Barney's Blog

A multidisciplinary Lens

The numerous references to ‘we’ or ‘us’ in my blogs refer to a generic ‘we’ or ‘us’. It is a reference to the whole of the human race in general, but to no one person in particular. It is shorthand. There is an understanding that not every individual has the ability, the technical training, or the interest, in being knowledgeable of the scientific, and the many, many, other vitally essential functions, of the Earth’s environment and natural systems. But, if the protection of people, the economy, or the environment, is part of our remit, then it is imperative for ‘us’ to either know, to ask, to be briefed, educated, or otherwise inform ourselves how the stability of Earth’s environment — which has been beneficial for humanity’s development — can be assured. Ignorance of factors, critical to the survival of humanity, is no longer acceptable.
If your preference is to view Barney's Blogs, in the order they were written, please scroll down past the photograph of the Photovoltaic Generating Facility -- Past Post #1

Latest Blog

Post #87It is important to consider the heating effect, on the entire atmosphere/biosphere, of all the trace gases discharged into the atmosphere, as a result of human activity, which are over and above any natural emissions that would have been occurring before the industrialization of the world. The measure used to define the total of all these gases is the ‘carbon dioxide equivalent’, which is designated as CO2e where the ‘e’ stands for ‘equivalent’. CO2e is defined as: ‘the standard unit of measurement used to combine, compare, and report the warming impact of different greenhouse gases. It is calculated by multiplying the mass of a given gas by its specific global warming potential (GWP) relative to carbon dioxide over a 100-year time frame’. Acknowledgment: Terrascope, Singapore.
Post #86
Acknowledgement: Thomson Reuters Foundation
The above is a picture of a coal fired power station at Bełchatów in Poland which is representative of many world's coal-fired power plants. It is not my intention to single out any particular country. There is that old maxim to be remembered: “people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones”. My own country of Australia, which enjoys more sun, wind, and tidal coastline than you can-poke-a-stick-at, still generates ~ 60% of its electricity from fossil fuels.We look forward to plants, not unlike the above, being replaced with power plants, which exclusively use non-fossil-based fuels. For the highly industrialised, wealthy nations, this should have been accomplished years ago, and it is a crying shame that the end-time for fossil fuels is still years away.A more discouraging concern, from the point of view of stabilising the chemistry of the biosphere, is that the less developed countries of the world, may be forced into adopting cheap fossil-fuel based energy to, and quite rightly, increase the GDP per capita of their citizens.As shown in Post 48, there is an extraordinary correlation between a person’s share of their countries GDP (on a purchasing power parity basis) the GDP of the country in which they live, and their probable position on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs — table from Post 48 is repeated below. By 2050, we must achieve net-zero actual emissions, but it must not be done on the back of people still living in poverty and squalor? We all deserve the potential of Maslow’s Self Actualisation.
Post #85In Australia, it has been asserted that had the CO2 emission pricing scheme not been removed in 2014, the government would, by now (2026), have received about $A 200 billion. Australia’s CO2 emission pricing scheme introduced in 2013, was way short of comprehensively applying to all emissions, so considerably more could, and should, have been raised.Importantly, the money raised from carbon pricing should not automatically flow back into any government’s general revenue. It should not be used to offset the domestic population’s carbon cost, or to finance decarbonisation in highly developed countries. Offsetting the cost disadvantage of trade exposed industries is a legitimate use of the funds, but only until there is global agreement on comprehensive carbon border tax adjustments. In Australia it was legislated that >90% of CO2 emission pricing revenue collected would be returned to the Australian economy — this is madness — this is preserving the status-quo. The only acceptable expenditure of the funds raised from emission pricing schemes is to end further carbonisation of the atmosphere/biosphere and expedite the decarbonisation of both.
Post #84To return the Earth to the environmentally stable, even if not exactly halcyon, days of the Holocene geological era, will require all of the working age population of the Earth to be engaged in productive work. How? This will take the best and smartest thinking of us all!
Post #83The beauty of life on Earth is supplemented by the underlying physics and mathematics of the Universe. The words of Francesco Maria Piave: “A love that is the heartbeat of the Universe itself”, from the opera ‘La Traviata’, ought to be the song of all life on Earth. Moreover, the splendour of the ‘entropic universe’ is superbly described by Professor Brian Greene in his book: ‘Until the End of Time’.
Post #82Posts 67 and 68 talk of ‘greening’ the more barren parts of the planet. By way of our disquieting knowledge of the ‘unintended consequences’ of increasing the carbon dioxide (CO2) component of the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 350 ppm there will likely be some folk who will be concerned that greening the barren areas/deserts will also have some unintended/un-envisaged outcomes.Nonetheless, there is little need to be concerned, as we will have tons of time to adjust the strategy if the need arises, remembering the climate pickle we are in took between 100 and 200 years to develop.
Post #81The starting point for ‘the three ‘M’s’ will be authentically, and exhaustively, pricing ALL CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions into the atmosphere — the money. Secondly, ALL of the money raised will go to the countries where the per-capita emissions are below the global per-capita share — the manpower. And thirdly, money will be used for thoroughly researched, and well designed, ‘greening’ projects around the world — the methodology, where the massive amount of work required will give access to both decent work and job security for the over 2 billion people currently working in the informal employment sector where they lack both decent work and job security (Post 69).
Post #80The world is already nigh on 80 ppm CO2 over any measure of a safe limit you care to mention. So, the challenge is: ‘how does the world community — all of us — remove 80 ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere, and where does money, the methodology, and the manpower come from? You could say ‘the three ‘M’s’. Luckily the solution to all three problems is, or should be, synergistic; they can be thought of as three components of one problem. The problem? Climate change.
Post #79One of the concepts we were wrong about when we imagined how the 2020s would unfold, and considered from our 1960s perspective, was that we thought that we would all be flying in personal transport such as the Jetson’s Space Car. As we know, most of our flying in our 2020s is achieved in a large jet airliner with a pilot, or two, up front.Luckily, it matters little that in our 2020s we are primarily attached to the Earth’s surface, as it makes solving the climate crisis easier. It is an order of magnitude easier to power surface transport by electricity, either directly or stored, generated by renewable technology.
Post #78The case for a cost, in the form of an emissions trading scheme (ETS), to be imposed on the production of energy by burning fossil fuels is beyond compelling. It is ‘beyond compelling’ economically, let alone the inexcusable emission of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Australia’s Superpower Institute has aims which include Australia realising a green energy export opportunity, the economics of which will surpass that of the mining era.More importantly, using Australia’s abundant sources of solar and wind, we can produce both energy and materials for global markets that will add extra impetus to the global effort to reach net zero by 2050, or sooner. The post-carbon world will manifest extraordinary business opportunities.I urge everyone, who is concerned about climate change and the heating of the planet, to research and support all who are working to establish the post- carbon businesses — and post- carbon businesses must be supported by post- carbon governments. With just under $US ¾ trillion still going to explicit fossil fuel subsidies, we still have a way to go!
Post #77The global carbon dioxide budget is a complex beast. Simple in concept, but tricky to manage fairly between 196 emitting countries/territories. Only 16 countries emit more than 1.1% of the yearly total of CO2. More importantly, the emissions of those 16 countries account for about 76% of the world’s total CO2 emissions — that is a huge percentage of global emissions.The other 180 countries/territories only emit about 24% global CO2 emissions all together. (See post 5). The World Bank estimates that about 28% of global emissions incur a price on emissions in the form of a carbon tax, or emissions trading scheme (ETS). Whether the 28% of emissions, which incur a price, are adequately priced, is uncertain. And, whether the 28% is truly 28% of all emissions, is open to further discussion. We know that the IPCC guidelines do not explicitly take into account greenhouse gas emissions attributable to wars. Additionally, are we properly accounting for emissions from the destruction of war? We must bear in mind that the emissions cost of reconstruction of the current wars (2026) is an emissions cost that is: ‘a can still being kicked down the road’. A CO2 emission problem, which will not show up in this year’s emissions, but will very definitely show up in future emissions calculations. Post #76On a visit to one of my very favourite restaurants, a delicious chocolate sundae came with a precisely shaped wooden spoon. A wooden spoon cannot easily be recycled from a retail situation and will ultimately end up in the trash. All plastics can, or should be, recycled — hence, a plastic spoon is potentially more environmentally friendly, than a throw-away wooden spoon! With the proviso, of course, that ALL plastics are recycled. The challenge for humans is that less than 10% of all plastic waste is currently recycled (2026). The undeniably best use for trees is to sequester CO2 for hundreds of years, or for sequestering CO2 in furniture, designed to last for hundreds of years — definitely, not for wood chipping or throwaway spoons.
Post #75Clearly posts 67 to 74 speak of a noteworthy outcome for the sustainability of the Earth’s ecosystems, and a prolonging of the best features of the Holocene. But it is unlikely that anything even close to the optimistic models sought will happen. Unless, maybe, a global catastrophic event wakes all of us from our global, ‘it’ll be apples mate’ slumber. Recalling my heading: “… the numerous references to ‘we’ or ‘us’ in my blogs refer to a generic ‘we’ or ‘us’. It is a reference to the whole of the human race in general, but to no one person in particular”.So, what could be an initial step? The worldwide requirement for all emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere to incur a meaningful cost. All countries — no excuses.
Post #74The 1,800 will be pretty special people — could take 6 to 12 months — substantial logistics — by qualification and selection, the group will have the trust of the eight billion — at least most of us — a big task — lucky that humans are smart.Although this proposal seems extreme, the situation the people of this planet are facing is extreme. We are already experiencing various global environmental crises, and some would argue that we could be seeing more catastrophic events in the future. Although far-reaching, the proposal to task a qualified group to develop realistic solutions to the problem of planetary climate change, and importantly, how to pay for the proposed solutions will be 100% fail-safe.At the conclusion of the process, if the general consensus is that the proposals of the 1,800 are unworkable, we can fall back to our current default position ‘the business-as-usual’ model — which will be no more dangerous in the future than it is now.The money expended during the ‘preserve-the Holocene’ process will have been remarkably well-spent.
Post #73Although it has had its critics, the United Nations has functioned pretty effectively, and many would say brilliantly, for just over 80 years. The main hall of the UN General Assembly can accommodate 1,800 people. Accordingly, 1,800 would appear a fitting number that we commission to save the benign environmental conditions of the Holocene for the rest of us.The duly divvied up 1,800 would represent, by agreement: UN Secretary General, delegates from the main UN sub-groupings, delegates of the world’s principal religions, small and medium businesses to very large corporations and conglomerates, schools and universities, hospitals, medical, allied health, emergency services, police, fire, ambulance, governments, the military, everyday citizens and children, representatives from each wealth quintile on the planet, representatives from each population quintile on the planet, the space industry, the sciences, and the humanities.
Post #72The reference to ‘legions of very smart, powerful, and influential people’, who will be needed to plan the world’s multiple strategies necessary to solve the problem of climate change — a global problem that is nationalistic, environmental, economic, political, theological, sociological, and cultural.The complex solutions will demand the input, and goodwill, of each of the aforesaid groupings in order to enable the science and engineering: civil, electrical, electronic, power, chemical, mechanical, aerospace, and manufacturing, that will be essential for our future security and happiness.A problem emerging in our 21st century is a significant lack of trust in just about everything, and everyone. In particular, a lack of trust in many global institutions. There is an answer — include delegates from as many global groupings as is practicable. There are over eight billion of us on this planet, and by nature of the awesome power we control, we essentially act as a proxy for much of the other life on Earth. A worthy undertaking.
Post #71Heating the Earth out of the Holocene was never a good idea. To start with we did not know what we were doing. For at least 50 years we should have known what we were doing. For the last 38 years we have known exactly what we are doing. For the last 15 years it has been culpable negligence. Right now, with atmospheric CO2 at nearly 155% of the pre-industrial level, what in the world are we thinking? There are legions of very smart, powerful, and influential people, who must now be encouraged to step up to the task of solving the problem of the vanishing Holocene, and the mobilisation of the essential fiscal resources.
Post #70Achievement of posts 67 and 68 pose a very big problem, namely, of course, how does the world pay to both decarbonise our society, and also remove the excess carbon dioxide (CO2) already in the atmosphere? Nonetheless, important though the money is, there is an even more important question that must be answered on behalf of all eight billion of us.We need a plan. Do we want to decarbonise? Do we want to preserve the benign climatic conditions of the Holocene Geological Epoch? An epoch that has been so beneficial for the development of human civilisation. Do we believe everyone in the world has a right to a decent job? Do we believe everyone in the world has a right to a decent standard of living for their family?These are big questions! The world will need BIG planning conferences, meetings, gatherings, hearings to resolve all of our inbuilt differences, priorities, interests, and cultures.
Post #69Greening the un-greened will solve two big planetary problems. The first problem is reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere, now ranging above 432 ppm, back to a more sensible 350 ppm. It is worth noting that 432 ppm is more than 154% of the pre-industrial level. The second problem is a world-wide lack of access to decent work for roughly half of the 4 billion people of working age.The ILO (International Labour Organization) agenda for work, focuses on job creation, rights at work, social protection and social dialogue, which are known as the four pillars of decent work While the official world unemployment rate is ~180 million the under-employment rate, which includes those who have given up looking for work, is closer to half a billion people. Very importantly, over 2 billion people work in the informal employment sector where they lack access to both decent work and job security.The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted on September 25, 2015, by world leaders at a UN Summit in New York, and they officially came into force on January 1, 2016, with a deadline to achieve the targets by 2030.The latest data from the ILO shows that, with less than a third of the time left before 2030, the world is seriously behind schedule for SDG number eight which is: “to promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all”. A solution for both problems ties beautifully with both SDG 8 and decarbonising the biosphere. (See Post #70)
Post #68Carbon Dioxide (CO2) which is already in the atmosphere, and above 350 ppm (parts per million), must be removed, either by Direct Air Capture (DAC), or by ‘greening’ the ‘un-green’ expanses of our planet.
Post #67The world must decarbonise our energy — all energy — manufacturing, construction, transportation, agriculture, etc. etc... And yes, submarines and aircraft carriers are included.
Post #66Even more campaigns are against offshore wind turbines because an ocean view may be impaired. And there are campaigns against onshore wind turbines because of possible impairment to the vista. All over the planet views are interrupted by buildings and other infrastructure. In time, a building, or structure, may be accepted as aesthetically pleasing, which is then admired and celebrated.Nonetheless, our buildings, houses, factories, cities, airports, roads, railways, and other essential infrastructure support our way of life, and the development of our civilisation from our past, and into our future. However, times change, and the challenge for the world now is to decarbonise the production of energy — whether fixed or mobile.Like it or not, we need renewable energy. There will be large photo-voltaic power stations; extensive wind turbine power generating capability; concentrated solar power plants; geothermal power plants; nuclear fission/fusion power stations, and small modular reactors will be needed for desalination and pumping infrastructure. Lastly, there will be huge direct air capture plants (DAC), to remove already excess CO2 from the atmosphere.There is a good chance that much of this new infrastructure will not be pretty. To campaign against this vital infrastructure because it may spoil a view, or a bird may fly into a turbine blade, is to betray all those folk who are to follow us into the future.
Post #65There are campaigns against offshore wind turbines because of possible disruption to whale migration routes. There are campaigns against onshore wind turbines because of the possibility of a rare bird flying into a turbine blade.Birds crash into windows and die, but we do not have campaigns against building houses.People, animals, and birds are killed by motor vehicles, but we do not ban road transport.People and birds are killed by, or in, airplanes, but we do not stop flying.Why then is the remote, but admittedly possible, harming of birds and whales used as an argument against land or ocean-based wind turbines? Living has its hazards for all life on Earth including humans.
Post #64The previous post was in no way intended to devalue the importance of recycling supermarket shopping bags or diminish the worth of taking a train instead of an airplane, but it was a strong criticism of using war instead of diplomacy to solve international disputes. War is an extremely primitive method of resolving political, philosophical, and other differences. War is an enduring relic of the primitive tribal days of human existence, which is now largely rejected, even by peoples who choose a tribal lifestyle, but disturbingly it is now adopted by some wealthy, and technologically advanced nations in the world as their chosen method of dispute resolution.Of course, it will take absolutely every effort, and more, to decarbonise the world economy including activities, which at first may seem small, but in aggregate WILL make a difference. I know the following point is being laboured, but one of the most carbon intensive human activities is the use of a very primitive method — military force — for dispute resolution, and the emissions due to wars are not even counted by the IPCC!We know, it has taken about 250 years to develop fossil fuel burning machines to the level of sophistication we see today — think of a 1.6 litre Formula 1 racing car, or Concorde! In those 250 years, there have been hundreds of thousands of improvements in design and manufacturing expertise to get fossil fuel burning technologies to the level they are at today. In 2026 we have only a few years to decarbonise our economies, so everything is on the table, including shopping bags.
Post #63If: ‘Living Well 2050 — 8.3 billion — Zero CO2 Emissions’, becomes the primary objective, then ‘Net Zero 2050’ will be the critical enabling objective. (Of course, ‘Net Zero 2040’ will be a better plan) In recent times the world is becoming terrifyingly de-sensitised to human suffering with just one proviso — it is someone else, somewhere else in the world. If we wish to stay below +2°C of global warming the world is wasting a great deal of the remaining CO2 emissions on bombing and shelling people. There is a limit to the total tonnage of CO2 (carbon dioxide), that can be put into the atmosphere, before the heating of the planet tips over to a greater than +2°C global warming scenario.The first indication of the seriousness with which world leaders are taking climate change will be a meaningful, and global, price on CO2 emissions, and the ending of CO2 emissions being wasted on war, instead of negotiated diplomatic solutions to international disputes. A second indication would be to SEPARATELY list/count the CO2 emissions of the Military-Industrial Complex, AND the CO2 emissions of the post-war reconstruction of buildings and infrastructure, AND the CO2 emissions of the medical rehabilitation of the victims of war. If the total CO2 emissions of ALL of the aforementioned consequences of war are separately viewed and not hidden in the 196 national lists of CO2 emissions OR concealed in the lists of CO2 emissions from essential human activities such as power generation, transport, manufacturing, agriculture, building, and infrastructure.When ALL of the emissions from war are considered, they are likely to be well above 10% of the global total. Recycling supermarket bags, or taking a train instead of an airplane, represent minimal emission savings when compared to war instead of negotiation. Something that may not be widely known is that IPCC guidelines do not explicitly consider wartime GHG emission reporting, or the GHG emissions associated with war — we should all be shocked and horrified!
Post #62From Post #48: “There is talk of terraforming the Moon, or Mars. More realistically, we should consider terraforming certain areas of our own Earth. There are boundless possibilities; huge greenhouse gas removal projects; massive re-housing projects; unlimited power from the Sun; massive agriculture, and reforestation projects; enough work for comfortable living wages for all of Earth’s people.” This is as good-a-time-as-any to consider a more all-encompassing 2050 emissions target. Human society has a duty to consider a more principled and generous, 2050 mission statement. A suggestion: ‘LIVING WELL 2050 — 8.3 BILLION — ZERO CO2 EMISSIONS’. It is a touch wordy, but a worthy contender for the copy writers.The global leadership should be aspiring towards a parity of GDP per capita, across all 196 countries. (See post 57). If the world community is to ‘green’ large swaths of the planet, which are currently arid scrub or desert, (terraforming) the task will require many more of us engaged in the task:• Decarbonising an entire planet will be no easy task.• It will require vast amounts of desalinated water.• It will require vast amounts of renewable, or zero CO2 emission energy.• It will require vast amounts of heavy machinery.• It will require a massive workforce at all skill levels.• It will enable the world community to move towards a global equalisation of GDP per capita.• It will require a global effort, greater than that required for all the wars fought on the planet to date.• The work must continue — it will not be an easy task.
Post #61The persistent news items these days are: ‘extreme weather events, extreme heat, unprecedented floods, terrible fires, and persistent droughts. Listening to an Australian talkback radio show, a few days ago these problems were discussed in great detail, but never the cause. Why do we, as a people, not connect the increasing number of these record-breaking heat waves, droughts, floods, fires, to the warming planet and climate change?Are we in a denialist groupthink? Do we think that by ignoring the heating of the planet it is not occurring? If we as a people do not speak up — very loudly — no serious climate change avoidance action will occur. The world must seriously reduce greenhouse gas pollution/emissions now.The complete transition to wind, solar, geothermal, emerging clean energy technologies, small modular reactors, and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere — on an industrial scale — is now more urgent than ever before. The political system will opportunistically respond to the denialist attitudes of the voters, and effective climate action will be pushed further into the future
Post #60From Change: ‘An aspect to global warming, which has not been prominent is the human comfort temperature range … …’ The 2015 Paris climate accord aimed to limit average global surface temperature rise to well below 2ºC (3.6ºF) with efforts to limit the increase 1.5°C, (2.7ºF). The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) gives 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above the pre-industrial level. The 1.55°C is the global average. Average land temperatures are just over 2°C above pre-industrial, while sea surface temperatures are ~1°C higher.As pretty well all of us live on land, the 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures, is the most relevant to we humans. Even a seemingly small number such as a 2ºC increase represents a very significant part of the human comfort range. From an analysis of numerous charts, it is pretty clear that the human comfort zone is between 20° and 28° Celsius (68°F to 82.4°F). An individual’s actual comfort zone will be affected by the relative humidity (RH), the activity level, and the conditioning of the person to heat, cold, and humidity.Some sources give the human comfort range as only 70°F to 80°F (for RH from 15% to 50%) The following graphs both show that the human comfort zone, spans only about 12°F (6.67°C).
Acknowledgement to: The Louisiana Department of Energy and Natural Resources, and The Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy — U.S. Department of Energy.
Two degrees Celsius equates to 30% of the human comfort zone, and the two degrees is continually increasing, and the two degrees is our best-case scenario. The top end of the human comfort zone can be increased, depending on the speed of air movement, and the availability of air-conditioning, but with 30% of our comfort range already taken up with the best-case scenario, it does seem rather risky.The towns of Hopetoun, and Walpeup, in the State of Victoria, Australia, hit a state record temperature this week of 48.9°C (120°F). We are gobbling up our human comfort zone at a great rate of knots! Maximum outside summer temperatures in Victoria have always been above human comfort zone temperatures, but 20.9°C, and almost 38°F, above our comfort zone is taking it to extremes!
These extreme climate events, whether heat, floods, or terrible fires are happening with increasing frequency. However, there are few media sources seriously connecting the increasing number of these record-breaking heat waves, floods, grass and forest fires, to the warming planet and climate change. Why is the obvious climate connection not considered more newsworthy? Are the organisations, and people, in opposition to effective action to slow global heating just too powerful for the good of us all? Is this influencing the reporting? Never forget! The condition, in which we leave the planet, is awfully important for those who follow us!
Post #59Also from Change: Weather events that appear to run counter to ‘global warming’, do not negate the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows a planet-wide trend towards a hotter future. Whether the weather is unseasonably dry, wet, cold or hot, the issue is that long-term seasonal weather trends and patterns are being disrupted. While single weather events may not be definitive proof of an atmosphere in crisis, more frequently occurring random and aberrant weather events are not as easily dismissed.It is the aggregate of the separate events that are currently occurring that are the clear departure from the long-term norm. All of these individual weather events, taken together, become the unprecedented event. Around the world there are enough examples of changes to weather patterns, snow lines, glaciers, sea levels, droughts and other extreme weather events, which correlate in expected ways with science’s predictions for a warming planet. It is only the exact mechanism of the linkage that prevents our present science from forecasting exactly when, and where, the next extreme event will occur. It is, after all, a very large planet and there are many variables.
Post #58From Change Ready or Not: Managing Climate, Our Choice, Our Responsibility: Remember, this is not a fight to save the planet, it may not be a fight to save us, Homo Sapiens, but it is definitely a fight to save our highly developed societies and life as we know it. It is a fight not to be lost. We have already reached a time in Earth’s history where we should not have the freedom to do whatever takes our fancy, with no regard for the energy consumed, and without paying an appropriate fee to compensate for damage to the biosphere.Changing well-established business practices will not always be easy. It will involve changing some things that many of us currently see as vital to maintaining our comfortable lives. But our way of life is going to change anyway. If we carefully manage this change, the future looks bright. Unpleasant change is a good deal more likely if we do nothing and let the biosphere decide how we shall be affected. Let us not destroy our way of life because we cannot be bothered to save it. Or, because we are too tight fisted to spend the money. Or, because of any one of the many other excuses, and justifications, we can dream up!
Post #57From Post 48, there is a very strong causative link between the GDP of a nation, the GDP per capita, and the most likely position of the majority of the population of that particular country on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs — as shown here:
The strong link between a country’s GDP, and the purchasing power of the individual people living in that country, strongly suggests that a sense of fairness would suggest that the GDP of the poorest countries should be increased. Many of the most developed countries in the world have benefitted from being able to develop their manufacturing industries without any consideration of the cost to the environment of the associated carbon dioxide emissions.The billions and billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere have, until now, been essentially freebies because there has been no effective cost of emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. In the past, we didn’t know what we were doing, but since Dame Margaret Thatcher’s powerful speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1989, there has been no excuse. (Posts, 11 & 51). It is now time to balance the remaining carbon dioxide budget fairly between nations. This will be key in removing that excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
Post #56The previous post leads to a difficult question: how can we possibly bring about the concerted action needed to remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than is currently being managed by nature alone? Obviously, we must utilise all of the skills and abilities we have developed in the 300,000 years since Homo Sapiens first emerged on planet Earth. Additionally, and importantly, we must develop and enhance the characteristic of cooperation, not just among people we are familiar with, not just in our individual nation states, but among all of the 8¼ billion people that make up the Homo Sapiens species.
Post #55In the previous post I credited the stunning advances, in aviation technology, to the government having a clear objective, in that particular case, it was to win a war.However, a war humanity categorically must not win is the war our consumer society has declared on the benign climate conditions of the Holocene Geological Epoch. A war started at first accidentally, when we were not aware of the danger of massively increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane, but now being continued in the full knowledge of those dangers.Nonetheless, there is a war, that every single person of the 8¼ billion people on Earth must win, and that is the war to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, as near as we can, back to the pre-industrial level of around 280 parts per million (ppm). Around 280 ppm was the approximate CO2 level that existed for all of the 11,700 years of the Holocene Geological Epoch.A reduction to 280 ppm is a very big challenge indeed, and one that will tax our ingenuity and resourcefulness to the very limit! However, if 280 ppm is impossible, then let us try for 300 ppm or 350 ppm. Any reduction is better than the 430 ppm we see today. Our society likes one-line political headlines/slogans: how about: Live Aid 2.0 — Save the Holocene!
Post #54From post 48: “Does our aim, for Earth in 2050, include people still living in poverty and squalor?” In the country I reside in, Australia, the year 2050 has become big news. The National Party of Australia, part of the government until 2022, have abandoned the policy of ‘net zero CO2 emissions by 2050’. This was a policy the NATS supported during the previous Australian government.Saying we cannot achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 is ridiculous — 2050 is 25 years away!In 1940, the Royal Air Force (RAF) still flew a few Gloster Gladiator biplanes in Malta.Four years later, in 1944, the twin jet Gloster Meteor became operational in the RAF.In three more years, in October 1947, ‘Chuck’ Yeager in the Bell X-1 broke the ‘Sound Barrier’ and achieved supersonic speed — Mach 1.06.We just need clear-cut policies to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions — ASAP. The remarkable advances in aviation technology, shown above, were achieved because our governments had a clear aim: Win the War! In the first case WW2, and after that, the Cold War.It is a given, a no-brainer, or whatever is your preferred expression, for something that absolutely must be achieved, for the good of all humanity, that net-zero CO2 emissions must be achieved by 2050, and preferably much, much sooner.All we need to do is set in chain the correct policies.Biplanes to supersonic aircraft in seven years! It can be done! Let us do it!
Post #53 Part 5: Who pays?On a final note, among some political parties, the big ‘bogey’ to be avoided has been leaving future generations with debt. As things are tracking now, we may leave them with far worse. Many of us are great beneficiaries of previous generations of taxpayers, certainly leaving us with debt, but also with roads, railways, water and waste disposal systems, airports and dockyards, public buildings, health and education systems, and freedom.The following phrase has been quoted many times, and its validity is undiminished; I acknowledge both Voltaire, and Uncle Ben for the phrase: ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. This quotation is as applicable today as ever before. In today’s world, where most of the power is derived from wealth, and faced with solving the crises arising from global warming/climate change, the quote should read: ‘with great wealth comes great responsibility’.
Post #52 Part 4: Who pays?Governments around world will obviously need to step-up on a scale previously seen during WW1, WW2, Cold War, Space Race, Financial Crisis, and Pandemic. The private sector, composed of small, medium, and large businesses, and large multinational corporations will play a crucial role in transforming the world to zero GHG emissions through competition and market-driven operations.Private, public, and institutional investment will play a large part. And, importantly, the quicker all investment, business and private ceases in fossil fuels and fossil fuel driven technology, the better. Fixing the chemistry of the biosphere will not come cheaply — it will require a lot of money.Private sector investments are made with the expectation of appropriate financial returns, as has been the case throughout history. Governments, on the other hand, raise funds through company, corporate, property, and individual taxation, value-added and sales taxes, duties and levies. Tax is not an evil to be avoided, it is an essential component of the civilized society upon which we all rely. From the early 1980s to about 2010, taxes as a percentage of GDP, on individuals and corporations, tended to be reduced. From 2010 to the present day, most likely because of the financial and pandemic crises, that trend has been reversed.With the scale of the new crises now emerging, due to the warming of the planet, more revenue than ever will be required. It is worth noting, some of the individual tax percentages levied during previous global emergencies. In the early 1950s nuclear war was a distinct possibility, and in England the people were even told they would only have four minutes warning if a nuclear attack were to occur. At that time, the top tax rate in the USA was 90%. During WW2 in England, the top rate was 99.25% and in 1945 it was still 98%. In Australia, during the war, the top tax rate was 75%. Obviously, those with no assets and very little income, were not paying anywhere near to those rates of taxation.
Post #51 Part 3: Who pays?Paying an authentic share of the cost of running a safe, stable, healthy, and prosperous society must be fairly, and impartially, borne by all those who choose to live in that society — it is not optional.In particular, how is the cost of stabilising the chemistry of the biosphere to be collected/paid? Who/how/how much. This is a contentious political issue that demands more well-structured thought than the matter has been getting, globally, over the past 30 years. A coherent and comprehensive system of investment, levies, taxes, fees and charges, that serve the needs of all humanity going forward, must form the basis of global society — this is not optional.Even thirty-six years ago, the warming of our planet was not optional. However, starting at that time, or even at the time of Kyoto, the warming was potentially able to be kept under tighter control. It was November 8th, 1989, when world leaders were given their clearest warning that things were going seriously wrong in the atmosphere. In that November, when the level of atmospheric CO2 was 353 ppm, the then UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York, saying: “We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.” — “At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air”.The annual increase by 2024 has risen to just over thirty-seven billion tonnes! So today, the warming planet is not optional. And importantly, global warming is changing the climate all over the world. Global warming and climate change are not hypothetical; they are established theory, based on multiple observations and verified data sets. The warming Earth must be taken seriously! And, paying to seriously reduce emissions must also be taken even more seriously!
Post #50 Part 2: the financing.The world must have a global system of fees that must be paid to allow industrial levels of carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere. From: Change Ready or Not: Managing Climate – Our Choice, Our Responsibility, is the following quotation:‘The implementation of a universal carbon cost, and the actual form of an emission pricing system, can evolve together. The ultimate pricing system will be a policy/political decision … … While the set price should be no higher than is necessary, the price applied will initially need to be upwardly progressive; sufficient to reclaim the chemical stability of the atmosphere within a timeframe sufficiently short to make a difference; within one or two decades rather than three or four.’‘If a country decides, in its own domestic market not to participate in a carbon-pricing scheme, it will be problematic for global emissions reduction. How problematic will depend on the size of the industrial sector within that particular country. However, as most countries rely heavily on international trade, this problem could be mitigated by an importing country applying, at their border, an estimated carbon emission cost of manufacturing in, and shipping from, the originating country.’‘CO2 emissions ‘leakage’ to non-participating countries, can be addressed if the final CO2 price is levied on all products, either at point of sale or at appropriate points in the supply and transport chain. Depending on the details of the final emission price, border adjustment taxes or tariffs may be necessary. A carbon price can then be applied, whether the product originates next-door or 12,000 kilometers away. This price will include the CO2 emission cost of everything: resource extraction, refining, shipping, manufacturing, transport of finished goods, marketing and retailing — a system that will be equitable for all product originators, whether local or distant.’
Post #49 Part 1: the problem.Among all of the other obvious needs of human society, the present-day greatest ‘need’ should be to stabilise the chemistry of the Earth’s biosphere, and most importantly, the atmosphere. We must firstly stop the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, (CO2), and methane, (CH4). And secondly, and on an industrial scale, urgently remove the excess CO2, already built up in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels during the Industrial Age — it is critical to reduce atmospheric CO2.Carbon dioxide, while not in itself the most potent greenhouse gas, because of the massive amount already emitted from the coal, oil, and gas burnt by now, and because it remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, it is in fact the most dangerous greenhouse gas. An atmospheric level 280 parts per million (ppm), served humanity brilliantly for the first ~12,000 years of our Holocene Epoch — in fact, until the dawn of our Industrial Age. The CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is now ~ 427½ ppm, which is a scary 52½% increase on the 280 ppm at the start of the Holocene.
Post #48Hierarchy of Needs is described in Maslow’s 1943 paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, which. refers to the human condition and is an influential theory of motivation. Maslow? Climate Change website? The need of each person matters on a much wider sphere than an individual’s motivation. Maslow could be broadened to include the economics of the individual at a nation state level.In short, apply Maslow’s theory to a hierarchy of needs to the people of the more than 190 countries in the world. There is an extraordinary correlation between a person’s share of their countries GDP, on a purchasing power parity basis, the GDP of their country, and their probable position on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Everyone deserves, at least the opportunity, to experience Maslow’s five levels:• Basic survival needs like food, water, shelter, and sleep.• Security, stability, protection from harm, and order.• Social interaction, love, affection, and a sense of belonging.• Self-esteem, confidence, achievement, recognition, and respect.• Fulfilling their potential, personal growth, and self-discoveryIdealistic — indisputably — maybe? Does our aim, for Earth in 2050, include people still living in poverty and squalor? Importantly, this question should be key to solving the problem of our overheating Earth.There is talk of terraforming the Moon, or Mars. More realistically, we should consider terraforming certain areas of our own Earth. There are boundless possibilities; huge greenhouse gas removal projects; massive re-housing projects; unlimited power from the Sun; massive agriculture, and reforestation projects; enough work for comfortable living wages for all of Earth’s people.
Post #47CBM is acknowledged for 1st photo. This is not a picture of fairness; it is not a picture of justice. This photograph does not represent equality in the use of Earth’s abundant resources, and there is no indication of any adherence to the rules, laws, or moral principles of justice. This picture is not alone. There are literally millions of comparable sights.
The Brick Development Association, Australian Broadcasting Commission, Quartz Media Network, are acknowledged for the photos of undesirable brickmaking methodology, tea leaf plucking and manufacture of cheap clothing. In his 2023 book, Laurie Parsons introduces the idea of Carbon Colonialism. Parsons underlines how the unhindered consumerisation of the rich countries of the world, effectively outsources the climate crisis to poorer countries — we outsource manufacturing, and the attendant waste, to people less fortunate than ourselves.There are two common factors in these photos — cheap labour and climate change. The colonialisation of past centuries is clearly seen in the cheap labour. And we will never achieve true sustainability in the environment generally, or the global climate specifically, until we achieve planetwide unity of purpose in achieving our environmental and climate change outcomes. Much, much, more work is in the pipeline.
Post #46Imagine the Earth is to face an external audit — in itself a very long-shot — and the primary purpose is to assess how well we have utilised the planet’s resources for the benefit of humankind. Until the latter half of the 20th century, wars excepted, it is likely that the outcome would be: ‘quite good/a pass/a tick’.On the other hand, since we have been cognizant of the danger to the environment, and ourselves, of the ever-increasing level of greenhouse gases — particularly carbon dioxide — in the atmosphere, the audit would be: ‘failed/massively/abysmally’. The people of Earth are very rapidly running out of time to bring about the political and economic changes necessary to protect the planet’s environment, and its inhabitants. We must stop the overheating of the planet — and cool the joint down!
Post #45 Part 3Also, from 2013, another Change Ready or Not quotation:“A legitimate criticism of a gradual process to emission reduction is that it is too slow”. “This is true. However, because such little progress has been made towards mandatory and enforceable emission control measures, there are currently few effective alternatives. An economic gradualism policy will help to accelerate the industrial research that may be expected as part of the normal scientific and industrial progression and initiate the process of technological compounding, thus connecting the complementary pathways of gradualism and compounding.”“Deep down we all know it needs more, but if we cannot give it more right now, then anything is better than nothing. At least it is a start that will begin to change the way people think about the chemical changes being made to the atmosphere and oceans — and hopefully, put in place systems that can be expanded when the tide of public and political opinion changes.”“It is developing economic policies to overcome community and business resistance to the implementation of significant greenhouse gas emission reduction measures. With millions of conflicting interests, economic gradualism policies, on a large scale, may be the most practical model to underpin the de-carbonisation of our consumer society. Economic gradualism is a far-reaching concept not in any way comparable to conventional business as usual models.”Now, in 2025, everything is more urgent. The principle of economic gradualism is still better than the current position, where the world is doing virtually nothing that will preserve the benign environment of the Holocene Geological Epoch. In 1992, 1997, and 2002, small economic graduations would have sufficed, but not anymore. While the world perseverates over a comprehensive carbon emission cost, think of graduations of not $1.00, but $10.00 — and not 5% but 15%.
Post #44 Part 2A further example of how economic gradualism could be used to correct another CO2 emission inconsistency is in the passenger automobile sector, where no account is taken of the size of the vehicle. To encourage the use of motor vehicles, with smaller manufacturing, shipping, and running emissions, a sliding scale fee, based on the engine capacity, and kerb weight of the vehicle, could be introduced. From the same book, a further quote from 2013:“Smaller, lighter, vehicles with an engine capacity of less than, for example, 0.8 litre (800 cc) and electric vehicles, would attract no fee.” (2025 comment – This could now also include other zero emission fuelled vehicles). “For example, suppose the fee for a vehicle with an engine capacity of 3.0 litre were to be set at 5% of the purchase price in the first year of operation of the scheme and this fee is increased by 5% each year. It would be twenty years before the price of a vehicle with an engine capacity of 3.0 litres would increase by 100%. Consumers would begin to take this into account in their purchasing decisions. Of course, this one measure alone would be insufficient to drive global emissions down to zero. The purpose here is to open up dialogue on economic gradualism, not to define every detail of economic policy." “Of course, other developments will overtake the need for specific interventions using economic gradualism techniques. For instance, in the automotive example, the normal process of automotive research and development will make gasoline fuelled cars redundant long before a car with a 3.0 litre engine attracts a surcharge of 100% on the purchase price. Nevertheless, this type of intervention signals an unambiguous intent to both industry and consumers which will, in large part, speed up the move to a zero CO2 emission future, by encouraging investment into environmentally sustainable sectors."
Post #43 Part 1An Analysis of Global Carbon Project and IPCC data by Robbie Andrew, senior researcher at the CICERO Centre for International Climate Research, led to the following statement: “By spewing heat trapping gases into the atmosphere, humankind has lifted global temperatures to record highs. If nations had started reducing emissions in 2005, they could have made gradual cuts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.” “Starting in 2015, when the Paris agreement was adopted, would have required steeper cuts. Starting today would require cuts so drastic as to appear essentially impossible.”The concept of gradual cuts is not new. In Change Ready or Not: Managing Climate, Our Choice, Our Responsibility, (2013/published 2015) the concept of ‘Economic Gradualism’ was proposed, and to quote from the book:“Economic gradualism is a strategy that can underpin and provide the impetus to implement the power of compounding for CO2 emission abatement. The most important aspect is that gradual change can limit the impact on any given industry, or the economy of a particular country and allow the impacts to be managed.” … … “As a case in point, envisage a process started at the time of the Kyoto agreement. A price of $US1.00 per tonne of CO2 emissions (or an equivalent ¥, €, £, or other currency) could have been imposed and gradually increased as the world economy slowly adjusted to, and factored in, the reality that the atmosphere was no longer a free CO2 dump.” … … “If $US1.00 per tonne of CO2 had been levied in 1992 and increased by $US1.00 per tonne every year since, the price for dumping one tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere would now (in 2015) be $US23.00.” … … “starting the process using the principle of economic gradualism in 2015 is better than not beginning at all.”
Post #42In today’s world, military action should be seen as a dismal failure of the political system. The total emissions of the global military-industrial complex, including the emissions resulting from the use of military force, in dispute resolution — wars, must be separately identified, and counted.Furthermore, the emissions that are necessitated by the rebuilding of damaged/destroyed, infrastructure, homes, public buildings, hospitals, and most importantly, putting back together all the broken bodies of the people, who happen to be in the way of this violent method of dispute resolution, must be counted and allocated to the total emissions of the military-industrial complex and all of its branches.The total emissions of military actions, upstream and downstream, will undoubtedly represent a large percentage of the world’s total global CO2 emissions. Past President Dwight D. Eisenhower was correct in his 1961 warning regarding the military-industrial complex. However, sixty-four years ago, President Eisenhower did not know that solving disputes by military action would contribute to the increase in the Earth’s average global temperature by over 1.5 degrees Celsius. More work is necessary.
Post #41In the realm of the political, any discussion which tackles the problem of the heating of the planet is certain to attract criticism from one, or another, vested interest. While the world delays meaningful action, the average global temperature is now nudging more than 1.6°C above the pre-industrial temperature and still climbing. In the sphere of climate discussion, we have a situation where an opinion seems to be taken as well considered policy.Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing is more dangerous for the well-being of our future selves. For an opinion to be of any value, in deciding policy as important as the future of humanity, it must be backed by peer reviewed research, based on reliable, verified data.
Post #40B Part 3The requirement to employ every possible technology, and conservation measure, in the fight against climate change, as stated in Post #38, will include the following:1. An agreed worldwide price for anyone to be allowed to emit carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. The world must stop CO2 emissions with the greatest of urgency. The warming caused by CO2 emissions is accelerating the release of years of stored methane (CH4), from regions of permafrost and ocean clathrates. 2. Engaging the world population, political, business, and religious leaders in the fight to curb greenhouse gas emissions (GHG’s). 3. End the ‘business as usual’ model. Urgently develop a new paradigm, the prime objective of which will be the development of a global economic system focussed on the elimination GHGs from the atmosphere, and social justice for all of the people in world. 4. Substantial funding of science (all areas) and engineering (all areas) with the aim of stabilising the chemistry of the biosphere and preventing the dawn of a new geological epoch that may be less favourable to humans — the Anthropocene? 5. Research on large-scale direct air capture and storage of CO2 (geo-sequestration). There is already far too much CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is imperative that substantial quantities are removed urgently. Also, carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) directly from industrial and power generation sites. There will be an opportunity to use captured CO2 as a feedstock for end user products and synthetic fuels. 6. Maximum use of renewable energy sources: wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and nuclear. Distributed power generation could play a greater role. Relegate fossil fuels to a minor role in the energy and fuel cycle. Firstly, the elimination of fossil fuels from power generation, land transport, and many industrial applications, as soon as possible. Secondly, elimination of fossil fuels from ocean transport. Thirdly, zero CO2 emission aerospace operations is more demanding, and will take longer. Replacing hydrocarbon fuel in air transport, presents significant challenges. Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)—biofuels—are biomass-derived fuels from plants, animals, algae, waste oils, or other bio-waste, but enough feedstock to power all of the world’s aircraft is problematic. If plants/trees are grown solely for use as biofuel feedstock it will greatly reduce land available for food production. 7. Develop new, and more efficient, methods of energy storage, and also, long-distance transmission of electricity with minimal losses. 8. Most importantly, all types of recycling, energy conservation, soil conservation, reforestation, water conversation, protection of species diversity, and a maximum use of bio-sequestration, but importantly, not just for 20 or 30 years, but for hundreds and hundreds of years.
POST #40A Part 2A technology that will be needed, to stop and reverse the changing climate, will unquestionably be Direct Air Capture (DAC), on a very large scale. Very large-scale DAC plants will be necessary: the largest plant operating in the world today has an ability to remove around 36,000 tonnes of CO2 each year (36x10^3). Annually, the global emissions of CO2 are about 37 Gigatonnes (37x10^9). Therefore, to remove only the annual emissions, a global DAC capacity six orders of magnitude greater than today’s largest plant, will be required. Industrial scale DAC is perhaps the only realistic solution left to the world now, and it should become the predominant industry of the future, rivalling only the fossil fuel extraction, and distribution, industry of today.Capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, at scale, will need to be carried out at sites where renewable energy sources are abundant, and the secure geological storage sites may be hundreds, or thousands, of kilometres distant from the extraction sites. The 2½ kilometre long coal trains of today could be replaced by 2½ kilometre long trains transporting liquid CO2. DAC will require countries with extensive renewable energy, large industrial bases, natural resources, and the building of suitable transport systems.Globally we must stop, and reverse, the increasing dangerous levels of CO2. Very few nations in the world have the renewable energy capacity, political stability, resources, technology, and wealth, to manage such a project, at the scale required. Countries such as, China, the United States, Russia, the UK/EU, Canada, and Australia, could be possible candidates?
POST #40 Part 1The warming of our planet is becoming more damaging by the month, and there is no single solution. Starting about 200 years ago, virtually all of our energy needs have been based on increasingly effective methods of burning fossil fuels. Compare George Stevenson’s 1829 ‘Rocket’, and the Mach 2 passenger jet ‘Concorde’ — these were both powered by burning fossil fuel. These fuels have progressed us to where we are today.
We will need to use every imaginable technology, and conservation measure, to re-stabilise Earth’s biosphere. (Refer to Part 3) The stable environment of the Holocene geological Epoch — 12,500 years — has been very favourable to the development of the societies of today. However, this is NOT to say that the world is perfect for everyone, because this is, undeniably, not the case. There is a great deal more work to do.
POST #39On April 25th, in Turkey, France, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and many other countries, inspirational ANZAC memorial ceremonies were observed. Much has been spoken about the courage, fortitude, and for many, the ultimate sacrifice, of those brave Australian and New Zealand Army Corps soldiers (ANZACs) in 1915/16/17/18 and, of course, in wars fought since that time. Most of the commemorative speeches rightly focus on the sacrifices made by the men and women in our armed forces to protect the freedoms we enjoy today, and into the future.However, apart from talking of protecting the freedoms we enjoy today, only a few of the April 25th speeches connect the spirit of service, and sacrifice, in the ANZAC tradition, to the duty we have today to ensure the hopes and dreams of future generations are fulfilled. Wikipedia does include examples from past speeches, some of which follow: ‘From sacrifice blooms hope for a brighter future’; ‘Let their legacy inspire new generations to build a better world’; ‘Hope lives on through the values of the Anzacs; ‘In their memory, we find strength for tomorrow’.In remembering that the nature of the war to be fought can change, the speech that I find most inspiring, in working for success in the war we humans have declared on the Earth’s ecosystems with our seemingly unstoppable heating of the planet, is this one: ‘The ANZAC legacy reminds us to persevere, no matter the odds’.Fight the good fight, all of us, as time is currently not on our side.
POST #38Extract from my book, Change Ready or Not, which although written more than a decade ago, is still current regarding atmospheric water vapour. The 14°C is no longer current as the Copernicus Climate Change Service reported that in July 2024 the daily average global temperature reached a record high at 17.16°C"Water vapour does have a significant greenhouse effect and together with the other greenhouse gases, is instrumental in keeping the planet at a comfortable average temperature of 14°C. But it is not directly responsible for increasing the temperature of the planet; the phenomenon known as global warming.""Actions by humans have very little direct influence on planetary water vapour levels, but there is a danger that a significant rise in global temperature, because of emissions from industrial and agricultural activity, may enhance the ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapour. In turn, this may lead to a future increase in the greenhouse effect and is just one of the potential global warming feedback mechanisms that should concern us all."And from the footnotes:1. Water vapour varies between a trace and 4% by volume, depending on both air temperature and location on the planet.2. Consequences of altering the water vapour carrying capacity of the atmosphere may trigger unknown and unfavourable tipping points.
POST #37In Barney’s Blog, every now and then, I may be somewhat cyclic in writing about the urgent need to address the world’s GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emission problem. We have all known of the problem for at least 36 years — that is how long ago the then UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, said to the UN General Assembly: “It is the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself. … … what we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters, and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate” (See post #11).So, I am being purposely repetitive. For the past 36 years, we have all known the dangers of GHG emissions, and for those 36 years, there has been an extensive, and recurring campaign, to say that climate change is not real, and we can continue to burn fossil fuels. Sadly, this denialist campaign has been very effective.We have known the danger, including our leaders in business and government, and yet, over the past 36 years, CO2 emissions alone have risen from ~ 22 Gt/year in 1989, to ~ 37½ Gt/year in 2024. Even more damaging, CO2 emissions, in 2025, are predicted to exceed 40 Gt (Gigatonne). In addition to CO2 emissions, methane and nitrous oxide are also greenhouse gases, and they add to the overall GHG total.Thirty-six years of business-as-usual: thirty-six years of non-caring business-as-usual. It is time to change — it is time to put a universal cost on emitting GHG emissions. Ongoing work..
POST #36 Part 3 A possible, improbable event is redistribution of the planet’s bulk (mass), caused by the ice melting from Antarctica and Greenland. When this ice becomes water and travels from the polar regions towards the equatorial zones it could influence the ‘wobble’ in the Earth’s axis. It is known that the axis of the Earth ‘wobbles’, and there are a number of ‘wobbles’ superimposed on each other, with different cycles, and varying time periods. It is reported that some earthquakes have been large enough to have a small, but measurable effect on the ‘wobble’ of the Earth’s axis, due to movement of land masses and redistribution of the surface land mass. A report by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, showed that the March 11th, 2011, magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan, should have shifted the position of Earth's axis by about 0.17 metres.Considering a different situation, the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is approximately 2700 trillion tonnes, which is slightly less than a two millionth part of the Earth’s total mass. This is a very large, concentrated mass of ice, with a centre of mass displaced approximately 25 degrees of latitude to the axis of rotation of Earth. This may, or may not, be significant in the rotational dynamics of the Earth. Since 1992 about 5 trillion tonnes of ice have melted, which seems huge, and little, at the same time — is it significant — can it be ignored? Some reports have it all of Greenland’s ice melting in 1000 years, and some in 10,000 years, all depending on the rate at which we continue to heat up the Earth. It may take 10,000 years, but I doubt it. The axis of the Earth — the Earth weighs in at 5.98 x 10^24 kg — is a pretty stable feature of our day-to-day life, but a sizeable partial melt may cause us some problems. Can we really be assured that a partial, but significant, loss of the Greenland ice sheet will have no effect on the ‘wobble’ of the axis?Nonetheless, axis aside, what is sure is that considerable inflows of fresh water, from melting Ice sheets, and Glaciers, have the potential to change the system of interconnected Ocean currents. These massive ocean-spanning currents are vitally important to Earth’s climatic zones. We are playing a very high-stakes game by melting the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. Ongoing work.
POST #35 Part 2 Maybe it is considered improbable that in the future we encounter a tipping point at odds with the stability of society and business. Nonetheless, disregarding the improbable is a risky business, as a global immunity from major tipping points cannot be assumed. In the movies, in the event of an improbable, planetwide, disastrous threat to human life, something equally improbable usually happens, at the eleventh hour, to save us all — fiction, of course!What is alarming, is that in addition to many predicted, and very real, dangers of global heating, there is also the possibility that some unforeseen, disastrous event may result from our human caused (anthropogenic) changes to the atmosphere/biosphere. Improbability alone is no assurance that such an event will never occur. All that improbability does is to limit scientific and political debate.
POST #34 Part 1 It is reported that on 29th May 2024 a temperature of 52.9°C was recorded in a Delhi suburb — the hottest temperature ever in India. The 52.9°C needs official verification, but we know the ‘heat island effect’, in densely populated urban areas, can cause high local temperatures. This is a crazy situation. In the developed world we continue with our normal day-to-day lives and businesses: we ignore reports of extreme temperatures, and other extreme climatic events, in parts of the world disconnected from us. However, extreme events, in distant parts of the world, may be more connected with our normal day-to-day lives than is immediately evident — think ‘tipping points’.A tipping point can be described as a small change in a complex networked system, which causes a much larger change in the output, or behaviour, of the system. The worldwide declining population of honeybees is a case in point, where the honeybees have passed some population tipping point. The Earth has clearly passed many, many tipping points, and we have little awareness of the cause, or effect, of each tipping point. More importantly, we also do not know if we have passed any particular tipping point, and whether a particular tipping point is going to screw us up completely — or not.In some future time, we will likely pass a tipping point, which may be at odds with the stability of world society and commerce, and it will be too late to backtrack. It is possible that we could be approaching unknown, but potentially critical, tipping points in the next few years. We should tread very carefully — ongoing work.
POST#33 The political forces lined up against imposing an all-encompassing cost, for the privilege of dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, are enormous. (The 11/9/24 post has more on this topic). These ‘political forces’ frequently belittle the use of wind powered electrical generators by referring to them using derogatory and offensive language. Some of these quotes are from past times, but new messages from these people have changed little.A former Deputy PM of Australia told an anti-wind farm rally: “Get rid of the wind turds — when you get to the top of the Bulli Pass, you’ll look down and see all the wind turds…” A former PM of Australia described wind turbines as: “the dark satanic mills of the modern era” One of the most powerful men in the world was once quoted as saying: "I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much”.They are not windmills — this is a term that is used again, and again, to belittle wind turbines. Back in twelfth century Europe, when the vertical windmill was first used to grind grain, the folk correctly called them windmills. If those folk had invented wind powered generators, they would most likely have called them wind generators.The people quoted above represent powerful political forces — we are relying on these same powerful political forces to keep us safe from the negative effects of a heating planet — good luck to us all with that one.
POST #32 Every power within the world, should be working to eliminate further greenhouse gas emissions into the biosphere, and also be carrying out substantial research in how we, as a species, can remove the excess carbon dioxide (CO2) already in the atmosphere. To get atmospheric CO2 to what is considered a ‘safe’ level of 350 ppm, 70/80 ppm of CO2 must/should be removed from the atmosphere.Remembering always, there is a social justice element to the management of this planet. There are many, many millions of people who do not have clean water, enough food, decent shelter, effective sanitation, or decent life expectancy.The future of our species will depend on how well homo sapiens handle the emerging climate catastrophe. And, how effectively we manage that emerging climate catastrophe, may well depend on how fairly and justly, the wealthy, highly developed, nations of the world work to bring less developed nations into the advantaged world of abundance? — Ongoing work.
POST #31 Would it make a difference to the way we humans look after, and respect, the Earth if we knew we were unique in the universe? It is a possibility. Some astrophysicists and cosmologists increasingly speak with language that highlights just how special the Earth’s environment, and the development of life on Earth is in the vastness of the universe.The inflationary multiverse theory suggests there may be an infinite number of universes. Postulated in some circles, there is a possibility of another me, in another universe, typing this very same blog? I suggest that may not be the case, and in an infinity of universes, it is more likely each one is unique.In the immediate, in this special corner of the cosmos, we must carefully conserve this planet’s natural resources. Especially those special parts of the biosphere which absorb our excess carbon dioxide — the atmosphere and the oceans. Atmosphere and ocean are our most precious carbon sinks, and accordingly our most precious natural resource.
POST #30 In February 1990, Carl Sagan was successful in asking NASA to turn Voyager 1 around and photograph the Earth from the edges of the solar system, from a distance of 6.4 billion kilometres. The Earth appeared as tiny Pale Blue Dot, in a scattered light beam, only about one eighth of a pixel in size. Sagan famously, and correctly, stated that everyone who had ever lived, in all of Earth’s history, had lived on that tiny pale blue dot. — (changereadyornot.com has a copy of Carl Sagans full quote).There are several theories, some of which are conflicting, which describe the origin and characteristics of our universe. We have: the big bang, as a singularity, preceding inflation: cosmic inflation preceding the big bang: the inflationary multiverse: the cosmic microwave background radiation (CBMR).Does it matter? It does! It challenges us to look after our tiny pale blue dot — it is conceivable we may be all the universe has going for it.
POST #29 — Australia and Nuclear Power (Part III)The United Kingdom, with an established nuclear industry, and more than double Australia’s population, only plans an extra 18 GW of capacity by 2050. The United States also has an established nuclear industry, and more than ten times Australia’s population, only plans an extra 97 GW of capacity by 2050.Australia, by 2050, with zero nuclear generation industry, aims to better the UK’s 2050 added Gigawatt target, by nearly 40% — and achieve just on 25% of the US’s current nuclear generating capacity. The cost of implementation, and a lack of nuclear power plant design and construction engineers, is just the start of the challenges facing Australia, with its 2050 nuclear plan. There will be formidable, and worldwide competition, for nuclear power plant building capacity.On a per-capita basis, and also with a smaller tax base, Australia would need to outperform the nuclear expansion of both the UK and the US. There will be applications, best provided for by nuclear power. Research is currently being undertaken on the best use of nuclear energy in Australia, which will be the subject of future articles.The figures quoted have been rounded for clarity, but the essential message is unchanged.
POST #28 — Australia and Nuclear Power (Part II)To put Australia’s nuclear ambitions into context, the U.K. currently has 15 civil nuclear reactors in 5 operational plants. Three of the reactors have ceased generating and are currently being de-fuelled. The U.K. presently gets about 16% of its electricity from nuclear, and plans to increase nuclear generation, by 2050, by 4 times from 6 Gigawatt (GW) to 24 GW. The U.S. has 94 commercial nuclear reactors in 54 power plants and currently gets about 18% of its electricity from nuclear. The U.S. plans to add 200 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050, from about 97 GW to just under 300 GW.The perplexing part of the Australian plan, for 38% electricity generation from nuclear by 2050, is several-fold. It is estimated by AEMO that the Australian demand for electrical generation will double by 2050 and if Australia achieves the full potential of ‘green’ hydrogen/ammonia production, together with proposed ‘green’ production of steel and aluminium, doubling may be a low estimate. We could be talking upwards of 65 GW by 2050, and the 38 %, could easily be about 25 GW.No nuclear power plants, or technology, to 25 GW of nuclear capacity in 25 years is a massive jump!The figures quoted have been rounded for clarity, but the essential message is unchanged.
POST #27 — Australia and Nuclear Power (Part I)A current and dominant political debate in Australia is over whether Australia should replace its aging coal-fuelled generating capacity with nuclear power stations, or have confidence in renewable power, from wind turbines and solar energy, backed up with storage and gas. The alternative Australian government’s 2050 plan for Australia’s energy mix is to be 38% nuclear power, which involves building seven nuclear power plants, 54% renewable energy and 8% from storage and gas — this plan is more than a little perplexing.In both proposed electrical energy strategies for Australia, the gas back-up would involve the latest dual cycle gas turbine generating plants, and the storage would utilise batteries and pumped hydroelectricity. It is a reasonable expectation that, between now and 2050, the efficiency of all power generation, and storage, methodologies will be enhanced.Original sources for this series of articles include: the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.K. Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), the Australian departments of Treasury, and Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.
POST #26 If heating of the planet happened to be a football match, the score would be, fossil fuel and vested financial and political interests 1.5°Celsius, and me and the world nil. Unfortunately, in the game of planetary physics, there are no red cards.
POST #25 Following on from my two previous posts. On 24th July, the National Broadcaster re reported that the record global average temperature was 17.16 °C. It was also reported that Australia had recorded the lowest birth rate since 2006. This was identified as being due to cost-of-living pressures, which may well be a correct conclusion. There was no suggestion, however, that another possible, and additional factor, is likely to be that people are becoming increasingly concerned about bringing new life into a rapidly warming, and potentially dangerous, planetary environment.
POST #24Something puzzling from the previous post? Why should we be concerned by a rise in the daily global average temperature to 17.16°C (Celsius) on 22nd July 2024, when we see that temperatures, for example, of up to 70.7°C have been recorded in the Dasht-e Lut desert in Iran. The difference being, that the global average temperature is the weighted average temperature of Earth's surface, measured over both the land and the ocean but record high (or low) temperatures are locality specific.The more serious reality is that the global-average temperature for the past 12 months is 1.64°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average. (Credit: Copernicus Climate Change Service). And, 1.64°C above pre-industrial is significant because as stated last week, ‘the 10 highest annual maximums, in the last 50 years, have all occurred in the last 10 years’, and the Earth has not experienced a record global-average cold temperature year since 1976.Furthermore, a 1.64°C temperature increase in less than 150 years is a remarkably large temperature change in a rather short span of time, and relatively small changes, in the global average temperature, produce very large changes in extreme temperatures. Even more serious is the fact that the global average temperature tracks changes in the total energy from the Sun to the Earth, minus the energy radiated back into space from the Earth — it is a budget of the energy retained by the Earth. To raise the temperature of all of the oceans, the land, and atmosphere by 1.64°C takes a vast amount of energy. This vast quantity of energy is accumulated by the Earth, as a whole, and it will NOT go away.
POST #23From the news a short while ago: “New record daily global average temperature reached on 22nd July 2024 — at 17.16°C it is the highest in our modern Era”. What is even more extraordinary, is that the 10 highest annual maximums, in the last 50 years, have all occurred in the last 10 years. How much do these facts concern you?

POST #22We often see graphs like this on the Internet, our TVs our mobile/cell phones — or in newspapers and magazines. They are from reliable sources. The source for the graph below is NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEL), and the Earth System Research Laboratories (ESRL).This graph is from USA government organisations, but the information shown in the graph is reinforced thousands of time over by datasets obtained from research organisations all around the world.
The correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and the increase in global temperature is pretty clear. Nonetheless, there is a persistent opinion among people that find it difficult to accept that our lifestyles, and attendant carbon dioxide emissions, are responsible for the heating of the planet.Recently, in an attempt to deny that human activity is the cause of global heating, we heard, over the airwaves: “maybe some sort of heavenly body circles our planet and changes our climate, because there has been changes in the past, before we had cars, airplanes, and electricity, etcetera, etcetera”.There always must be a reason, but it can’t be us? However it is us! It is our prodigious use of fossil fuels as an energy source! Fossil fuels are in effect ‘stored energy from the Sun’. Homo Sapiens (us) are now smart enough to use the Sun’s energy in ‘real-time’, and the only thing holding it up are vested interests in the fossil fuel industries.
POST #21It is critical, for the future of humanity, that a total budget for both historically accumulated, and future CO2 emissions is agreed at COP 29 in Baku in Azerbaijan in November (11th to 22nd 2024). There must be agreement on how this total is shared equitably and objectively between developed and developing nations.The need for high-order leader/statesmanship grows greater, and greater, the longer effective action to arrest heating of the Earth is pushed back by the global political and theological leadership. We, now 8.2 billion of us, have already wasted/prevaricated/quibbled away thirty-five valuable years.
POST #20We need to preserve the climatic conditions humans have benefitted from for the past 12,500 years. The excesses of carbon dioxide (CO2) humans have been forcing into the atmosphere — partially absorbed by the oceans — since the start of the industrial age roughly 260 years ago, is staggering in scale. The rate at which CO2has been building up in the atmosphere, and oceans, has been accelerating since 1900. The rate of the build-up of CO2 increased again from the 1950s, and increased still further from the 1990s. This is changing, and moving, the Earth’s climatic zones into conditions not seen on Earth for about 2½ million years: a very risky planet-wide experiment. This dangerous experiment will require all of us to think profoundly, and overwhelmingly differently, about our political, economic, social, and environmental policies. The strategies to preserve Earth's environment, which supports human wellbeing and progress, will be challenging for us all. It is ongoing work.
POST #19Arguments on the way out of Earth’s climatic crisis are many. Globally though, the world appears to be in a ‘silo thinking’ mode rather than in a ‘business process’ thinking mode. There is an abundance of speeches about projects, and work, that could, and in fact should, be actioned around the world, but there is very little action on a SCALE equal to the SCALE of the climate problem.There is no single solution to the interlocking problems we face — we shall need hundreds of interlocking solutions. The world needs complexity not simplicity, ‘process’ and not ‘silo’ thinking. No more political point scoring.For the global community to get out of the current climate mess, we need EVERY idea!On-going work.
POST #18Over the past 15 years, in Australia — one of the 16 — there has been an abundance of policies designed to reduce the country's CO2 emissions. Every new policy appears to replace another. Similar thinking seems to play out in other countries in the ‘club of sixteen’. (16 countries that emit above 1.06% of the global annual total of CO2.)Mindful of the century, or so, it has taken human beings to get into this climate mess, the policy process should be additive, not replacive. As previously discussed, for the world to preserve, as far as is now possible, the benign conditions of the current Holocene geological epoch for our children, it will require throwing everything we can think of at the problem.This will involve bringing ALL of the countries in the world into the problem solving process, AND sharing the financial benefits accruing from the change to a net zero CO2 emission world. The IPCC defines Net Zero, as when total emissions are ≤ the emissions removed from the environment.Methane CH4 is an additional problem — it is on-going work.
POST #17 Humans have changed the chemistry of our entire planet — the Earth — weighing in at roughly six billion, trillion tonnes! The chemistry of the Earth’s biosphere has changed substantially over the past 70 years; a very short time, considered on planetary timescales.This is BIG stuff, and it will require BIG action to fix it. Humans are currently afraid of taking BIG steps, so we are trying to fix the climate imbalance with LITTLE steps. Variations on continuing with the usual, whether business, or anything else as usual, will simply NOT cut it!
POST #16 Plastics in our environment cannot be ignored from the standpoint of raw material and energy waste, marine and land pollution, and GHG emissions. Equally, the matter of recycling plastics cannot be ignored, and the matter of segregating and collecting the different plastics is consuming increasing resources.In 2022, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated that “less than 10% of the plastic used around the world is recycled”. It is unlikely to have changed in the past two years! Of interest to us all, is awareness of the different plastics/resin types that are relatively easy to recycle, those resin types that are more difficult, and those resins that are unable to be recycled.The recycling logo is well known. Less well known are the recycling numbers, which are:Recycling Code #1: PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) water bottles, trays, etc. — commonly recycled.Recycling Code #2: HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) for milk, shampoo, etc. — commonly recycled.Recycling Code #3: PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) for piping, blister packs, etc. — not recycled*.Recycling Code #4: LDPE (Low-Density Polyethylene) for food bags etc. — not always recyclable*.Recycling Code #5: PP (Polypropylene) for food packaging, yoghurt, etc. — commonly recycled.Recycling Code #6: PS (Polystyrene) for plastic cutlery, Styrofoam containers — not always recyclable*.Recycling Code #7: OTHERS. Includes acrylic, polycarbonate, nylon, fibreglass, etc. — not recyclable.* Could be recyclable at specialist facilities.With recycling, not only will we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, avoid ingesting micro and nano plastics, but also ensure a greener planet for our children and grandchildren.
POST 15 The concept of ‘total cost’ is critically important. A quote from my book, Change – Ready or Not, sums up the nitty-gritty of ‘total cost’:“When total CO2 emission costs are calculated, including a proportion of the emission cost of building ships, providing crews, fuel, docking facilities, administration, marketing, office buildings and other infrastructure, the overall comparison equation between ‘distant’ and ‘local’ may change markedly. The price of using the atmosphere as a carbon dioxide sink must always be factored into the total cost of any good or service”.The total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) into the atmosphere must be included in the final cost of all materials, energy, products, and services.
POST #14 A few posts ago I spoke to the doubtful sustainability of using throwaway wood spoons to stir our takeaway coffee, and throwaway wood knives and forks for our takeaway cheese toasties. In full service cafés, and restaurants, constantly re-washed, stainless steel cutlery is the go. For throwaway cutlery, where do we go? There is really only plastic or wood. Of course, plastic cutlery is only the very tip of the plastic recycling iceberg. The ‘elephant in the corner of the plastic recycling room’ is the previously discussed, and never to go away, lack of a worldwide pricing on emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Plastic is made from oil, so any plastic that can be recycled should be, which will not only save natural resources, but also energy. If the true cost were to be known of extracting oil from oil wells, or tar sands, including all the associated on-costs, that are necessary to produce new plastic, polymer, feedstock, the economics of recycling previously used plastic would be calculatable.
POST #13 Solving the problem of a rapidly warming earth, will require the very highest level of political and economic leadership.
1967 Expo Geodesic Dome, Montreal.
Buckminster Fuller, who popularized the Geodesic Dome, is quoted as saying: “Our children and our grandchildren are our elders in universe time — they are born into a more complex, more evolved universe than we can experience, or than we can know. It is our privilege to see that new world through their eyes.”By wasting the last thirty years, or so, with still no agreed worldwide cost on emitting the greenhouse gases, CO2 and CH4, into the atmosphere, are we forgetting our responsibility to our ‘Elders in Universe Time’?
POST#12 November 8, 1989, the former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in a speech to the UN General Assembly, said: “we have all recently become aware of another insidious danger. It is as menacing in its way as those more accustomed perils with which international diplomacy has concerned itself for centuries. It is the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself. … … What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate — all this is new in the experience of the earth.”… …“It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. … … We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. … … and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere. … … At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.”… …“We need a realistic programme of action and an equally realistic timetable. Each country has to contribute, and those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not. The work ahead will be long and exacting. We should embark on it hopeful of success, not fearful of failure. … … We are … … the trustees of this planet, charged today with preserving life itself — preserving life with all its mystery and all its wonder. May we all be equal to that task.” Extracts quoted are relevant to the global heating we face today, in 2024. I remember that the former UK Prime Minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher, also said: “we shall need statesmanship of the highest order.”
POST # 11 Global leadership on environmental matters has not always been missing in action. The Montreal Protocol, designed to protect the ozone layer, and end emission of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) into Earth’s atmosphere, has been highly successful.Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated that: "perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol".August 2024, the current UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, observed: “At a time when multilateralism is under severe strain, the Montreal Protocol, to help protect the ozone layer, stands out as a powerful symbol of hope. It is a reminder that when countries show political resolve for the common good, change is possible”.Likewise, the former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, made a significant address to the United Nations General Assembly in November 1989, on the foremost problem facing our world in the present day.
POST #10 Among the questions, regarding how our leadership is reacting to the overheating of our planet, is the following. While it may be a relatively minor question, it is illustrative how blind we are flying, and the question is this: “is the best use of trees making wooden knives, forks and spoons, or planting the correct trees to store carbon for 100 years or more?”The answer is pretty clear. Disposable knives, forks and spoons made from wood may well be renewable, but that is not the whole story. When the cost of collection, composting, regrowing the trees, harvesting the trees, re-manufacturing and distribution are added, spoons made from wood are anything but a zero sum game.Without an accurate, and chargeable, global cost for every tonne of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere, none of the critical questions can be answered, and the lack of pricing the emission of CO2 into the environment is definitely not a minor issue.This is what global leadership is missing. The science of the biosphere is clear. The engineering is ready and waiting. Political and economic agendas, which run counter to the good of the planet and its people, are what is gumming up the works.
POST #9 To maintain the best features of the Holocene Epoch, features which have favoured development of our complex societies, the world’s people must mobilise vast financial resources to the task. In planning the ‘how’, maybe we should ponder the following reflective passage.In what universe would you find a planet, the inhabitants of which, would allow dumping of a harmful waste product into their biosphere completely free of any cost.Continuing the ‘unbelievability’ theme, would you then expect to find that, one way or another, those same inhabitants will (happily?) pay the cost of removing, or mitigating the consequences of, the pollutant.There is such a planet: it is located in what the locals call, the Milky Way Galaxy, in a planetary system the locals call the Solar System, on a planet known by the locals as Earth.For us, one question is: ‘how do we, fairly and justly, mobilise the necessary financial resources on a global basis?’ POST #8Remembering, from the ‘too small to matter’ hypothesis, if the emissions of one country emitting less than 1.06% CO2, and the total emissions of these 180 emitters of CO2 is ~24% of the global total. It could then be further argued that the emissions of Russia, the US, and India (~24% in total) do not matter either. Arguing that some peoples CO2 emissions do not matter is a very dangerous and slippery path for us all. This applies especially for the young folk among us.But, it is more complicated than annual global percentages of carbon dioxide emissions. There are additional (complex) matters, that are even more important, when deciding what is fair and just, and what is not. It is on-going work. POST #7Continuing the ‘too small to matter theme’, the CO2 emissions of the sixteen, equals ~ 76% of the global total. This means that, the remaining 180 countries/places emit only ~ 24% of the global total, ALL together. If it is to be argued that 1.06% does not matter, we are effectively saying that 24% of global emissions do not matter; a logical consequence of declaring the emissions of the 180 countries emitting less than 1.06% of global CO2 do not matter. POST #6The ‘our CO2 emissions are too small to matter’ contention is less frequently heard at a senior political level these days, but it is still expressed among many of the folk who vote for, and influence, political positioning. To dispel any doubt: in the UN there are 193 countries. If Reunion, Gibraltar and Palestine are added — all of which are emitters of CO2 — then we have 196 emitters of CO2 on our planet. Importantly, only 16 countries emit equal to, or more than, 1.06% of the global annual total of CO2. My country, Australia, is among those sixteen countries. POST #5The discussions centered around the issue of which nation should, or should not, reduce CO2 emissions by the most, or not at all, is complex on many levels. It is a question that cannot be dealt with in just a few posts. It is a question discussed in many countries. I have heard it debated, at the highest levels of politics, in my country — Australia.The argument runs along the following lines: “our emissions are so tiny by global comparison; they do not matter”. (Australian CO2 emissions ≈ 1.06% of the world total). “Therefore, if we reduced our CO2 emissions to zero it wouldn’t make any difference. Hence, we do not need to excessively reduce our emissions”;• especially if it is to the detriment of the economy;• particularly if it leads to higher electricity or fuel costs. POST #4However, in considering the hypothesis that the global response to the destabilisation of the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere and oceans, is inadequate, should the global community be exploring the feasibility of a global effort on the scale that occurred during WWII? Could/should this be the template for action to reverse global heating.Recently, Admiral Barrie, former chief of the Australian Defence Force, was quoted as saying: “the government should be moving to an effective ‘wartime’ footing on climate change”. He went on to say: “instead it had dedicated ‘precisely two sentences of substance’ to climate impact”. The question must be asked whether we, the adults of the world, are doing enough to ensure a good, safe, healthy, and flourishing future for the young members of the world community? POST #3World War II was the last global war with as far reaching consequences as the all-consuming war we have declared on our climate. That war evidenced itself in every aspect our day-to-day lives; blackouts, ‘loose lips sink ships’, rationing, it encompassed all aspects of people’s lives, whether in military service, or in civilian life. I am not advocating that we move to a ‘hot war’ footing, with all the associated restrictions on freedom, but the world is not dealing with the very major alterations already made to the chemistry of the biosphere with the seriousness that is needed. POST #2The rampant burning of fossil fuels is causing changes to Earth’s climatic zones at a much faster rate than any time in the past. Little urgency regarding this problem appears in our public spaces — the all-encompassing space that includes such diverse areas as: media, sporting facilities, supermarkets, businesses, political and economic debate, and on, and on. We have declared war on our planet. POST #1In 1765, when James Watt massively improved the performance of the steam engine, he really put a fire under fossil fuel burning machines. This initialised close to 260 years of fossil fuel based energy development for virtually everything we do or use. With the massive advances in science and engineering, since the 19th century, and most of the 20th century, we will not take anything close to 260 years to develop non-fossil energy sources to the same level of performance as the fossil sources. But we only have one twentieth of the time to do it! If we have not nailed it by 2037 civil society will be toast.
CONTACT: info@changereadyornot.com
  • Below are Barney's Blogs in the order they have been
  • written if that is the preferred reading order.
POST #1In 1765, when James Watt massively improved the performance of the steam engine, he really put a fire under fossil fuel burning machines. This initialised close to 260 years of fossil fuel based energy development for virtually everything we do or use.With the massive advances in science and engineering, since the 19th century, and most of the 20th century, we will not take anything close to 260 years to develop non-fossil energy sources to the same level of performance as the fossil sources.But we only have one twentieth of the time to do it! If we have not nailed it by 2037 civil society will be toast.
POST #2The previous post sets the scene for my concern regarding the Earth’s changing climatic zones. Little urgency regarding this problem appears in our public spaces — the all-encompassing space that includes such diverse areas as: media, sporting facilities, supermarkets, businesses, political and economic debate, and on, and on.We have declared war on our planet. World War 2 was the last global war with as far reaching consequences as the all-consuming war we have declared on our climate. That war evidenced itself in all our day-to-day lives. It was total: blackouts, ‘loose lips sink ships,’ rationing, it pervaded all aspects of our lives.I am not advocating for a second that we move to a ‘hot war’ footing, with all the associated restrictions on freedom, but is the world dealing with the very major alterations to the chemistry of the biosphere with the seriousness that is needed?
POST #3Yesterday’s post considered the idea that the global response to the destabilisation of the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere and oceans, is inadequate. Mentioned was the possibility of considering the massive global effort that occurred during WW2, as a template for action to reverse global heating.This morning Admiral Barrie, former chief of the Australian Defence Force, Was quoted as saying: ‘the government should be moving to an effective “wartime” footing on climate change’. He went on to say: ‘instead it had dedicated “precisely two sentences of substance” to climate impact’.The question must be asked: “are we, the adults of the world, doing enough to ensure a good, safe, healthy, and flourishing future for the young members of the world community?”
POST #4The discussions revolving around the issue of which nation should, or should not, reduce CO2 emissions by the most, or not at all, is complex on many levels. It is a question that cannot be dealt with in just a few posts.It is a question discussed in many countries: I have heard it debated, at the highest levels of politics, in my country — Australia. The argument runs along the following lines: our emissions are so tiny by global comparison; they do not matter.If we reduced our CO2 emissions to zero it wouldn’t make any difference. Hence, we do not need to reduce our emissions excessively;• especially if it is to the detriment of the economy;• particularly if it leads to higher electricity or fuel costs.On-going work.
POST #5From earlier: the ‘our CO2 emissions are too small to matter’ contention is less frequently heard at a senior political level these days, but it is still expressed among many of the folk who vote for, and influence, political positioning.To dispel any doubt: in the UN there are 193 countries. If Reunion, Gibraltar and Palestine are added — all of which are emitters of CO2 — then we have 196 emitters of CO2 on our planet. Importantly, only 16 countries emit more than 1.06% of the global annual total of CO2. My country, Australia, is among those sixteen countries.The CO2 emissions of the 16, equals ~ 76% of the global total. The remaining 180 countries/places only emit ~ 24% ALL together. If it is ever argued that 1.06% does not matter, we are effectively saying that the emissions of the 180 countries emitting less than 1.06% of global CO2 do not matter.Recalling, the total emissions of these 180 emitters of CO2 is ~24% of the global total. It could then be further argued that the emissions of Russia, the US, and India (~24% in total) do not matter either. Arguing that some peoples CO2 emissions do not matter is a very dangerous and slippery path for us all — especially for the young. However, it is not as uncomplicated as mere annual global percentages. There are additional complex matters, that are even more important, when deciding what is fair and just — and what is not.It is on-going work.
POST #6Arguments on the way out of Earth’s climatic crisis are many. Globally though, the world appears to be in a ‘silo thinking’ mode rather than in a ‘business process’ thinking mode. There is an abundance of speeches about projects, and work, that could, and in fact should, be actioned around the world, but there is very little action on a SCALE equal to the SCALE of the climate problem.There is no single solution to the interlocking problems we face — we shall need hundreds of interlocking solutions. The world needs complexity not simplicity, ‘process’ and not ‘silo’ thinking. No more political point scoring.For the global community to get out of the current climate mess, we need EVERY idea! On-going work.
POST #7Over the past 15 years, in Australia — one of the 16 — there has been an abundance of policies designed to reduce the country's CO2 emissions. Every new policy appears to replace another. Similar thinking seems to play out in other countries in the ‘club of sixteen’. (16 countries that emit above 1.06% of the global annual total of CO2.)Mindful of the century, or so, it has taken human beings to get into this climate mess, the policy process should be additive, not replacive. As previously discussed, for the world to preserve, as far as is now possible, the benign conditions of the current Holocene geological epoch for our children, it will require throwing everything we can think of at the problem.This will involve bringing ALL of the countries in the world into the problem solving process, AND sharing the financial benefits accruing from the change to a net zero CO2 emission world. The IPCC defines Net Zero, as when total emissions are ≤ the emissions removed from the environment.Methane CH4 is an additional problem — it is on-going work.
POST #8To maintain the best features of the Holocene Epoch, features which have favoured development of our complex societies, the world’s people must mobilise vast financial resources to the task. In planning the ‘how’, maybe we should ponder the following reflective passage.In what universe would you find a planet, the inhabitants of which, would allow dumping of a harmful waste product into their biosphere completely free of any cost.Continuing the ‘unbelievability’ theme, would you then expect to find that, one way or another, those same inhabitants will (happily?) pay the cost of removing, or mitigating the consequences of, the pollutant.There is such a planet: it is located in what the locals call, the Milky Way Galaxy, in a planetary system the locals call the Solar System, on a planet known by the locals as Earth.For us, one question is: ‘how do we, fairly and justly, mobilise the necessary financial resources on a global basis?’
POST #9
Among the questions, regarding how our leadership is reacting to the overheating of our planet, is the following. While it may be a relatively minor question, it is illustrative how blind we are flying, and the question is this: “is the best use of trees making wooden knives, forks and spoons, or planting the correct trees to store carbon for 100 years or more?”The answer is pretty clear. Disposable knives, forks and spoons made from wood may well be renewable, but that is not the whole story. When the cost of collection, composting, regrowing the trees, harvesting the trees, re-manufacturing and distribution are added, spoons made from wood are anything but a zero sum game.Without an accurate, and chargeable, global cost for every tonne of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere, none of the critical questions can be answered, and the lack of pricing the emission of CO2 into the environment is definitely not a minor issue.This is what global leadership is missing. The science of the biosphere is clear. The engineering is ready and waiting. Political and economic agendas, which run counter to the good of the planet and its people, are what is gumming up the works.
POST #10Global leadership on environmental matters has not always been missing in action. The Montreal Protocol, designed to protect the ozone layer, and end emission of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) into Earth’s atmosphere, has been highly successful.Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated that: "perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol".August 2024, the current UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, observed: “At a time when multilateralism is under severe strain, the Montreal Protocol, to help protect the ozone layer, stands out as a powerful symbol of hope. It is a reminder that when countries show political resolve for the common good, change is possible”.Likewise, the former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, made a significant address to the United Nations General Assembly in November 1989, on the foremost problem facing our world in the present day.
POST #11November 8, 1989, the former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in a speech to the UN General Assembly, said: “we have all recently become aware of another insidious danger. It is as menacing in its way as those more accustomed perils with which international diplomacy has concerned itself for centuries. It is the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself. … … What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate — all this is new in the experience of the earth.”… …“It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. … … We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. … … and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere. … … At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.”… …“We need a realistic program of action and an equally realistic timetable. Each country has to contribute, and those countries who are industrialized must contribute more to help those who are not. The work ahead will be long and exacting. We should embark on it hopeful of success, not fearful of failure. … … We are … … the trustees of this planet, charged today with preserving life itself — preserving life with all its mystery and all its wonder. May we all be equal to that task.”Extracts quoted are relevant to the global heating we face today, in 2024. I remember that the former UK Prime Minister, Baroness Margaret Thatcher, also said: “we shall need statesmanship of the highest order.”
POST #12Solving the problem of a rapidly warming earth, will require the very highest level of political and economic leadership.
1967 Expo Geodesic Dome, Montreal.
Buckminster Fuller, who popularized the Geodesic Dome, with the 1967 Expo Geodesic Dome in Montreal being an example, is quoted as saying: “Our children and our grandchildren are our elders in universe time — they are born into a more complex, more evolved universe than we can experience, or than we can know. It is our privilege to see that new world through their eyes.”By wasting the last thirty years, or so, with still no agreed worldwide cost on emitting the greenhouse gases, CO2 and CH4, into the atmosphere, are we forgetting our responsibility to our ‘Elders in Universe Time’?
POST #13Humans have changed the chemistry of our entire planet — the Earth — weighing in at roughly six billion, trillion tonnes! The chemistry of the Earth’s biosphere has changed substantially over the past 70 years; a very short time, considered on planetary timescales.This is BIG stuff, and it will require BIG action to fix it. Humans are currently afraid of taking BIG steps, so we are trying to fix the climate imbalance with LITTLE steps. Variations on continuing with the usual, whether business, or anything else as usual, will simply NOT cut it!
POST #14We need to preserve the climatic conditions humans have benefitted from for the past 12,500 years. The excesses of carbon dioxide (CO2) humans have been forcing into the atmosphere — partially absorbed by the oceans — since the start of the industrial age roughly 260 years ago, is staggering in scale. The rate at which CO2 has been building up in the atmosphere, and oceans, has been accelerating since 1900. The rate of the build-up of CO2 increased again from the 1950s, and increased still further from the 1990s. This is changing, and moving, the Earth’s climatic zones into conditions not seen on Earth for about 2½ million years: a very risky planet-wide experiment. This dangerous experiment will require all of us to think profoundly, and overwhelmingly differently, about our political, economic, social, and environmental policies. The strategies to preserve Earth's environment, which supports human wellbeing and progress, will be challenging for us all. It is ongoing work.
POST #15It is critical, for the future of humanity, that a total budget for both historically accumulated, and future CO2 emissions is agreed at COP 29 in Baku in Azerbaijan in November (11th to 22nd 2024). There must be agreement on how this total is shared equitably and objectively between developed and developing nations.The need for high-order leader/statesmanship grows greater, and greater, the longer effective action to arrest heating of the Earth is pushed back by the global political and theological leadership. We, now 8.2 billion of us, have already wasted/prevaricated/quibbled away thirty-five valuable years.
POST #16Plastics in our environment cannot be ignored from the standpoint of raw material and energy waste, marine and land pollution, and GHG emissions. Equally, the matter of recycling plastics cannot be ignored, and the matter of segregating and collecting the different plastics is consuming increasing resources.In 2022, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated that “less than 10% of the plastic used around the world is recycled”. It is unlikely to have changed in the past two years! Of interest to us all, is awareness of the different plastics/resin types that are relatively easy to recycle, those resin types that are more difficult, and those resins that are unable to be recycled.
The recycling logo is well known. Less well known are the recycling numbers shown below.Recycling Code #1: PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) water bottles, trays, etc. — commonly recycled.Recycling Code #2: HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) for milk, shampoo, etc. — commonly recycled.Recycling Code #3: PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) for piping, blister packs, etc. — not recycled*.Recycling Code #4: LDPE (Low-Density Polyethylene) for food bags etc. — not always recyclable*.Recycling Code #5: PP (Polypropylene) for food packaging, yoghurt, etc. — commonly recycled.Recycling Code #6: PS (Polystyrene) for plastic cutlery, Styrofoam containers — not always recyclable * * Could be recyclable at specialist facilities.Recycling Code #7: OTHERS. Includes acrylic, polycarbonate, nylon, fibreglass, etc. — not recyclable. With recycling, not only will we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, avoid ingesting micro and nano plastics, but also ensure a greener planet for our children and grandchildren.
POST #17Humans have changed the chemistry of our entire planet — the Earth — weighing in at roughly six billion, trillion tonnes! The chemistry of the Earth’s biosphere has changed substantially over the past 70 years; a very short time, considered on planetary timescales.This is BIG stuff, and it will require BIG action to fix it. Humans are currently afraid of taking BIG steps, so we are trying to fix the climate imbalance with LITTLE steps. Variations on continuing with the usual, whether business, or anything else as usual, will simply NOT cut it!
POST #18The concept of ‘total cost’ is critically important. A quote from the book, Change – Ready or Not, sums up the nitty-gritty of ‘total cost’:“When total CO2 emission costs are calculated, including a proportion of the emission cost of building ships, providing crews, fuel, docking facilities, administration, marketing, office buildings and other infrastructure, the overall comparison equation between ‘distant’ and ‘local’ may change markedly. The price of using the atmosphere as a carbon dioxide sink must always be factored into the total cost of any good or service”.The total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) into the atmosphere must be included in the final cost of all materials, energy, products, and services.
POST #19A few posts ago I spoke to the doubtful sustainability of using throwaway wood spoons to stir our takeaway coffee, and throwaway wood knives and forks for our takeaway cheese toasties. In full service cafés, and restaurants, constantly re-washed, stainless steel cutlery is the go. For throwaway cutlery, where do we go? There is really only plastic or wood.Of course, plastic cutlery is only the very tip of the plastic recycling iceberg. The ‘elephant in the corner of the plastic recycling room’ is the previously discussed, and never to go away, lack of a worldwide pricing on emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.Plastic is made from oil, so any plastic that can be recycled should be, which will not only save natural resources, but also energy. If the true cost were to be known of extracting oil from oil wells, or tar sands, including all the associated on-costs, that are necessary to produce new plastic, polymer, feedstock, the economics of recycling previously used plastic would be calculatable.
POST #20We often see graphs like this on the Internet, our TVs our mobile/cell phones — or in newspapers and magazines. They are from reliable sources. The source for the graph below is NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEL), and the Earth System Research Laboratories (ESRL).This graph is from USA government organisations, but the information shown in the graph is reinforced thousands of time over by datasets obtained from research organisations all around the world.
The correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and the increase in global temperature is pretty clear. Nonetheless, there is a persistent opinion among people that find it difficult to accept that our lifestyles, and attendant carbon dioxide emissions, are responsible for the heating of the planet.Recently, in an attempt to deny that human activity is the cause of global heating, we heard, over the airwaves: “maybe some sort of heavenly body circles our planet and changes our climate, because there has been changes in the past, before we had cars, airplanes, and electricity, etcetera, etcetera”.There always must be a reason, but it can’t be us? However it is us! It is our prodigious use of fossil fuels as an energy source! Fossil fuels are in effect ‘stored energy from the Sun’. Homo Sapiens (us) are now smart enough to use the Sun’s energy in ‘real-time’, and the only thing holding it up are vested interests in the fossil fuel industries.
POST #21From the news a short while ago: “New record daily global average temperature reached on 22nd July 2024 — at 17.16°C it is the highest in our modern Era”. What is even more extraordinary, is that the 10 highest annual maximums, in the last 50 years, have all occurred in the last 10 years. How much do these facts concern you?
POST #22Something puzzling from the previous post? Why should we be concerned by a rise in the daily global average temperature to 17.16°C (Celsius) on 22nd July 2024, when we see that temperatures, for example, of up to 70.7°C have been recorded in the Dasht-e Lut desert in Iran. The difference being, that the global average temperature is the weighted average temperature of Earth's surface, measured over both the land and the ocean but record high (or low) temperatures are locality specific.The more serious reality is that the global-average temperature for the past 12 months is 1.64°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average. (Credit: Copernicus Climate Change Service). And, 1.64°C above pre-industrial is significant because as stated last week, ‘the 10 highest annual maximums, in the last 50 years, have all occurred in the last 10 years’, and the Earth has not experienced a record global-average cold temperature year since 1976.Furthermore, a 1.64°C temperature increase in less than 150 years is a remarkably large temperature change in a rather short span of time, and relatively small changes, in the global average temperature, produce very large changes in extreme temperatures. Even more serious is the fact that the global average temperature tracks changes in the total energy from the Sun to the Earth, minus the energy radiated back into space from the Earth — it is a budget of the energy retained by the Earth. To raise the temperature of all of the oceans, the land, and atmosphere by 1.64°C takes a vast amount of energy. This vast quantity of energy is accumulated by the Earth, as a whole, and it will NOT go away.
POST #23Following on from my two previous posts. On 24th July, the National Broadcaster re reported that the record global average temperature was 17.16 °C. It was also reported that Australia had recorded the lowest birth rate since 2006. This was identified as being due to cost-of-living pressures, which may well be a correct conclusion. There was no suggestion, however, that another possible, and additional factor, is likely to be that people are becoming increasingly concerned about bringing new life into a rapidly warming, and potentially dangerous, planetary environment.
POST #24If the heating of the planet happened to be a football match, the score would be, fossil fuel and vested financial and political interests 1.5°Celsius, and me and the world nil! Unfortunately, in the game of planetary physics, there are no red cards.
POST #25 — Australia and Nuclear Power (Part I)A current and dominant political debate in Australia is over whether Australia should replace its aging coal-fuelled generating capacity with nuclear power stations, or have confidence in renewable power, from wind turbines and solar energy, backed up with storage and gas. The alternative Australian government’s 2050 plan for Australia’s energy mix is to be 38% nuclear power, which involves building seven nuclear power plants, 54% renewable energy and 8% from storage and gas — this plan is more than a little perplexing.In both proposed electrical energy strategies for Australia, the gas back-up would involve the latest dual cycle gas turbine generating plants, and the storage would utilise batteries and pumped hydroelectricity. It is a reasonable expectation that, between now and 2050, the efficiency of all power generation, and storage, methodologies will be enhanced.Original sources for this series of articles include: the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.K. Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), the Australian departments of Treasury, and Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.
POST #26 — Australia and Nuclear Power (Part II)To put Australia’s nuclear ambitions into context, the U.K. currently has 15 civil nuclear reactors in 5 operational plants. Three of the reactors have ceased generating and are currently being de-fuelled. The U.K. presently gets about 16% of its electricity from nuclear, and plans to increase nuclear generation, by 2050, by 4 times from 6 Gigawatt (GW) to 24 GW. The U.S. has 94 commercial nuclear reactors in 54 power plants and currently gets about 18% of its electricity from nuclear. The U.S. plans to add 200 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050, from about 97 GW to just under 300 GW.The perplexing part of the Australian plan, for 38% electricity generation from nuclear by 2050, is several-fold. It is estimated by AEMO that the Australian demand for electrical generation will double by 2050 and if Australia achieves the full potential of ‘green’ hydrogen/ammonia production, together with proposed ‘green’ production of steel and aluminium, doubling may be a low estimate. We could be talking upwards of 65 GW by 2050, and the 38 %, could easily be about 25 GW.No nuclear power plants, or technology, to 25 GW of nuclear capacity in 25 years is a massive jump!The figures quoted have been rounded for clarity, but the essential message is unchanged.
POST #27 — Australia and Nuclear Power (Part III)The United Kingdom, with an established nuclear industry, and more than double Australia’s population, only plans an extra 18 GW of capacity by 2050. The United States also has an established nuclear industry, with about 97 GW of capacity, and more than ten times Australia’s population, plans an extra 200 GW of capacity by 2050.Australia, by 2050, with zero nuclear generation industry, aims to better the UK’s 2050 added Gigawatt target, by nearly 40% — and achieve just on 25% of the US’s current nuclear generating capacity. The cost of implementation, and a lack of nuclear power plant design and construction engineers, is just the start of the challenges facing Australia, with its 2050 nuclear plan. There will be formidable, and worldwide competition, for nuclear power plant building capacity.On a per-capita basis, and also with a smaller tax base, Australia would need to outperform the nuclear expansion of both the UK and the US. There will be applications, in Australia, best provided for by nuclear power. Research is currently being undertaken on the best use of nuclear energy in Australia, which will be the subject of future articles.The figures quoted have been rounded for clarity, but the essential message is unchanged.
POST #28In February 1990, Carl Sagan was successful in asking NASA to turn Voyager 1 around and photograph the Earth from the edges of the solar system, from a distance of 6.4 billion kilometres. The Earth appeared as tiny Pale Blue Dot, in a scattered light beam, only about one eighth of a pixel in size. Sagan famously, and correctly, stated that everyone who had ever lived, in all of Earth’s history, had lived on that tiny pale blue dot. — (changereadyornot.com has a copy of Carl Sagans full quote).There are several theories, some of which are conflicting, which describe the origin and characteristics of our universe. We have: the big bang, as a singularity, preceding inflation: cosmic inflation preceding the big bang: the inflationary multiverse: the cosmic microwave background radiation (CBMR).Does it matter? It does! It challenges us to look after our tiny pale blue dot — it is conceivable we may be all the universe has going for it.
POST #29Would it make a difference to the way we humans look after, and respect, the Earth if we knew we were unique in the universe? It is a possibility. Some astrophysicists and cosmologists increasingly speak with language that highlights just how special the Earth’s environment, and the development of life on Earth is in the vastness of the universe.The inflationary multiverse theory suggests there may be an infinite number of universes. Postulated in some circles, there is a possibility of another me, in another universe, typing this very same blog? I suggest that may not be the case, and in an infinity of universes, it is more likely each one is unique.In the immediate, in this special corner of the cosmos, we must carefully conserve this planet’s natural resources. Especially those special parts of the biosphere which absorb our excess carbon dioxide — the atmosphere and the oceans. Atmosphere and ocean are our most precious carbon sinks, and accordingly our most precious natural resource.
POST #30Every power within the world, should be working to eliminate further greenhouse gas emissions into the biosphere, and also be carrying out substantial research in how we, as a species, can remove the excess carbon dioxide (CO2) already in the atmosphere. To get atmospheric CO2 to what is considered a ‘safe’ level of 350 ppm, 70/80 ppm of CO2 must/should be removed from the atmosphere.Remembering always, there is a social justice element to the management of this planet. There are many, many millions of people who do not have clean water, enough food, decent shelter, effective sanitation, or decent life expectancy.The future of our species will depend on how well homo sapiens handle the emerging climate catastrophe. And, how effectively we manage that emerging climate catastrophe, may well depend on how fairly and justly, the wealthy, highly developed, nations of the world work to bring less developed nations into the advantaged world of abundance? — Ongoing work.
POST #31The political forces lined up against imposing an all-encompassing cost, for the privilege of dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, are enormous. (The 11/9/24 post has more on this topic). These ‘political forces’ frequently belittle the use of wind powered electrical generators by referring to them using derogatory and offensive language. Some of these quotes are from past times, but new messages from these people have changed little.A former Deputy PM of Australia told an anti-wind farm rally: “Get rid of the wind turds — when you get to the top of the Bulli Pass, you’ll look down and see all the wind turds…” A former PM of Australia described wind turbines as: “the dark satanic mills of the modern era” One of the most powerful men in the world was once quoted as saying: "I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much”.They are not windmills — this is a term that is used again, and again, to belittle wind turbines. Back in twelfth century Europe, when the vertical windmill was first used to grind grain, the folk correctly called them windmills. If those folk had invented wind powered generators, they would most likely have called them wind generators.The people quoted above represent powerful political forces — we are relying on these same powerful political forces to keep us safe from the negative effects of a heating planet — good luck to us all with that one.
POST #32 Part 1It is reported that on 29th May 2024 a temperature of 52.9°C was recorded in a Delhi suburb — the hottest temperature ever in India. The 52.9°C needs official verification, but we know the ‘heat island effect’, in densely populated urban areas, can cause high local temperatures. This is a crazy situation. In the developed world we continue with our normal day-to-day lives and businesses: we ignore reports of extreme temperatures, and other extreme climatic events, in parts of the world disconnected from us. However, extreme events, in distant parts of the world, may be more connected with our normal day-to-day lives than is immediately evident — think ‘tipping points’.A tipping point can be described as a small change in a complex networked system, which causes a much larger change in the output, or behaviour, of the system. The worldwide declining population of honeybees is a case in point, where the honeybees have passed some population tipping point. The Earth has clearly passed many, many tipping points, and we have little awareness of the cause, or effect, of each tipping point. More importantly, we also do not know if we have passed any particular tipping point, and whether a particular tipping point is going to screw us up completely — or not.In some future time, we will likely pass a tipping point, which may be at odds with the stability of world society and commerce, and it will be too late to backtrack. It is possible that we could be approaching unknown, but potentially critical, tipping points in the next few years. We should tread very carefully — ongoing work.
POST #33 Part 2Maybe it is considered improbable that in the future we encounter a tipping point at odds with the stability of society and business. Nonetheless, disregarding the improbable is a risky business, as a global immunity from major tipping points cannot be assumed. In the movies, in the event of an improbable, planetwide, disastrous threat to human life, something equally improbable usually happens, at the eleventh hour, to save us all — fiction, of course!What is alarming, is that in addition to many predicted, and very real, dangers of global heating, there is also the possibility that some unforeseen, disastrous event may result from our human caused (anthropogenic) changes to the atmosphere/biosphere. Improbability alone is no assurance that such an event will never occur. All that improbability does is to limit scientific and political debate.
POST #34 Part 3A possible, improbable event is redistribution of the planet’s bulk (mass), caused by the ice melting from Antarctica and Greenland. When this ice becomes water and travels from the polar regions towards the equatorial zones it could influence the ‘wobble’ in the Earth’s axis. It is known that the axis of the Earth ‘wobbles’, and there are a number of ‘wobbles’ superimposed on each other, with different cycles, and varying time periods. It is reported that some earthquakes have been large enough to have a small, but measurable effect on the ‘wobble’ of the Earth’s axis, due to movement of land masses and redistribution of the surface land mass. A report by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, showed that the March 11th, 2011, magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan, should have shifted the position of Earth's axis by about 0.17 metres.Considering a different situation, the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is approximately 2700 trillion tonnes, which is slightly less than a two millionth part of the Earth’s total mass. This is a very large, concentrated mass of ice, with a centre of mass displaced approximately 25 degrees of latitude to the axis of rotation of Earth. This may, or may not, be significant in the rotational dynamics of the Earth. Since 1992 about 5 trillion tonnes of ice have melted, which seems huge, and little, at the same time — is it significant — can it be ignored? Some reports have it all of Greenland’s ice melting in 1000 years, and some in 10,000 years, all depending on the rate at which we continue to heat up the Earth. It may take 10,000 years, but I doubt it. The axis of the Earth — the Earth weighs in at 5.98 x 10^24 kg — is a pretty stable feature of our day-to-day life, but a sizeable partial melt may cause us some problems. Can we really be assured that a partial, but significant, loss of the Greenland ice sheet will have no effect on the ‘wobble’ of the axis?Nonetheless, axis aside, what is sure is that considerable inflows of fresh water, from melting Ice sheets, and Glaciers, have the potential to change the system of interconnected Ocean currents. These massive ocean-spanning, currents are vitally important to Earth’s climatic zones. We are playing a very high-stakes game by melting the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. Ongoing work.
Post #35In Barney’s Blog, every now and then, I may be somewhat cyclic in writing about the urgent need to address the world’s GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emission problem. We have all known of the problem for at least 36 years — that is how long ago the then UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, said to the UN General Assembly: “It is the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself. … … what we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters, and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate” (See post #11).So, I am being purposely repetitive. For the past 36 years, we have all known the dangers of GHG emissions, and for those 36 years, there has been an extensive, and recurring campaign, to say that climate change is not real, and we can continue to burn fossil fuels. Sadly, this denialist campaign has been very effective.We have known the danger, including our leaders in business and government, and yet, over the past 36 years, CO2 emissions alone have risen from ~ 22 Gt/year in 1989, to ~ 37½ Gt/year in 2024. Even more damaging, CO2 emissions, in 2025, are predicted to exceed 40 Gt. In addition to CO2 emissions, methane and nitrous oxide are also greenhouse gases, and add to the overall GHG total.Thirty-six years of business-as-usual: thirty-six years of non-caring business-as-usual. It is time to change — it is time to put a universal cost on emitting GHG emissions. Ongoing work.
Post #36Extract from my book, Change Ready or Not, which although written more than a decade ago, is still current regarding atmospheric water vapour. The 14°C is no longer current as the Copernicus Climate Change Service reported that in July 2024 the daily average global temperature reached a record high at 17.16°C"Water vapour does have a significant greenhouse effect and together with the other greenhouse gases, is instrumental in keeping the planet at a comfortable average temperature of 14°C. But it is not directly responsible for increasing the temperature of the planet; the phenomenon known as global warming.""Actions by humans have very little direct influence on planetary water vapour levels, but there is a danger that a significant rise in global temperature, because of emissions from industrial and agricultural activity, may enhance the ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapour. In turn, this may lead to a future increase in the greenhouse effect and is just one of the potential global warming feedback mechanisms that should concern us all."And from the footnotes:1. Water vapour varies between a trace and 4% by volume, depending on both air temperature and location on the planet.2. Consequences of altering the water vapour carrying capacity of the atmosphere may trigger unknown and unfavourable tipping points.
Post #37In Turkey, France, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and many other countries, inspirational ANZAC memorial ceremonies have been observed. Much has been spoken about the courage, fortitude, and for many, the ultimate sacrifice, of those brave Australian and New Zealand Army Corps soldiers (ANZACs) in 1915/16/17/18 and, of course, in wars fought since that time.Most of the commemorative speeches rightly focus on the sacrifices made by the men and women in our armed forces to protect the freedoms we enjoy today and in the future. Examples of references to hopes for the future, from Wikipedia, are as follows: ‘From sacrifice blooms hope for a brighter future’; ‘Let their legacy inspire new generations to build a better world’; ‘Hope lives on through the values of the Anzacs; ‘In their memory, we find strength for tomorrow’.The speech that I find most inspirational, in aiming for victory, in the war we humans have declared on the Earth’s ecosystems with our relentless heating of the planet, is this one: ‘The ANZAC legacy reminds us to persevere, no matter the odds’.Fight the good fight, all of us, as time is currently not on our side.
Post #38 Part 1The warming of our planet is becoming more damaging by the month, and there is no single solution. Starting about 200 years ago, nearly all of our energy needs have been based on increasingly effective methods of burning fossil fuels. Compare George Stevenson’s 1829 ‘Rocket’, and the Mach 2 passenger jet ‘Concorde’ — these were both powered by burning fossil fuel. These fuels have progressed us to where we are today.
We will need to use every imaginable technology, and conservation measure, to re-stabilise Earth’s biosphere. (refer to post #40 - Part 3) The stable environment of the Holocene geological Epoch — 12,500 years — has been very favourable to the development of the societies of today. However, this is NOT to say that the world is perfect for everyone, because this is, undeniably, not the case. There is a great deal more work to do.
Post #39 Part 2A technology that will be needed, to stop and reverse the changing climate, will unquestionably be Direct Air Capture (DAC), on a very large scale. Very large-scale DAC plants will be necessary: the largest plant operating in the world today has an ability to remove around 36,000 tonnes of CO2 each year (36x10^3). Annually, the global emissions of CO2 are about 37 Gigatonnes (37x10^9). Therefore, to remove only the annual emissions, a global DAC capacity six orders of magnitude greater than today’s largest plant, will be required. Industrial scale DAC is perhaps the only realistic solution left to the world now, and it should become the predominant industry of the future, rivalling only the fossil fuel extraction, and distribution, industry of today.Capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, at scale, will need to be carried out at sites where renewable energy sources are abundant, and the secure geological storage sites may be hundreds, or thousands, of kilometres distant from the extraction sites. The 2½ kilometre long coal trains of today could be replaced by 2½ kilometre long trains transporting liquid CO2. DAC will require countries with extensive renewable energy, large industrial bases, natural resources, and the building of suitable transport systems.Globally we must stop, and reverse, the increasing dangerous levels of CO2. Very few nations in the world have the renewable energy capacity, political stability, resources, technology, and wealth, to manage such a project, at the scale required. Countries such as, China, the United States, Russia, the UK/EU, Canada, and Australia, could be possible candidates?
Post #40 Part 3The requirement to employ every possible technology, and conservation measure, in the fight against climate change, as stated in Post #38, will include the following:1. An agreed worldwide price for anyone to be allowed to emit carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. The world must stop CO2 emissions with the greatest of urgency. The warming caused by CO2 emissions is accelerating the release of years of stored methane (CH4), from regions of permafrost and ocean clathrates.2. Engaging the world population, political, business, and religious leaders in the fight to curb greenhouse gas emissions (GHG’s).3. End the ‘business as usual’ model. Urgently develop a new paradigm, the prime objective of which will be the development of a global economic system focussed on the elimination GHGs from the atmosphere, and social justice for all of the people in world.4. Substantial funding of science (all areas) and engineering (all areas) with the aim of stabilising the chemistry of the biosphere and preventing the dawn of a new geological epoch that may be less favourable to humans — the Anthropocene?5. Research on large-scale direct air capture and storage of CO2 (geo-sequestration). There is already far too much CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is imperative that substantial quantities are removed urgently. Also, carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) directly from industrial and power generation sites. There will be an opportunity to use captured CO2 as a feedstock for end user products and synthetic fuels.6. Maximum use of renewable energy sources: wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and nuclear. Distributed power generation could play a greater role. Relegate fossil fuels to a minor role in the energy and fuel cycle. Firstly, the elimination of fossil fuels from power generation, land transport, and many industrial applications, as soon as possible. Secondly, elimination of fossil fuels from ocean transport. Thirdly, zero CO2 emission aerospace operations is more demanding, and will take longer.Replacing hydrocarbon fuel in air transport, presents significant challenges. Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) —biofuels — are biomass-derived fuels from plants, animals, algae, waste oils, or other bio-waste, but enough feedstock to power all of the world’s aircraft is problematic. If plants/trees are grown solely for use as biofuel feedstock it will greatly reduce land available for food production.7. Develop new, and more efficient, methods of energy storage, and also, long-distance transmission of electricity with minimal losses.8. Most importantly, all types of recycling, energy conservation, soil conservation, reforestation, water conversation, protection of species diversity, and a maximum use of bio-sequestration, but importantly, not just for 20 or 30 years, but for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Post #41In the realm of the political, any discussion which tackles the problem of the heating of the planet is certain to attract criticism from one, or another, vested interest. While the world delays meaningful action, the average global temperature is now nudging more than 1.6°C above the pre-industrial temperature and still climbing. In the sphere of climate discussion, we have a situation where an opinion seems to be taken as well considered policy.Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing is more dangerous for the well-being of our future selves. For an opinion to be of any value, in deciding policy as important as the future of humanity, it must be backed by peer reviewed research, based on reliable, verified data.
Post #42In today’s world, military action should be seen as a dismal failure of the political system. The total emissions of the global military-industrial complex, including the emissions resulting from the use of military force, in dispute resolution — wars, must be separately identified, and counted.Furthermore, the emissions that are necessitated by the rebuilding of damaged/destroyed, infrastructure, homes, public buildings, hospitals, and most importantly, putting back together all the broken bodies of the people, who happen to be in the way of this violent method of dispute resolution, must be counted and allocated to the total emissions of the military-industrial complex and all of its branches.The total emissions of military actions, upstream and downstream, will undoubtedly represent a large percentage of the world’s total global CO2 emissions. Past President Dwight D. Eisenhower was correct in his 1961 warning regarding the military-industrial complex. However, sixty-four years ago, President Eisenhower did not know that solving disputes by military action would contribute to the increase in the Earth’s average global temperature by over 1.5 degrees Celsius. More work is necessary.
Post #43 Part 1An Analysis of Global Carbon Project and IPCC data by Robbie Andrew, senior researcher at the CICERO Centre for International Climate Research, led to the following statement: “By spewing heat trapping gases into the atmosphere, humankind has lifted global temperatures to record highs. If nations had started reducing emissions in 2005, they could have made gradual cuts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.” “Starting in 2015, when the Paris agreement was adopted, would have required steeper cuts. Starting today would require cuts so drastic as to appear essentially impossible.” The concept of gradual cuts is not new. In Change Ready or Not: Managing Climate, Our Choice, Our Responsibility, (2013/published 2015) the concept of ‘Economic Gradualism’ was proposed, and to quote from the book: “Economic gradualism is a strategy that can underpin and provide the impetus to implement the power of compounding for CO2 emission abatement. The most important aspect is that gradual change can limit the impact on any given industry, or the economy of a particular country and allow the impacts to be managed.” … … “As a case in point, envisage a process started at the time of the Kyoto agreement. A price of $US1.00 per tonne of CO2 emissions (or an equivalent ¥, €, £, or other currency) could have been imposed and gradually increased as the world economy slowly adjusted to, and factored in, the reality that the atmosphere was no longer a free CO2 dump.” … … “If $US1.00 per tonne of CO2 had been levied in 1992 and increased by $US1.00 per tonne every year since, the price for dumping one tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere would now (in 2015) be $US23.00.” … … “starting the process using the principle of economic gradualism in 2015 is better than not beginning at all.”
Post #44 Part 2A further example of how economic gradualism could be used to correct another CO2 emission inconsistency is in the passenger automobile sector, where no account is taken of the size of the vehicle. To encourage the use of motor vehicles, with smaller manufacturing, shipping, and running emissions, a sliding scale fee, based on the engine capacity, and kerb weight of the vehicle, could be introduced. From the same book, a further quote from 2013: “Smaller, lighter, vehicles with an engine capacity of less than, for example, 0.8 litre (800 cc) and electric vehicles, would attract no fee.” (2025 comment – This could now also include other zero emission fuelled vehicles). “For example, suppose the fee for a vehicle with an engine capacity of 3.0 litre were to be set at 5% of the purchase price in the first year of operation of the scheme and this fee is increased by 5% each year. It would be twenty years before the price of a vehicle with an engine capacity of 3.0 litres would increase by 100%. Consumers would begin to take this into account in their purchasing decisions. Of course, this one measure alone would be insufficient to drive global emissions down to zero. The purpose here is to open up dialogue on economic gradualism, not to define every detail of economic policy.” “Of course, other developments will overtake the need for specific interventions using economic gradualism techniques. For instance, in the automotive example, the normal process of automotive research and development will make gasoline fuelled cars redundant long before a car with a 3.0 litre engine attracts a surcharge of 100% on the purchase price. Nevertheless, this type of intervention signals an unambiguous intent to both industry and consumers which will, in large part, speed up the move to a zero CO2 emission future, by encouraging investment into environmentally sustainable sectors.
Post #45 Part 3Also, from 2013, another Change Ready or Not quotation:“A legitimate criticism of a gradual process to emission reduction is that it is too slow”. “This is true. However, because such little progress has been made towards mandatory and enforceable emission control measures, there are currently few effective alternatives. An economic gradualism policy will help to accelerate the industrial research that may be expected as part of the normal scientific and industrial progression and initiate the process of technological compounding, thus connecting the complementary pathways of gradualism and compounding.” “Deep down we all know it needs more, but if we cannot give it more right now, then anything is better than nothing. At least it is a start that will begin to change the way people think about the chemical changes being made to the atmosphere and oceans — and hopefully, put in place systems that can be expanded when the tide of public and political opinion changes.” “It is developing economic policies to overcome community and business resistance to the implementation of significant greenhouse gas emission reduction measures. With millions of conflicting interests, economic gradualism policies, on a large scale, may be the most practical model to underpin the de-carbonisation of our consumer society. Economic gradualism is a far-reaching concept not in any way comparable to conventional business as usual models.” Now, in 2025, everything is more urgent. The principle of economic gradualism is still better than the current position, where the world is doing virtually nothing that will preserve the benign environment of the Holocene Geological Epoch. In 1992, 1997, and 2002, small economic graduations would have sufficed, but not anymore. While the world perseverates over a comprehensive carbon emission cost, think of graduations of not $1.00, but $10.00 — and not 5% but 15%.
Post #46Imagine the Earth is to face an external audit — in itself a very long-shot — and the primary purpose is to assess how well we have utilised the planet’s resources for the benefit of humankind. Until the latter half of the 20th century, wars excepted, it is likely that the outcome would be: ‘quite good/a pass/a tick’.On the other hand, since we have been cognisant of the danger to the environment, and ourselves, of the ever-increasing level of greenhouse gases — particularly carbon dioxide — in the atmosphere, the audit would be: ‘failed/massively/abysmally’.The people of Earth are very rapidly running out of time to bring about the political and economic changes necessary to protect the planet’s environment, and its inhabitants. We must stop the overheating of the planet — and cool the joint down!
Post #47CBM is acknowledged for 1st photo. This is not a picture of fairness; it is not a picture of justice. This photograph does not represent equality in the use of Earth’s abundant resources, and there is no indication of any adherence to the rules, laws, or moral principles of justice. This picture is not alone. There are literally millions of comparable sights.
The Brick Development Association, Australian Broadcasting Commission, Quartz Media Network, are acknowledged for the photos of undesirable brickmaking methodology, tea leaf plucking and manufacture of cheap clothing. In his 2023 book, Laurie Parsons introduces the idea of Carbon Colonialism. Parsons underlines how the unhindered consumerisation of the rich countries of the world, effectively outsources the climate crisis to poorer countries — we outsource manufacturing, and the attendant waste, to people less fortunate than ourselves.There are two common factors in these photos — cheap labour and climate change. The colonialisation of past centuries is clearly seen in the cheap labour. And we will never achieve true sustainability in the environment generally, or the global climate specifically, until we achieve planetwide unity of purpose in achieving our environmental and climate change outcomes.Much, much, more work is in the pipeline.
Post #48Hierarchy of Needs is described in Maslow’s 1943 paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, which. refers to the human condition and is an influential theory of motivation. Maslow? Climate Change website? The need of each person matters on a much wider sphere than an individual’s motivation. Maslow could be broadened to include the economics of the individual at a nation state level.In short, apply Maslow’s theory to a hierarchy of needs to the people of the more than 190 countries in the world. There is an extraordinary correlation between a person’s share of their countries GDP, on a purchasing power parity basis, the GDP of their country, and their probable position on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Everyone deserves, at least the opportunity, to experience Maslow’s five levels:• Basic survival needs like food, water, shelter, and sleep.• Security, stability, protection from harm, and order.• Social interaction, love, affection, and a sense of belonging.• Self-esteem, confidence, achievement, recognition, and respect.• Fulfilling their potential, personal growth, and self-discoveryIdealistic — indisputably— maybe? Does our aim, for Earth in 2050, include people still living in poverty and squalor? Importantly, this question should be key to solving the problem of our overheating Earth.There is talk of terraforming the Moon, or Mars. More realistically, we should consider terraforming certain areas of our own Earth. There are boundless possibilities; huge greenhouse gas removal projects; massive re-housing projects; unlimited power from the Sun; massive agriculture, and reforestation projects; enough work for comfortable living wages for all of Earth’s people.
Post #49 Part 1: the problem.Among all of the other obvious needs of human society, the present-day greatest ‘need’ should be to stabilise the chemistry of the Earth’s biosphere, and most importantly, the atmosphere. We must firstly stop the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, (CO2), and methane, (CH4). And secondly, and on an industrial scale, urgently remove the excess CO2, already built up in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels during the Industrial Age — it is critical to reduce atmospheric CO2.Carbon dioxide, while not in itself the most potent greenhouse gas, because of the massive amount already emitted from the coal, oil, and gas burnt by now, and because it remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, it is in fact the most dangerous greenhouse gas. An atmospheric level 280 parts per million (ppm), served humanity brilliantly for the first ~12,000 years of our Holocene Epoch — in fact, until the dawn of our Industrial Age. The CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is now ~ 427½ ppm, which is a scary 52½% increase on the 280 ppm at the start of the Holocene.
Post #50 Part 2: the financing.The world must have a global system of fees that must be paid to allow industrial levels of carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere. From: Change Ready or Not: Managing Climate – Our Choice, Our Responsibility, is the following quotation: ‘The implementation of a universal carbon cost, and the actual form of an emission pricing system, can evolve together. The ultimate pricing system will be a policy/political decision … … While the set price should be no higher than is necessary, the price applied will initially need to be upwardly progressive; sufficient to reclaim the chemical stability of the atmosphere within a timeframe sufficiently short to make a difference; within one or two decades rather than three or four.’ ‘If a country decides, in its own domestic market not to participate in a carbon-pricing scheme, it will be problematic for global emissions reduction. How problematic will depend on the size of the industrial sector within that particular country. However, as most countries rely heavily on international trade, this problem could be mitigated by an importing country applying, at their border, an estimated carbon emission cost of manufacturing in, and shipping from, the originating country.’ ‘CO2 emissions ‘leakage’ to non-participating countries, can be addressed if the final CO2 price is levied on all products, either at point of sale or at appropriate points in the supply and transport chain. Depending on the details of the final emission price, border adjustment taxes or tariffs may be necessary. A carbon price can then be applied, whether the product originates next-door or 12,000 kilometres away. This price will include the CO2 emission cost of everything: resource extraction, refining, shipping, manufacturing, transport of finished goods, marketing and retailing — a system that will be equitable for all product originators, whether local or distant.’
Post #51 Part 3: Who pays?Paying an authentic share of the cost of running a safe, stable, healthy, and prosperous society must be fairly, and impartially, borne by all those who choose to live in that society — it is not optional.In particular, how is the cost of stabilising the chemistry of the biosphere to be collected/paid? Who/how/how much. This is a contentious political issue that demands more well-structured thought than the matter has been getting, globally, over the past 30 years. A coherent and comprehensive system of investment, levies, taxes, fees and charges, that serve the needs of all humanity going forward, must form the basis of global society — this is not optional.Even thirty-six years ago, the warming of our planet was not optional. However, starting at that time, or even at the time of Kyoto, the warming was potentially able to be kept under tighter control. It was November 8th, 1989, when world leaders were given their clearest warning that things were going seriously wrong in the atmosphere. In that November, when the level of atmospheric CO2 was 353 ppm, the then UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York, saying: “We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.” — “At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air”.The annual increase by 2024 has risen to just over thirty-seven billion tonnes! So today, the warming planet is not optional. And importantly, global warming is changing the climate all over the world. Global warming and climate change are not hypothetical; they are established theory, based on multiple observations and verified data sets. The warming Earth must be taken seriously! And, paying to seriously reduce emissions must also be taken even more seriously!
Post #52 Part 4: Who pays?Governments around world will obviously need to step-up on a scale previously seen during WW1, WW2, Cold War, Space Race, Financial Crisis, and Pandemic. The private sector, composed of small, medium, and large businesses, and large multinational corporations will play a crucial role in transforming the world to zero GHG emissions through competition and market-driven operations.Private, public, and institutional investment will play a large part. And, importantly, the quicker all investment, business and private ceases in fossil fuels and fossil fuel driven technology, the better. Fixing the chemistry of the biosphere will not come cheaply — it will require a lot of money.Private sector investments are made with the expectation of appropriate financial returns, as has been the case throughout history. Governments, on the other hand, raise funds through company, corporate, property, and individual taxation, value-added and sales taxes, duties and levies. Tax is not an evil to be avoided, it is an essential component of the civilized society upon which we all rely. From the early 1980s to about 2010, taxes as a percentage of GDP, on individuals and corporations, tended to be reduced. From 2010 to the present day, most likely because of the financial and pandemic crises, that trend has been reversed.With the scale of the new crises now emerging, due to the warming of the planet, more revenue than ever will be required. It is worth noting, some of the individual tax percentages levied during previous global emergencies. In the early 1950s nuclear war was a distinct possibility, and in England the people were even told they would only have four minutes warning if a nuclear attack were to occur. At that time, the top tax rate in the USA was 90%. During WW2 in England, the top rate was 99.25% and in 1945 it was still 98%. In Australia, during the war, the top tax rate was 75%. Obviously, those with no assets and very little income, were not paying anywhere near to those rates of taxation.
Post #53 Part 5: Who pays?On a final note, among some political parties, the big ‘bogey’ to be avoided has been leaving future generations with debt. As things are tracking now, we may leave them with far worse. Many of us are great beneficiaries of previous generations of taxpayers, certainly leaving us with debt, but also with roads, railways, water and waste disposal systems, airports and dockyards, public buildings, health and education systems, and freedom.The following phrase has been quoted many times, and its validity is undiminished; I acknowledge both Voltaire, and Uncle Ben for the phrase: ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. This quotation is as applicable today as ever before. In today’s world, where most of the power is derived from wealth, and faced with solving the crises arising from global warming/climate change, the quote should read: ‘with great wealth comes great responsibility’.
Post #54From post 48: “Does our aim, for Earth in 2050, include people still living in poverty and squalor?” In the country I reside in, Australia, the year 2050 has become big news. The National Party of Australia, part of the government until 2022, have abandoned the policy of ‘net zero CO2 emissions by 2050’. This was a policy the NATS supported during the previous Australian government.Saying we cannot achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 is ridiculous — 2050 is 25 years away!
In 1940, the Royal Air Force (RAF) still flew a few Gloster Gladiator biplanes in Malta.
Four years later, in 1944, the twin jet Gloster Meteor became operational in the RAF.
In three more years, in October 1947, ‘Chuck’ Yeager in the Bell X-1 broke the ‘Sound Barrier’ and achieved supersonic speed — Mach 1.06.
We just need clear-cut policies to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions — ASAP. The remarkable advances in aviation technology, shown above, were achieved because our governments had a clear aim: Win the War! In the first case WW2, and after that, the Cold War.It is a given, a no-brainer, or whatever is your preferred expression, for something that absolutely must be achieved, for the good of all humanity, that net-zero CO2 emissions must be achieved by 2050, and preferably much, much sooner.All we need to do is set in chain the correct policies.Biplanes to supersonic aircraft in seven years! It can be done! Let us do it!
Post #55In the previous post I credited the stunning advances, in aviation technology, to the government having a clear objective, in that particular case, it was to win a war.However, a war humanity categorically must not win is the war our consumer society has declared on the benign climate conditions of the Holocene Geological Epoch. A war started at first accidentally, when we were not aware of the danger of massively increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane, but now being continued in the full knowledge of those dangers.Nonetheless, there is a war, that every single person of the 8¼ billion people on Earth must win, and that is the war to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, as near as we can, back to the pre-industrial level of around 280 parts per million (ppm). Around 280 ppm was the approximate CO2 level that existed for all of the 11,700 years of the Holocene Geological Epoch.A reduction to 280 ppm is a very big challenge indeed, and one that will tax our ingenuity and resourcefulness to the very limit! However, if 280 ppm is impossible, then let us try for 300 ppm or 350 ppm. Any reduction is better than the 430 ppm we see today. Our society likes one-line political headlines/slogans: how about: Live Aid 2.0 — Save the Holocene!
Post #56The previous post leads to a difficult question: how can we possibly bring about the concerted action needed to remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than is currently being managed by nature alone? Obviously, we must utilise all of the skills and abilities we have developed in the 300,000 years since Homo Sapiens first emerged on planet Earth. Additionally, and importantly, we must develop and enhance the characteristic of cooperation, not just among people we are familiar with, not just in our individual nation states, but among all of the 8¼ billion people that make up the Homo Sapiens species.
Post #57From Post 48, there is a very strong causative link between the GDP of a nation, the GDP per capita, and the most likely position of the majority of the population of that particular country on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs — as shown here:
The strong link between a country’s GDP, and the purchasing power of the individual people living in that country, strongly suggests that a sense of fairness would suggest that the GDP of the poorest countries should be increased. Many of the most developed countries in the world have benefitted from being able to develop their manufacturing industries without any consideration of the cost to the environment of the associated carbon dioxide emissions. The billions and billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere have, until now, been essentially freebies because there has been no effective cost of emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. In the past, we didn’t know what we were doing, but since Dame Margaret Thatcher’s powerful speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1989, there has been no excuse. (Posts, 11 & 51). It is now time to balance the remaining carbon dioxide budget fairly between nations. This will be key in removing that excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
Post #58From Change Ready or Not: Managing Climate, Our Choice, Our Responsibility: Remember, this is not a fight to save the planet, it may not be a fight to save us, Homo Sapiens, but it is definitely a fight to save our highly developed societies and life as we know it. It is a fight not to be lost. We have already reached a time in Earth’s history where we should not have the freedom to do whatever takes our fancy, with no regard for the energy consumed, and without paying an appropriate fee to compensate for damage to the biosphere.Changing well-established business practices will not always be easy. It will involve changing some things that many of us currently see as vital to maintaining our comfortable lives. But our way of life is going to change anyway. If we carefully manage this change, the future looks bright. Unpleasant change is a good deal more likely if we do nothing and let the biosphere decide how we shall be affected. Let us not destroy our way of life because we cannot be bothered to save it. Or, because we are too tight fisted to spend the money. Or, because of any one of the many other excuses, and justifications, we can dream up!
Post #59Also from Change: Weather events that appear to run counter to ‘global warming’, do not negate the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows a planet-wide trend towards a hotter future. Whether the weather is unseasonably dry, wet, cold or hot, the issue is that long-term seasonal weather trends and patterns are being disrupted. While single weather events may not be definitive proof of an atmosphere in crisis, more frequently occurring random and aberrant weather events are not as easily dismissed.It is the aggregate of the separate events that are currently occurring that are the clear departure from the long-term norm. All of these individual weather events, taken together, become the unprecedented event. Around the world there are enough examples of changes to weather patterns, snow lines, glaciers, sea levels, droughts and other extreme weather events, which correlate in expected ways with science’s predictions for a warming planet. It is only the exact mechanism of the linkage that prevents our present science from forecasting exactly when, and where, the next extreme event will occur. It is, after all, a very large planet and there are many variables.
Post #60From Change: ‘An aspect to global warming, which has not been prominent is the human comfort temperature range … …’ The 2015 Paris climate accord aimed to limit average global surface temperature rise to well below 2ºC (3.6ºF) with efforts to limit the increase 1.5°C, (2.7ºF). The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) gives 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above the pre-industrial level. The 1.55°C is the global average. Average land temperatures are just over 2°C above pre-industrial, while sea surface temperatures are ~1°C higher.As pretty well all of us live on land, the 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures, is the most relevant to we humans. Even a seemingly small number such as a 2ºC increase represents a very significant part of the human comfort range. From an analysis of numerous charts, it is pretty clear that the human comfort zone is between 20° and 28° Celsius (68°F to 82.4°F). An individual’s actual comfort zone will be affected by the relative humidity (RH), the activity level, and the conditioning of the person to heat, cold, and humidity.Some sources give the human comfort range as only 70°F to 80°F (for RH from 15% to 50%) The following graphs both show that the human comfort zone, spans only about 12°F (6.67°C).
Acknowledgement to: The Louisiana Department of Energy and Natural Resources, and The Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy — U.S. Department of Energy.
Two degrees Celsius equates to 30% of the human comfort zone, and the two degrees is continually increasing, and the two degrees is our best-case scenario. The top end of the human comfort zone can be increased, depending on the speed of air movement, and the availability of air-conditioning, but with 30% of our comfort range already taken up with the best-case scenario, it does seem rather risky.The towns of Hopetoun, and Walpeup, in the State of Victoria, Australia, hit a state record temperature this week of 48.9°C (120°F). We are gobbling up our human comfort zone at a great rate of knots! Maximum outside summer temperatures in Victoria have always been above human comfort zone temperatures, but 20.9°C, and almost 38°F, above our comfort zone is taking it to extremes!
These extreme climate events, whether heat, floods, or terrible fires are happening with increasing frequency. However, there are few media sources seriously connecting the increasing number of these record-breaking heat waves, floods, grass and forest fires, to the warming planet and climate change. Why is the obvious climate connection not considered more newsworthy? Are the organisations, and people, in opposition to effective action to slow global heating just too powerful for the good of us all? Is this influencing the reporting? Never forget! The condition, in which we leave the planet, is awfully important for those who follow us!
Post #61The persistent news items these days are: ‘extreme weather events, extreme heat, unprecedented floods, terrible fires, and persistent droughts. Listening to an Australian talkback radio show, a few days ago these problems were discussed in great detail, but never the cause. Why do we, as a people, not connect the increasing number of these record-breaking heat waves, droughts, floods, fires, to the warming planet and climate change?Are we in a denialist groupthink? Do we think that by ignoring the heating of the planet it is not occurring? If we as a people do not speak up — very loudly — no serious climate change avoidance action will occur. The world must seriously reduce greenhouse gas pollution/emissions now.The complete transition to wind, solar, geothermal, emerging clean energy technologies, small modular reactors, and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere — on an industrial scale — is now more urgent than ever before. The political system will opportunistically respond to the denialist attitudes of the voters, and effective climate action will be pushed further into the future
Post #62From Post #48: “There is talk of terraforming the Moon, or Mars. More realistically, we should consider terraforming certain areas of our own Earth. There are boundless possibilities; huge greenhouse gas removal projects; massive re-housing projects; unlimited power from the Sun; massive agriculture, and reforestation projects; enough work for comfortable living wages for all of Earth’s people.” This is as good-a-time-as-any to consider a more all-encompassing 2050 emissions target. Human society has a duty to consider a more principled and generous, 2050 mission statement. A suggestion: ‘LIVING WELL 2050 — 8.3 BILLION — ZERO CO2 EMISSIONS’. It is a touch wordy, but a worthy contender for the copy writers.The global leadership should be aspiring towards a parity of GDP per capita, across all 196 countries. (See post 57). If the world community is to ‘green’ large swaths of the planet, which are currently arid scrub or desert, (terraforming) the task will require many more of us engaged in the task:• Decarbonising an entire planet will be no easy task.• It will require vast amounts of desalinated water.• It will require vast amounts of renewable, or zero CO2 emission energy.• It will require vast amounts of heavy machinery.• It will require a massive workforce at all skill levels.• It will enable the world community to move towards a global equalisation of GDP per capita.• It will require a global effort, greater than that required for all the wars fought on the planet to date.• The work must continue — it will not be an easy task.
Post #63If: ‘Living Well 2050 — 8.3 billion — Zero CO2 Emissions’, becomes the primary objective, then ‘Net Zero 2050’ will be the critical enabling objective. (Of course, ‘Net Zero 2040’ will be a better plan) In recent times the world is becoming terrifyingly de-sensitised to human suffering with just one proviso — it is someone else, somewhere else in the world. If we wish to stay below +2°C of global warming the world is wasting a great deal of the remaining CO2 emissions on bombing and shelling people. There is a limit to the total tonnage of CO2 (carbon dioxide), that can be put into the atmosphere, before the heating of the planet tips over to a greater than +2°C global warming scenario.The first indication of the seriousness with which world leaders are taking climate change will be a meaningful, and global, price on CO2 emissions, and the ending of CO2 emissions being wasted on war, instead of negotiated diplomatic solutions to international disputes. A second indication would be to SEPARATELY list/count the CO2 emissions of the Military-Industrial Complex, AND the CO2 emissions of the post-war reconstruction of buildings and infrastructure, AND the CO2 emissions of the medical rehabilitation of the victims of war. If the total CO2 emissions of ALL of the aforementioned consequences of war are separately viewed and not hidden in the 196 national lists of CO2 emissions OR concealed in the lists of CO2 emissions from essential human activities such as power generation, transport, manufacturing, agriculture, building, and infrastructure.When ALL of the emissions from war are considered, they are likely to be well above 10% of the global total. Recycling supermarket bags, or taking a train instead of an airplane, represent minimal emission savings when compared to war instead of negotiation. Something that may not be widely known is that IPCC guidelines do not explicitly consider wartime GHG emission reporting, or the GHG emissions associated with war — we should all be shocked and horrified!
Post #64The previous post was in no way intended to devalue the importance of recycling supermarket shopping bags or diminish the worth of taking a train instead of an airplane, but it was a strong criticism of using war instead of diplomacy to solve international disputes. War is an extremely primitive method of resolving political, philosophical, and other differences. War is an enduring relic of the primitive tribal days of human existence, which is now largely rejected, even by peoples who choose a tribal lifestyle, but disturbingly it is now adopted by some wealthy, and technologically advanced nations in the world as their chosen method of dispute resolution.Of course, it will take absolutely every effort, and more, to decarbonise the world economy including activities, which at first may seem small, but in aggregate WILL make a difference. I know the following point is being laboured, but one of the most carbon intensive human activities is the use of a very primitive method — military force — for dispute resolution, and the emissions due to wars are not even counted by the IPCC!We know, it has taken about 250 years to develop fossil fuel burning machines to the level of sophistication we see today — think of a 1.6 litre Formula 1 racing car, or Concorde! In those 250 years, there have been hundreds of thousands of improvements in design and manufacturing expertise to get fossil fuel burning technologies to the level they are at today. In 2026 we have only a few years to decarbonise our economies, so everything is on the table, including shopping bags.
Post #65There are campaigns against offshore wind turbines because of possible disruption to whale migration routes. There are campaigns against onshore wind turbines because of the possibility of a rare bird flying into a turbine blade.Birds crash into windows and die, but we do not have campaigns against building houses.People, animals, and birds are killed by motor vehicles, but we do not ban road transport.People and birds are killed by, or in, airplanes, but we do not stop flying.Why then is the remote, but admittedly possible, harming of birds and whales used as an argument against land or ocean-based wind turbines? Living has its hazards for all life on Earth including humans.
Post #66Even more campaigns are against offshore wind turbines because an ocean view may be impaired. And there are campaigns against onshore wind turbines because of possible impairment to the vista. All over the planet views are interrupted by buildings and other infrastructure. In time, a building, or structure, may be accepted as aesthetically pleasing, which then is admired and celebrated.Nonetheless, our buildings, houses, factories, cities, airports, roads, railways, and other essential infrastructure support our way of life, and the development of our civilisation from our past, and into our future. However, times change, and the challenge for the world now is to decarbonise the production of energy — whether fixed or mobile.Like it or not, we need renewable energy. There will be large photo-voltaic power stations; extensive wind turbine power generating capability; concentrated solar power plants; geothermal power plants; nuclear fission/fusion power stations, and small modular reactors will be needed for desalination and pumping infrastructure. Lastly, there will be huge direct air capture plants to remove the already excess CO2 from the atmosphere.There is a good chance that much of this new infrastructure will not be pretty. To campaign against this vital infrastructure because it may spoil a view, or a bird may fly into a turbine blade, is to betray all those folk who are to follow us into the future.
Post #67The world must decarbonise our energy — all energy — manufacturing, construction, transportation, agriculture, etc. etc... And yes, submarines and aircraft carriers are included.
Post #68Carbon Dioxide (CO2) which is already in the atmosphere, and above 350 ppm (parts per million), must be removed, either by Direct Air Capture (DAC), or by ‘greening’ the ‘un-green’ expanses of our planet.
Post #69Greening the un-greened will solve two big planetary problems. The first problem is reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere, now ranging above 432 ppm, back to a more sensible 350 ppm. It is worth noting that 432 ppm is more than 154% of the pre-industrial level. The second problem is a world-wide lack of access to decent work for roughly half of the 4 billion people of working age.The ILO (International Labour Organization) agenda for work, focuses on job creation, rights at work, social protection and social dialogue, which are known as the four pillars of decent work While the official world unemployment rate is ~180 million the under-employment rate, which includes those who have given up looking for work, is closer to half a billion people. Very importantly, over 2 billion people work in the informal employment sector where they lack access to both decent work and job security.The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted on September 25, 2015, by world leaders at a UN Summit in New York, and they officially came into force on January 1, 2016, with a deadline to achieve the targets by 2030.The latest data from the ILO shows that, with less than a third of the time left before 2030, the world is seriously behind schedule for SDG number eight which is: “to promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all”. A solution for both problems ties beautifully with both SDG 8 and decarbonising the biosphere. (See Post #70)
Post #70Achievement of posts 67 and 68 pose a very big problem, namely, of course, how does the world pay to both decarbonise our society, and also remove the excess carbon dioxide (CO2) already in the atmosphere? Nonetheless, important though the money is, there is an even more important question that must be answered on behalf of all eight billion of us.We need a plan. Do we want to decarbonise? Do we want to preserve the benign climatic conditions of the Holocene Geological Epoch? An epoch that has been so beneficial for the development of human civilisation. Do we believe everyone in the world has a right to a decent job? Do we believe everyone in the world has a right to a decent standard of living for their family?These are big questions! The world will need BIG planning conferences, meetings, gatherings, hearings to resolve all of our inbuilt differences, priorities, interests, and cultures.
Post #71Heating the Earth out of the Holocene was never a good idea. To start with we did not know what we were doing. For at least 50 years we should have known what we were doing. For the last 38 years we have known exactly what we are doing. For the last 15 years it has been culpable negligence. Right now, with atmospheric CO2 at nearly 155% of the pre-industrial level, what in the world are we thinking? There are legions of very smart, powerful, and influential people, who must now be encouraged to step up to the task of solving the problem of the vanishing Holocene, and the mobilisation of the essential fiscal resources.
Post #72The reference to ‘legions of very smart, powerful, and influential people’, who will be needed to plan the world’s multiple strategies necessary to solve the problem of climate change — a global problem that is nationalistic, environmental, economic, political, theological, sociological, and cultural.The complex solutions will demand the input, and goodwill, of each of the aforesaid groupings in order to enable the science and engineering: civil, electrical, electronic, power, chemical, mechanical, aerospace, and manufacturing, that will be essential for our future security and happiness.A problem emerging in our 21st century is a significant lack of trust in just about everything, and everyone. In particular, a lack of trust in many global institutions. There is an answer — include delegates from as many global groupings as is practicable. There are over eight billion of us on this planet, and by nature of the awesome power we control, we essentially act as a proxy for much of the other life on Earth. A worthy undertaking.
Post #73Although it has had its critics, the United Nations has functioned pretty effectively, and many would say brilliantly, for just over 80 years. The main hall of the UN General Assembly can accommodate 1,800 people. Accordingly, 1,800 would appear a fitting number that we commission to save the benign environmental conditions of the Holocene for the rest of us.The duly divvied up 1,800 would represent, by agreement: UN Secretary General, delegates from the main UN sub-groupings, delegates of the world’s principal religions, small and medium businesses to very large corporations and conglomerates, schools and universities, hospitals, medical, allied health, emergency services, police, fire, ambulance, governments, the military, everyday citizens and children, representatives from each wealth quintile on the planet, representatives from each population quintile on the planet, the space industry, the sciences, and the humanities.
Post #74The 1,800 will be pretty special people — could take 6 to 12 months — substantial logistics — by qualification and selection, the group will have the trust of the eight billion — at least most of us — a big task — lucky that humans are smart.Although this proposal seems extreme, the situation the people of this planet are facing is extreme. We are already experiencing various global environmental crises, and some would argue that we could be seeing more catastrophic events in the future. Although far-reaching, the proposal to task a qualified group to develop realistic solutions to the problem of planetary climate change, and importantly, how to pay for the proposed solutions will be 100% fail-safe.At the conclusion of the process, if the general consensus is that the proposals of the 1,800 are unworkable, we can fall back to our current default position ‘the business-as-usual’ model — which will be no more dangerous in the future than it is now.The money expended during the ‘preserve-the Holocene’ process will have been remarkably well-spent.
Post #75Clearly posts 67 to 74 speak of a noteworthy outcome for the sustainability of the Earth’s ecosystems, and a prolonging of the best features of the Holocene. But it is unlikely that anything even close to the optimistic models sought will happen. Unless, maybe, a global catastrophic event wakes all of us from our global, ‘it’ll be apples mate’ slumber. Recalling my heading: “… the numerous references to ‘we’ or ‘us’ in my blogs refer to a generic ‘we’ or ‘us’. It is a reference to the whole of the human race in general, but to no one person in particular”.So, what could be an initial step? The worldwide requirement for all emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere to incur a meaningful cost. All countries — no excuses. Post #76On a visit to one of my very favourite restaurants, a delicious chocolate sundae came with a precisely shaped wooden spoon. A wooden spoon cannot easily be recycled from a retail situation and will ultimately end up in the trash. All plastics can, or should be, recycled — hence, a plastic spoon is potentially more environmentally friendly, than a throw-away wooden spoon! With the proviso, of course, that ALL plastics are recycled. The challenge for humans is that less than 10% of all plastic waste is currently recycled (2026). The undeniably best use for trees is to sequester CO2 for hundreds of years, or for sequestering CO2 in furniture, designed to last for hundreds of years — definitely, not for wood chipping or throwaway spoons.
Post #77The global carbon dioxide budget is a complex beast. Simple in concept, but tricky to manage fairly between 196 emitting countries/territories. Only 16 countries emit more than 1.1% of the yearly total of CO2. More importantly, the emissions of those 16 countries account for about 76% of the world’s total CO2 emissions — that is a huge percentage of global emissions.The other 180 countries/territories only emit about 24% global CO2 emissions all together. (See post 5). The World Bank estimates that about 28% of global emissions incur a price on emissions in the form of a carbon tax, or emissions trading scheme (ETS). Whether the 28% of emissions, which incur a price, are adequately priced, is uncertain. And, whether the 28% is truly 28% of all emissions, is open to further discussion. We know that the IPCC guidelines do not explicitly take into account greenhouse gas emissions attributable to wars. Additionally, are we properly accounting for emissions from the destruction of war? We must bear in mind that the emissions cost of reconstruction of the current wars (2026) is an emissions cost that is: ‘a can still being kicked down the road’. A CO2 emission problem, which will not show up in this year’s emissions, but will very definitely show up in future emissions calculations.
Post #78The case for a cost, in the form of an emissions trading scheme (ETS), to be imposed on the production of energy by burning fossil fuels is beyond compelling. It is ‘beyond compelling’ economically, let alone the inexcusable emission of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Australia’s Superpower Institute has aims which include Australia realising a green energy export opportunity, the economics of which will surpass that of the mining era.More importantly, using Australia’s abundant sources of solar and wind, we can produce both energy and materials for global markets that will add extra impetus to the global effort to reach net zero by 2050, or sooner. The post-carbon world will manifest extraordinary business opportunities.I urge everyone, who is concerned about climate change and the heating of the planet, to research and support all who are working to establish the post- carbon businesses — and post- carbon businesses must be supported by post- carbon governments. With just under $US ¾ trillion still going to explicit fossil fuel subsidies, we still have a way to go!
Post #79One of the concepts we were wrong about when we imagined how the 2020s would unfold, and considered from our 1960s perspective, was that we thought that we would all be flying in personal transport such as the Jetson’s Space Car. As we know, most of our flying in our 2020s is achieved in a large jet airliner with a pilot, or two, up front.Luckily, it matters little that in our 2020s we are primarily attached to the Earth’s surface, as it makes solving the climate crisis easier. It is an order of magnitude easier to power surface transport by electricity, either directly or stored, generated by renewable technology.
Post #80The world is already nigh on 80 ppm CO2 over any measure of a safe limit you care to mention. So, the challenge is: ‘how does the world community — all of us — remove 80 ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere, and where does money, the methodology, and the manpower come from? You could say ‘the three ‘M’s’. Luckily the solution to all three problems is, or should be, synergistic; they can be thought of as three components of one problem. The problem? Climate change.
Post #81The starting point for ‘the three ‘M’s’ will be authentically, and exhaustively, pricing ALL CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions into the atmosphere — the money. Secondly, ALL of the money raised will go to the countries where the per-capita emissions are below the global per-capita share — the manpower. And thirdly, money will be used for thoroughly researched, and well designed, ‘greening’ projects around the world — the methodology, where the massive amount of work required will give access to both decent work and job security for the over 2 billion people currently working in the informal employment sector where they lack both decent work and job security (Post 69). Post #82Posts 67 and 68 talk of ‘greening’ the more barren parts of the planet. By way of our disquieting knowledge of the ‘unintended consequences’ of increasing the carbon dioxide (CO2) component of the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 350 ppm there will likely be some folk who will be concerned that greening the barren areas/deserts will also have some unintended/un-envisaged outcomes.Nonetheless, there is little need to be concerned, as we will have tons of time to adjust the strategy if the need arises, remembering the climate pickle we are in took between 100 and 200 years to develop.
Post #83The beauty of life on Earth is supplemented by the underlying physics and mathematics of the Universe. The words of Francesco Maria Piave: “A love that is the heartbeat of the Universe itself”, from the opera ‘La Traviata’, ought to be the song of all life on Earth. Moreover, the splendour of the ‘entropic universe’ is superbly described by Professor Brian Greene in his book: ‘Until the End of Time’.
Post #84To return the Earth to the environmentally stable, even if not exactly halcyon, days of the Holocene geological era, will require all of the working age population of the Earth to be engaged in productive work. How? This will take the best and smartest thinking of us all!
CONTACT: info@changereadyornot.com ADDRESS: EARTH
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. Created in Sitebeat.