that can least afford them. Without a massive redistribution of money from rich nations to poorer ones, this simply will not happen.
Not true. The reflectors for adaptation purposes (localized impact) of course need to be built in urban areas where the heat is hottest, but location of reflectors for the global impact of temperature mitigation should not be important: as soon as the combined cooling effect is large enough to have a global impact, the job is done. So as it should be, the wealthiest nations (and obviously it should be the USA bearing the brunt) could build on their own land and pay for the reflectors from taxes, just like they do for other natural disasters. Of course they should nationalize the oil firms immediately and simply take the profits not needed to continue operations for the still-needed fuel, for mitigation purposes, and reflector taxation could and should be soaking the rich and not average citizens, along with so many other actions needed (legislating and outlawing waste, over-consumption, etc.).
The first step is to change the narrative. Politicians like to hide behind "this is a very complex issue ...". Global Climate Compensation makes the statement that if we really wanted to stop climate change, there is something we could do tomorrow that would be simple, effective, and risk free.
Excellent metafore, completely accurate. Particularly the two lucrative jobs, drilling new holes in the hull and keeping passengers in third class which will sink first.
Perhaps the author may add the most lucrative job and that is to gather all the lifeboats together so the first class passengers can use them first.
I have rubbed shoulders with some of these types at dinner parties of they hyper wealthy, the oil men whose only ambition in their later years is to maintain their income, and pay for pretty girls to come to such parties on their arm. They don't particularly care, and most are not particularly smart, but I met nobody who thinks they are killing civilization.
They have been told for decades that the economic consequences are tiny, not to worry. Over and over, they have been told this. So have politicians. At +4 to +6C, maybe 2% economic damages. No worries! (With a few CYA words buried deep in papers few actually read beyond the abstract.)
William Nordhaus is the person guilty of this crime. Nordhaus' farcical Nobel is a crime against humanity. Nordhaus' acolytes control climate economics today. For all practical purposes Nordhaus' acolytes ARE climate economics today. Their double-think, arrogance, and stupidity are astonishing to deal with.
Gernot Wagner, James Rising, and Simon Dietz are the most recent group to continue this crime against humanity. Their mendacity is on full display in their 2021 paper and their response to our criticism. Their PNAS "Economic impacts of tipping points in the climate system" is an appalling piece of garbage built on meaningless modeling that Nordhaus created. The criticism of these models is eviscerating. That it was passed through PNAS referees tells you everything you need to know about how completely farcical the 'climate economics' subfield is. All of it, every bit, is garbage, and they are why we continue to ignore this problem that will destroy global civilization.
Climate economists - every single one - are the people that you should be attacking with the intent to destroy their careers. These are the people that should shunned by sane society. They are the most guilty ones. All of them should be cast out of every university or "think tank" they work for, and tried for treason and crimes against humanity. This is no exaggeration.
But this also indicts every mainstream economist in the world. Those economists have allowed this monstrosity of corruption or profound incompetence and good-old boy clubbiness to be perpetrated on society. All of them just sit by and mouth platitudes and nonsense while proclaiming that NOBODY ELSE could POSSIBLY comprehend the tradeoffs.
Yes, you too, Paul Krugman. You too. You are ALL guilty of this atrocity.
I agree. For this, we need a new narrative. I have started using the phrase "you cannot eat more and shit less". Mainstream economists claim it to be possible. As Bertrand Russell said: "People are born ignorant, not stupid. Stupidity requires an education."
Love the narrative.
Metaphors and language matter. They shape how we perceive our reality.
Thanks for this encouraging writing.
The Global Carbon Compensation is a real and tangible climate solution that deserves to be discussed and widely promoted!
Thank you - but I am slightly confused and would like to check my logic. If the price of a barrel of oil goes up massively, and the oil companies take their profits from the rich, as you suggest - and in parallel, you want there to be less oil (and other fossil fuels used) - you must be implying that the price would mean that the increased price would lead to one, less demand (from poorer people, right?) and in general (by everyone) an increased demand for the (now relatively cheaper) non-fossil solutions. Is that correct?
Thank you!
Hi Nicola. The easiest way to think about this is the following: With GCC, the fossil-fuel companies will have not choice but to raise the price to compensate for the fee. This means that every customer (airlines, carmakers, plastic manufacturers) will see a big increase in their production costs due to fossil fuels. Therefore, they will all think about ways to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, by improving their products or changing their business models. This will lead to a drop in demand for oil and gas, leading to lower revenues for the oil companies. It will also lead to inflation, which is why the redistribution mechanism is necessary. We cannot ban the extraction of fossil fuels before we have decarbonized the value chains of the economy. I have no idea how fast this can happen, which is why GCC works with a fee. There is no point in limiting the supply of oil because we do not know what the effect on society will be. I hope this helps.
Henrik, your words are like a punch in the mouth as you lay out this sad story. The big decisions have already been made BUT no one wants to accept it. The rage inside many of us wants to shut the whole vile system down but as you say, without a viable alternative the likely outcone would be chaos, death and suffering. We tried working with the elite but they just lie to our face. So what's left? Can we really distribute wealth more evenly? Wouldn't the elite fight back to protect their ill-gotten gains? At this point, I'm wondering...are there other ways to use the system against itself? Or is this the next and possibly the last chapter for Homo Sapiens.
I am sure a lot of people will fight back. What I like about GCC is that it focuses the outrage of the people on a small group of organizations, who are asked to do something very reasonable. Only the fossil fuel companies will have to do something and it will not kill their business immediately. The goal is to make it less painful for a fossil fuel company to sign up to GCC than not to do so. This will not be easy, but it just might be doable.
Henrik, let's not forget that these hundreds of fossil fuel companies own most of the worlds politicians and they have the power to raise their price which will cause massive instability in the global economy and in the lives of billions of people....leading to some opportunist to gain a political foothold and dismantle any gains that we could achieve. I'm not suggesting that it's not a good idea or that's it's not possible - I'm just thinking through how it might be received.
Stopping FF use is not the most important thing we need to do. This will take time, as you know, will create more warming, as you know, and meanwhile, Earth's rising temperatures will breach deadly levels ruining our ecosystem. The climate takes too long to process the gradual reduction in GHGs brought about by a slow phaseout of FFs, along with naturally occurring GHG emissions on top of the rising population and increasing energy demands on the FF that are being phased out, to avoid deadly heating. What we cannot fail to do is enact SRM as soon as possible to get ahold of temperatures before it's too late. None of the GHG management techniques (trees, DAC, etc.) can possibly have, even when combined, a meaningful impact on total GHG concentration to change this.
Intelligent solar radiation management as suggested by Ye Tao (https://www.planetcritical.com/p/buying-time-with-geoengineering-ye) could have some impact and there is not reason not to try. Unfortunately, simply blocking the solar influx with aerosols is like reducing your body temperature by shooting yourself in the head. People who suggest that have not understood the concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. On a sustainable planet, the sun is the only source of energy we will have. It might not be a good idea to block it.
After "unfortunately" you are right, until "might not be a good idea." SAI isn't the answer, nor is MCB. Reflectors is vastly superior. Blocking a tiny portion of sunlight clearly will not remove our energy source, just modify it. If we don't do this, nothing else you have mentioned, or anyone else has mentioned (that I've heard anywhere) will stop us from going over the edge. So we MUST do it.
Then we agree. Global Climate Compensation would be an excellent way to fund the building of the reflectors whilst making fossil fuels less attractive. There are many technical solutions, but we first have to solve the global Tragedy of the Commons or Prisoner's Dilemma: most of the reflectors will have to be built in countries that can least afford them. Without a massive redistribution of money from rich nations to poorer ones, this simply will not happen.
Not true. The reflectors for adaptation purposes (localized impact) of course need to be built in urban areas where the heat is hottest, but location of reflectors for the global impact of temperature mitigation should not be important: as soon as the combined cooling effect is large enough to have a global impact, the job is done. So as it should be, the wealthiest nations (and obviously it should be the USA bearing the brunt) could build on their own land and pay for the reflectors from taxes, just like they do for other natural disasters. Of course they should nationalize the oil firms immediately and simply take the profits not needed to continue operations for the still-needed fuel, for mitigation purposes, and reflector taxation could and should be soaking the rich and not average citizens, along with so many other actions needed (legislating and outlawing waste, over-consumption, etc.).
This paper is also compelling on: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/15/4508
Your metaphor is on point. Thank you.
What's the path to getting the proposed tax enacted?
The first step is to change the narrative. Politicians like to hide behind "this is a very complex issue ...". Global Climate Compensation makes the statement that if we really wanted to stop climate change, there is something we could do tomorrow that would be simple, effective, and risk free.
I hear you. I think we need to change the business model under which politicians operate. https://jamesbelcher.substack.com/p/the-future-of-energy-depends-on-who
Excellent metafore, completely accurate. Particularly the two lucrative jobs, drilling new holes in the hull and keeping passengers in third class which will sink first.
Perhaps the author may add the most lucrative job and that is to gather all the lifeboats together so the first class passengers can use them first.
Brilliant, I think that you are really honing in on the key factors. More and more of us are starting to wake up...