A new approach to tackling climate collapse:
A Comprehensive Global Climate Stability Programme
Our main reason for a new approach to tackling climate collapse is a simple one:
the old one is not functioning!! We are still on track for a tropical warm age on the planet, changing our world so fast that neither nature nor humans can adapt quickly enough. The result – the first effects like dying coral reefs, melting ice and permafrost, drowning deltas, raging forest fires, extreme droughts cannot be overlooked anymore–will be the sixth big mass extinction in the world`s history and a world of instability leading to hunger and war for mankind. This has to be prevented at any means!!!
What we have done so far is mainly talk, haggle and promise things we cannot achieve The only favorable developments like the development of better and cheaper sources of alternative energy have come along in uncoordinated, haphazard fashion stopping them from delivering their full potential of carbon reduction. Other new technology like electric cars still necessitate such energy intensive production, especially for batteries, that they can simply not make much of a difference to our greenhouse gas balance in the next decades, even if they would all run on electricity from regenerative sources. Other means of transport like planes or a makeover of infrastructure and buildings will need an even longer time span to make them carbon neutral and the process to get them there will produce many more emissions of greenhouse gases. Any new thing that is produced, however efficient it is afterwards, at first adds to our total emissions instead of lowering them.
Our goal is simple: a stable climate in which nature and humans can prosper That means that the climate has to stay inside a range between a minimum of 1° less (like at the beginning of industrialization) and the present temperature (2018). Temporary excesses have to be limited to another ½° up or down for a short period of time. Therefore everything necessary has to be done to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5°, which could be hit as early as 2030, and then make sure we cool the planet back to the present level – or better back to the levels last seen in the 1980s – at the latest by the end of this century.
To achieve a stable climate we only need two simple things:
- Put a price on all emissions that reflects their negative effects and the cost of sucking them out of the atmosphere. Use the proceeds for three things: mitigating the negative effects of price increases on poor people; pay for negative emissions (= sucking CO2 out of the air); pay for cooling measures (compare aspect2)
- Temporarily cool the planet to stop it from overshooting our temperature limits with all its disastrous consequences by blocking/reflecting an adequate amount of sunlight, especially in the overheating polar regions à #coolthearcticnow
[For a more detailed description, please read the text:
A comprehensive global climate stability programme!]
If we – mankind – use our brains and realize that a disaster on a global scale cannot know any winners we should be able to agree on this simple programme. It offers clear rules and two simple things which used in combination can save us and all future generations. We are the last ones who can do much to stop it and we simply have an obligation not just to protect our future, but the future of those – our children and grandchildren–that will follow us too.
If those few old people in power, especially those who have no children or grandchildren or do not care for them, think that they can stop us from saving our future and the future of the planet just so that they can get a bit richer they must be totally nuts. Why should we literally burn the world to make them own a few more things they cannot enjoy anymore anyhow because they already have too much and due to their age will die soon.
Just stop them!
Basic analysis of the achievability of the 1.5° limit in global warming.
Summary of the IPCC calculations:
Based on IPCC calculations the world would have had to stop using fossil fuels in 2040 if no other means would be used or by around 2050 if CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technology would be used take carbon out of the atmosphere in the second half of the century.
Industrialized countries would have to reduce their emissions by 2/3 by 2030 to start with.
As each of the last years since the publication has seen higher total greenhouse gas emissions any strategy to reach 1.5 – 2° would have to stop using fossil fuels by 2040 even if CCS technology would be used.
As there is no indication of a global effort to dramatically lower emissions and start a big switch away from fossil fuels even in 2025, which is not that far of in the future, we would have to stop using all fossil fuels by 2035.
An alternative calculation published by Stefan Rahmstorf, an eminent German climatologist, with similar results:
All this has always only been a hypothetical calculation anyway. Neither zero emissions in 2035 or 2040 are achievable. Not even theoretically. A complex interconnected system, like our present one, can not be change quickly.
A list of reasons:
- Time lag: Many years go by from decision making to starting a process to finishing it. Especially big infrastructure projects or complex technology, like the development of new planes, takes decades.
- TGGE (Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions): TGGE include every stage of a product`s life from manufacture to usage and recycling/dumping. The TGGEs of products are far higher than what is officially acknowledged. Electric cars running on renewable energy may not pump any emissions into the air while being used but they come with a huge TGGE from the battery manufacturing process that makes them less polluting only after many years. The bigger the car the greater the time lag. Pretending that electric cars have no emissions is an accounting trick, no more, and no help.
- Systemic inertia: This can be divided into two types reinforcing each other: society and economy. Society: : The price for any changes to the system has to be paid upfront, the results will be seen – or because disaster is avoided not seen – in the (far) future. Politically a hard sell, especially as any country moving ahead will pay the price, while others try to get a free ride, making unilateral action a hard sell. Even more important people hate giving up things or status more than anything else. In the absence of a clear and present (that means something you actually see or experience yourself) danger people procrastinate or even actively resist change. Even the fiercest critics of climate collapse go home and enjoy heated – or cooled - accommodation. Some people are ready to forgo some things, no one is ready to give up basics like heating and electricity.
- Economy: The global economy is deeply interconnected and complex. Sudden disruption would threaten its smooth workings and potentially entail a massive recession with more unemployment or higher costs – reducing social acceptance, even turning into counter-demonstrations like the gilets jaunes in France – and lower taxes which are needed to finance any change or adaptation. You can change such a system gradually but if you take away its foundations too quickly before new ones are established you risk collapse.
- Structural scarcities: To quickly change a complex system many resources are necessary and our present ones are insufficient for the task. Scaling up Lithium production to a hundred times more will prove a challenge and limit the electrification of our societies. A lack of qualified and unqualified workers – especially in the building sector - will simply make large infrastructure projects infeasible. The hundreds of millions of houses which need to become carbon-free can only be upgraded over many decades. Just check out how hard it is to a get workman for major repairs. The only resource that could be quickly scaled up would be money if the governments print money and use it for carbon reduction measures, giving it to the people for free for such measures. Alas inflation and indebtedness would be the direct result.
- Negative emissions time lag: Like mentioned in aspect 2 many new technologies need a heavy “investment” in TGGEs before they can save emissions later. Insulation, energy saving devices or infrastructure need a high outlay ahead of any later reduction, ironically leading to a faster increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. The faster they accrue there the worse their effects. Which leads directly to the worst of all:
- Self-reinforcing climatic feedback loops and carbon sinks turned into sources: The global climate is pretty stable for long phases until an external trigger (sun, volcanoes, asteroids, now: mankind) sets of an ever increasing cascade of feedback loops that together drive the change until another state of stability is achieved. In our case melting ice and melting permafrost and burning/ decomposing plants – the last two aspects are worth at least a ½° temperature increase and were not even included in the original IPCC calculation – together with the time lag from CO2 which goes on heating up the planet for 150 years will drive the climate in only one direction: ever hotter. And when former carbon sinks like the Canadian forests have already turned into carbon sources, mankind`s emissions play an ever smaller role in an ever hotter climate. And burning forests turn the strategy of sucking carbon out of the atmosphere with the help of trees into certain failure.
- Maths: We are in for a 1/2° increase on average every 16 years at current trends, which don`t change quickly as stated above. This means we will hit the 1.5° by around 2035, 2° around 2050. The self-reinforcing feedback loops will do the rest together with the CO2 still lingering in the atmosphere. CO2 pumped out at record levels in 2019/2020 will be around until 2170 on average! Global temperatures would go on rising in the 22nd century to a probable range of 7-8°, which is a comparable difference in average temperature to the ones at the end of the last ice age (7-8° cooler), a temperature difference that brought totally different living conditions to the planet.
Upshot: There is no feasible way to reach the 1.5° or even the 2°, not even theoretically if all aspects are considered. Without additional measures the lowest potentially achievable temperature by the end of this century is 2.5°-3° and that only if drastic action is undertaken to reduce emissions soon! This range of temperatures would certainly lead to catastrophic results. This ought definitely be unacceptable to mankind!
A Comprehensive Global Climate Stability Program to fight Climate Collapse
A stable global climate means that the temperatures remain in a safe range, without extreme increases – or theoretically decreases – that threaten the worlds ecosystems on which mankind`s future and prosperity, and therefore a peaceful planet depend.
A comprehensive global climate stability program is based on three complementary strategies:
-
Reduce emissions of green house gases as quickly and completely as feasible without wrecking the economy or society`s ability to adapt. The best way to do so is by introducing a fee or tax for carbon, methane and other greenhouse gas emissions that increases gradually until it covers the costs of emitting them. A part of the money collected should be used to offset the higher cost of living for the poorer parts of the population (example: Canada`s carbon tax) to make sure people accept the fees, the rest to pay for step 2 and 3.
-
Negative emissions: this means that we take CO2 out of the atmosphere, where otherwise it would remain for about 150 years. We can do so by planting trees and turning them into building material, but as this by itself is not quick enough, and raging forest fires could pump it back into the atmosphere quickly, we also need technology like artificial trees which are far more efficient and store the collected CO2 in underground geological formations like former gas deposits or oil wells.
-
Cool the planet by increasing its albedo (ability to reflect sunlight) until step 2 has achieved a reduction of greenhouse gas levels back to where they were around 1980. Until then gradually cool the planet by shading it like volcanoes do (note: not all at once in one big go to avoid negative effects!) with the help of particles that reflect sunlight in the stratosphere. Do so in a global endeavor to keep the temperatures below the 1,5° more (in comparison to before the beginning of industrialization) that scientists regard as the upper limit of what we and the planet can bear, and then cool it gradually down to 1° and finally 0,5°. Basic cooling can be achieved by pumping particles into the stratosphere above the equator with the help of balloons from where it will spread all over the planet, fine-tuning the dose through gradual increase until we have stopped the warming. An extra effort is needed for the areas that heat up most due to global heating and that destabilize the global climate even without further human emissions, like Antarctica and the Arctic with its melting ice and permafrost. They must be cooled by an extra layer of reflective particles to cool them two to three times faster, especially during summer when the sun shines for 24 hours per day. This is necessary to get quickly back to the temperatures last seen decades ago – when sea ice cover, ice sheets and permafrost soil were stable – to avoid their collapse. As such a system is impossible for smaller areas like mountain ranges – which are losing their glaciers and stability due to melting permafrost, too – other means of increasing the reflection of sunrays need to be used there, like the whitening of areas formerly covered with snow or ice. This method can also be used to fight black snow/ice (soot covered and therefore fast melting) on glaciers.
New technology to cool the planet is available and reasonably cheap. Unmanned drones can spread particles above the polar regions or brighten mountains. And they can spread particles in layers of different density whenever and wherever necessary, enabling us to fine-tune the cooling and avoid rapid cooling, like from the eruption of a supervolcano which could cause havoc.
A further advantage of a global climate stability program is that it is much more easily put into action, because strategies 2 and 3 do not depend on everyone agreeing on action. As we had to find out the hard way even a disastrous threat like climate collapse – formerly called climate change – has not moved everyone to agreeing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough. Not all people or nations are and will always be easily convinced, even by the only feasible way of stopping a global disaster. And despite the fact that in the long term a global project like this needs a global agreement, the fact that protracted talking has led us into this dire situation, means that if necessary an alliance of the willing – or even just a group of people or one country – can start, leading the way and inspiring others to follow. Creating a stable climate is good for everyone. If we care about our common wellbeing there is no reason whatsoever to delay action anymore.
To achieve the aim of a globally stable climate, we the people, and the nations which are based on them, have the chance to finally overcome our differences to fight the common threat of a devastating global disaster. Doing so will create trust that will help us to stop foolish warmongering and create a peaceful world. We are no animals fighting for survival against each other by staking out our territory. Our survival – and prosperity–depends on co-operation
And let us not forget that if we seriously start fighting climate collapse the necessary investment in green technology from cooling to carbon capture to alternative energy, building materials and so on and so on will be nothing less than the biggest investment in mankind`s history, a supersized green deal that will make the whole world better off.
How to cool the world
In order to cool the world we have to lower the amount of sunlight that heats the planet.
To do that we have several possibilities:
- We can increase the albedo of the planet`s surface, so that it reflects more sunrays (think ice that functions a lot like a mirror). That way no energy is absorbed and turned into warmth.
- We can “shade” the planet by putting tiny particles into the stratosphere. This does definitely function as volcanic eruptions cool the global temperature that way.
- We increase the water vapor/cloud cover over the oceans, reflecting more sunlight right back into outer space.
All three function as we know from watching natural cooling by ice, clouds or volcanic eruptions, but none of these has ever been imitated and tested by humans so that we can understand where, in what way and how we should use them to achieve the best cooling effects. No, despite the fact that theoretically we have known for a long time that if we do not manage to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough, as we have clearly failed to do, cooling technology is the only way to save us from disaster we have made no efforts to develop our only hope of stopping runaway climate collapse. If that sound ridiculous you are right but mankind does not always act cleverly.
What has to be done?
- Try/test/analyse: there is no time to lose to find out which way of cooling works best and most cost efficiently, or how we can combine them
- Start with a limited cooling programme in the Arctic by the latest in 2025 as this basically uninhabitated place heats up fastest and with the most dangerous side effects (the melting of sea ice, Greenland ice sheet and permafrost). Gradually lower the temperatures until they return to the temperatures of the 1980s to stop the dangerous feedback loops of melting ice and permafrost.
- Start cooling Antarctica, just like the Arctic, at least by 2030 to avoid serious sea level rises and gradually cool it back to the levels of the 1980s.
- Cool the whole planet once we hit the 1,5° upper limit (probably between 2030 and 2050) to avoid catastrophe until we have managed to lower the greenhouse gas levels to create a stable climate without help from extra cooling measures. Gradually lower the temperatures back to at least below the levels seen at the moment and then when the greenhouse gas levels have been lowered gradually unwind the program until we can end it, once we have reached our goal of a stable climate.
And new ideas would be welcome:
Why not come up with new ways of cooling the planet or some of its parts. So be creative and develop new technology or land use to reduce our global temperature. From turning boreal forests into cooler tundra grasslands or even the holy grail of all, turning planes into devices that cool the planet instead of heating it up.
Is cooling the world dangerous?
No, because we do not ask for an immediate extreme cooling which would be possible by imitating a super volcano, but for a step by step development of technology where scaling up only takes place if the technology has been tested before. But if we wait much longer we will sooner or later end up dimming the world without this step by step process as a last stopgap once the world gets unbearably hot!
We think it most likely that imitating volcanoes and pumping particles into the stratosphere above – first of all – the uninhabitated parts of the Arctic and Antarctica during summer is the best way to start as these areas are the thermostats of the world with several potentially disastrous feedback loops (sea ice, ice sheets, permafrost) that could devastate the planet and make all our efforts at reducing our greenhouse gas emissions obsolete. And in contrast to volcanoes we can choose particles with the smallest possible side effects. One potential problem is the world`s obsession with a thinning ozone layer (compare the detailed information of how ozone is created and destroyed on our homepage) as some of a volcanoes emissions can lead to natural reductions in its thickness. But it is human emissions of CFCs and other chemicals containing chlorine that deplete the ozone layer. And just for the record we have been living with a temporary “hole” (= time of low ozone numbers) in the ozone layer over Antarctica during spring for more than 50 years and it has had no traceable negative impact on mankind (it actually does not reach Australia!) or nature. If cooling the planet, saving it from disaster means that this recurring phenomenon in spring goes on a few decades longer than now predicted, where is the point? Still, for cooling we can test different material besides the sulphuric acid originally proposed that would keep the “hole” going a bit longer and maybe we can try to time the cooling procedures with larger particles that do not remain too long in the stratosphere to span the summer to autumn months avoiding the spring months with their low ozone density levels. Furthermore we could try to pump the particles into the upper reaches of the ozone layer where less chlorine hangs out. And actually cooling particles would block UV rays, too, while cooling the troposphere would also warm up the stratosphere, therefore making the process that destroys ozone less likely (compare the detailed article). Realistically speaking the worst that could happen – if we have to stick with sulphuric acid due to a lack of alternatives–are temporary higher rates of UV- radiation in spring in areas where people are not known for taking extensive sunbaths but rather for a lack of Vitamin D, an indicator for too little UV-radiation after all. In comparison to a climate running amok and ecosystems collapsing that sound like a ridiculously cheap price to pay in a worst case scenario.
If we have to finally start cooling the whole world this still would not compare to the eruption of a super volcano on the scale of Mount Tambora in 1815. This eruption caused massive harvest failures and famine due to its rapid cooling effects of between 0.5 and 1° that we would have to imitate. But it happened during a time of cold climate – the little ice age – when the then primitive means of food production where already stressed out by the prevailing cold climate. This is exactly a reason why our aim of a climate stability programme is to stop the climate from crossing dangerous thresholds, too low or too high temperatures that could cause massive problems for mankind. If the temperatures get too hot and we lower them by the same amount as the
Tambora eruption did we would actually retreat into a safer climate, comparable to today`s, with better harvests in areas like Europe, North America or China that were hit by too cool weather then. The same would probably be true for Monsoon patterns in South Asia which are increasingly destabilized by global warming. India in 1816 experienced a late onset of the monsoon with torrential rains causing floods, which is not too different from what global warming produces. A cooler climate should cause less extreme rainfall and therefore flooding, with fewer deaths as a result.
Considering everything stated above it seems to be clear that potential negative side effects of global cooling should be avoided where possible but that even if they occur they would be many magnitudes smaller than the disastrous effects of global warming. There is no reason to let the world heat up anymore for fear of cooling it. That would be ridiculous and cause untold harm to mankind and nature!
Cool the Arctic (and Antarctic) NOW
Why would anybody be foolish enough to cool the coldest paces on the planet?
Simple, because the fate of the planet, its ecosystems and of us humans depends on them staying cold. They are the thermostats of the planet because they are heating up twice as fast as the rest – by up to 10° by 2100–
and when that trend is not stopped soon vicious cycles of self-reinforcing events will drive global temperatures upwards even without humans emitting more greenhouse gases and melting glaciers will raise global sea levels dramatically.
Why? Consider the following:
- Sea Ice Cover: Sea ice reflects about 90% of incoming radiation (sunlight), sending it back into outer space without warming the earth, whereas water absorbs 80 to 90 % of the incoming radiation, heating itself up. As a result of the warming water more sea ice melts and more open water can absorb more sun light heating up even more and so on. This process is self-reinforcing and has progressed so far that it has passed a tipping point, which means that it will go on until summer sea ice is completely gone and is the main reason why the arctic heats up much faster than the rest of the planet.
- Permafrost: The soil in the arctic has been mostly permanently frozen since the last ice age, storing more than twice as much carbon than humans have pumped into the atmosphere so far. Melting soils release this carbon as CO2 or methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas, heating up the planet even more which leads to more permafrost soil melting and even higher temperatures and so on. Another vicious self-reinforcing event that drives global warming beyond human influence. [Watch Vice on HBO: the crazy idea to keep the arctic from melting] And the loss of frozen ground seriously endangers traditional communities with craters, some created by methane, dotting the landscape and collapsing coastlines. Soil can shrink for up to 22m in height when unfrozen!
- Greenland ice sheet and other arctic glaciers melting: All the glaciers on the planet are remnants of the last ice age. But increasing temperatures melt glaciers dramatically. This process is hastened even more by dark dust and soot deposited on the ice as a result of human emissions. Meltwater finds its way to the bottom of the ice where it functions like a lubricant, speeding the ice flow towards the sea where the ice is also warmed by the warming oceans, melting ever faster. The lower the ice sheet gets the higher temperatures will be and the more ice will melt, another self-reinforcing cycle with a tipping point already irreversibly breached in 1997 according to a study from 2017. [Noel et al. (2017) Nature Communications. 8: 14730] Greenland alone can raise the global sea level by up to 3 meters this century. Most scientists, though,
believe a sea level rise of 1 to 2m in total more likely this century but 3 meters in one hundred years possible. Anything even in the lower range of prediction will mean the end to low lying islands and coastal areas forcing tens of millions of people of their land.
And a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which has already started will raise the sea level by another 3 meters, but it is still unclear at what speed this will happen. A collapse of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet meanwhile would lead to a rise of about 53 meters over the course of hundreds to thousands of years. All this loss is irreversible! It would need another ice age to create new glaciers and ice sheets. It is not hard to imagine what sea level rises on such scales would mean to coastal cities from New York to Tokyo and for the most densely settled places in the deltas of big rivers from the Ganges, the Nile to the Mekong or Mississippi.
- Thermohaline Circulation/ Gulf Stream Current: The great thermohaline circulation of which the Gulf Stream is the most famous part depends on dense (=salty and cold) water to sink to the bottom in the North Atlantic. It has been pretty stable during the end of the last ice age 10.000 years ago but stopped several times in earlier periods when fresh water from melting ice made it less salty, which is just what happens at the moment again. And the rapid warming of the Arctic Ocean means there are two reasons now slowing it down, reducing its speed by about 15% in the last century. It could even collapse completely, but even a slowing means drastic changes to climate patterns. Northwestern Europe could see colder winters with the ocean freezing up in northern Norway in winter while the tropical and subtropical Atlantic would become warmer, leading to deadlier Hurricanes. Furthermore the sinking waters of the Thermohaline Circulation take carbon and warmer water into the deep ocean, slowing manmade global warming. Therefore a slowing or collapsing circulation again means faster rising temperatures on the planet even though Northwestern Europe will experience a few decades of
cooling.
- Jet Streams and weather patterns: Jet Streams are powered by temperature and therefore pressure differences between the poles and the tropics. The warmer the Arctic gets the smaller this difference and the weaker the Jet Streams which is the most likely reason for stable weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere like in the summer of 2018 in Europe with its severe drought. The warmer the Arctic the more probable extreme weather patterns will become.
Considering all these uncomfortable results of the fast warming Arctic–crossing tipping points that change global climate for thousands of years and flood coastal areas changing them forever–it seems a no-brainer that immediate measures need to be undertaken to stop a further heating up of the Arctic and stabilize its frozen parts, ice and permafrost.
Mass extinctions and the importance of a stable global climate
Mass extinctions and the importance of a stable global climate
A stable climate is the most important pre-condition for life on this planet as we know it, as the ecosystems with all their plants, animals, microbes and us, mankind, have adapted to exactly this climate and tolerate only small variations of about ½-1° up or down from the mean to prosper and survive.
To really appreciate what drastic climate collapse means consider the five mass extinctions of species in earth`s history. Each – as far as we know it–was driven by a rapid change in climate and/or a change of acidity and nutrient level in the oceans. Just consider the worst:
End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost
Known as “the great dying”, this was by far the worst extinction event ever seen; it nearly ended life on Earth. The tabulate corals were lost in this period – today’s corals are an entirely different group. What caused it? A perfect storm of natural catastrophes. A cataclysmic eruption near Siberia blasted CO2 into the atmosphere. Methanogenic bacteria responded by belching out methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Global temperatures surged while oceans acidified and stagnated, belching poisonous hydrogen sulfide. “It set life back 300 million years,” says Schmidt. Rocks after this period record no coral reefs or coal deposits.
Credit: JAIME MURCIA / MELBOURNE MUSEUM
What happened at the end of the perm can happen again, only with the difference that this time humans start the cataclysmic events. We have already killed off quite a number of species and have driven many to near extinction by destroying their habitat or poisoning them. Insect numbers in Germany, for example, have collapse by about 70% between 1980 and 2018 alone. With so many species already near the brink of extinction only a small further push would be necessary to lose them forever. But the human induced climate collapse in the 21
stcentury is no small push, but the fastest drastic increase in temperature in the globe`s history only comparable to extreme cooling events like the impact of an enormous asteroide that finished of the dinosaurs and many other species in the last mass extinction.
The joke is on us therefore.
We, the humans, the cleverest species that ever walked this planet, have driven the world to the brink of the 6
thbig mass extinction by creating the perfect storm to kill off whole ecosytems. It has already started. We are pumping record amounts of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere, oceans are acidifying. How many more comparisons to the late Permian mass extinction do we need.
We probably will not kill off 96% of all species as we are too clever not to realize that we could be one of them. Sooner or later we will try to stabilize the climate before it gets totally out of control. The reason why we are so upset is that mankind has already wasted so much time and the tipping point for our global climate where we could have stopped it by reducing our emissions has already been passed without anybody seeming to bother.
Time to act now or we will go down in history as the fools who wrecked it!
The Myth of climate collapse winners in the Arctic
How can any reasonable human being believe that a collapsing eco system like the one in the Arctic would create any long term winners?
Let`s start with the clear losers, the locals:
The
traditional inhabitants of the Arctic will lose their centuries` old way of living forever. How can Inuit hunt without ice for animals which will not be there anymore or reindeer herders get through endless expanses of mud due to melting permafrost.
Fisheries: Local fishermen face a double threat of collapsing traditional fish populations – in the long term–and increased competition from large international factory ships for northward moving new fish species. Especially small countries – like Greenland if it becomes independent – cannot control their large territorial waters from illegal fishing.
Disaster
tourism will increase for a decade or two for people who want to see the animals like polar bears, the glaciers and ice-fields before they are gone, but sooner or later this will end due to lack of ice or the realization that is perverted to watch a dying eco system. Polar bear skeletons don`t make good pictures! And most tourists anyway will move through the Arctic on giant cruise ships in the future which do not generate any reasonable income for local communities but potentially harm the ecosystem through things like soot and oil spills and the local communities by overwhelming them with their numbers. There are thousands of people even on the smaller cruise ships. Just ask the people of Venice or the Geiranger Fjord if they like cruise ships.
Drilling for oil and gas is not only potentially even much more dangerous for arctic nature and fisheries, it is also financially insane if you consider the economics. Its biggest fans are the few dinosaurs out there who still believe that climate collapse is a hoax or at least not caused by mankind burning fossil fuel, despite the fact that 97% of geo-scientists and 100% of climatologists agree on the simple fact that it is manmade. Now, all those scientists could be wrong, but chances for that are ridiculously small, which means that the world will have to stop burning oil and gas soon. Why should any sane person, people who believe in science, invest billions of Dollars or Euros in drilling in an environment that is still extremely remote and hostile – think cold, dark winters – and therefore expensive, and where thawing permafrost makes transport of oil or gas over land nearly impossible in the future, when we already have more reserves of oil and gas developed or cheaply exploited through technology like fracking, than we can burn without turning the world into a sauna. There is simply no future for large scale drilling in the Arctic because the same process that makes it possible by melting the ice – global warming – is also the reason why it will never happen in any big way in a world of shrinking demand – we already have technology that does not endanger the planet`s future – or new rules like carbon taxes that price in the cost of burning fossil fuel.
Mining:
Governments like mines because they get money from taxes or royalties, at least as long as prices stay high, which they normally don`t as they fluctuate dramatically. Locals don`t like mines, except maybe for the few people who find a job there, because they have to live with the spills, emissions, destruction of local nature. Most of the well paid jobs go to foreigners with the relevant skills and most of the profit stays with the international companies who own the mines. So if you want to spoil pristine nature, risk income from tourism and fisheries just bet on mines, just don`t believe local communities will prosper because of them. And except for rocky areas like most of Greenland mining will become harder due to thawing permafrost as everything gets bogged down in mud.
Infrastructure:
Traditional ice roads on rivers and lakes will vanish in northern Canada and Russia, but re-placement with even gravel roads will be impossible because of the enormous costs based on the long distances and the thawing permafrost.
Shipping lanes?
Anybody seriously thinks the tiny adavantage of shorter summer routes – the Arctic will still be frozen and hostile in winter – will profit anyone except for a few ship owners who make a bit more money in the far future. In the near future there is no cost advantage as you still need icebreakers along for the trip. And with eroding coast lines in the Arctic due to thawing, shrinking permafrost and rising sea levels where would the harbours be in case of accidents or emergencies in which the ships need to get help or repairs. There is nothing out there and the small arctic communities could not profit from it anyway
Any winners anywhere in sight? No, not even the fools that think they can earn a fortune by digging for oil or gas, but who will lose loads of money on their ventures.
The thawing, melting Arctic can produce new jobs for locals but in a totally different way than anybody has suggested so far. Because Arctic countries can be at the forefront of stopping climate collapse! And the world would pay for it because nobody like rising sea levels and methane belching permafrost.
To quote a minister from Greenland`s government: “My hope is that we as a society can adapt in the best possible way to the climatic changes, simply because we as a nation and as a people cannot prevent it.”
Well, what if you could? What if cooling the Arctic would give the world the necessary reprieve to decarbonise our economies without the climate running complete amok while stopping the ice and permafrost from melting any faster or even further.
Would it not be better for the people of the Arctic to keep the world they like and know?
Then let us cool the Arctic!
From the small scale like brightening black snow and ice (lots of jobs for locals) to the big scale of shading the Arctic, especially the northern uninhabitated part during summer. The ideas are out there but we have to test them and then use the most efficient ones to stabilize the arctic before it is too late.
Join us in our global fight for a livable future on a cool planet.
Show your support by spreading the message to all your friends telling them to support us too, and by sending us your name or even better a photo of your face with your name added with this hashtag:
#coolthearcticnow
Convince your local leaders that something not only can but has to be done.
climatestabilityprogram
Everyone of us is weak but we are so many and we have so much to lose that we can change the world together. Start doing so now.
Climate Stabilization Governance
A global program to stabilize the world`s climate needs to be governed carefully and meticulously. And whereas local SRM-management strategies and basic carbon-pricing (the amount necessary to keep up carbon neutrality) can be left to local decision makers and market mechanisms respectively, the task of setting a target for the annual reduction of carbon from the atmosphere, to return to levels that keeps the climate stable, has to be set globally. The additional carbon price to achieve this can then be determined by market mechanisms.
But - and this is a big BUT - global SRM-management strategies, or regional ones with global repercussions, have to be agreed on globally and long-term.
To achieve this Climate Stabilization Governance (CSG) needs to be independent of meddling by politicians, who have neither the qualifications nor the necessary long-term perspective. Yet to be legally binding it needs the backing of the world`s governments (a majority of governments representing a majority of people to start with; but an agreement including every country would be vastly preferable).
Disaster tourism will increase for a decade or two for people who want to see the animals like polar bears, the glaciers and ice-fields before they are gone, but sooner or later this will end due to lack of ice or the realization that is perverted to watch a dying eco system. Polar bear skeletons don`t make good pictures! And most tourists anyway will move through the Arctic on giant cruise ships in the future which do not generate any reasonable income for local communities but potentially harm the ecosystem through things like soot and oil spills and the local communities by overwhelming them with their numbers. There are thousands of people even on the smaller cruise ships. Just ask the people of Venice or the Geiranger Fjord if they like cruise ships.
The only way to achieve this is by following a model already working well, the independent central bank, which came into existence with a clear mandate by politicians, namely to keep inflation at bay. It is free of day to day political pressures and meddling by people with often only limited understanding of the underlying complexities. With technocratic experts setting policy according to the latest data this is a useful model for an independent CSG-governing body.
Actually CSG-governance would in some ways be easier as its input is based on scientific data, facts and processes, whereas economics is too dependent on the unpredictable behavior of people to be able to predict future outcomes under all circumstances.
How do you set up an independent CSG-governing body and what should it look like?
It has to be founded and politically sanctioned by a vote in the UN General Assembly with the clearly defined mandate to keep global temperatures in a certain range - just like with central banks and inflation - of for example 0.5° - 1° Celsius and a preferred band of 0.65° to 0.75° above pre-industrial levels, comparable to the second half of the 20th century. Additional mandates would ask for the preservation of a maximum of species and acceptable living conditions for the human population.
It should be made up of 1,800 scientists - a number large enough to represent diversity and quality at the same time, as well as being hard to fall prey to special interests - representing the relevant fields of climatology, geosciences and biology, who serve once renewable terms of 6 years, with 1/6th being replaced every year - enough churn to keep it fresh, but more than enough experience left - after which they can`t serve again for 12 years. The members should be advanced by regional assemblies (based on a mixture of population and localities) of scientists and voted in by the existing members of the CSG-body (or the IPCC when it is set up for the first time as actually many members of the IPCC will become members of the CSG. In many ways the IPCC is the precursor of the CSG). A gender quota of a minimum of 40% for each sex ought to be set. No further quotas are necessary.
Voting is one member one vote and a simple majority succeeds.
Location should be the capital of a neutral country like Vienna in Austria were the CSG-Assembly meets three to four times a year to make decisions, with a small group of about 60 members working full time as co-ordinators. The members will have the status and immunity of diplomats, but the immunity of individual members can be revoked by the assembly.
The CSG-governing body would then determine all non-local - that means anything influenicng more than a small area of a few hundred square kilometers - actions of Solar Radiation Management from allocating the financial resources to controlling the efforts to checking the results. To do so it will need the help and co-operation of scientific institutions and private companies that all work together to establish the best scientific data for decision making. Just like the IPCC the CSG will base its decisions on such international data gathering and studies, but at its heart will be a constant monitoring effort and three (for safety and redundancy measures) computing and command centers to be able to react swiftly if necessary.
The CSG and the actual SRM-measures will be financed by a global tax on all transactions beyond a certain threshold, which will directly flow to the CSG to keep it financially independent. An example would be a transaction tax of 0.1% (the real ratio has to be determined by the actual costs of the program, set by the CSG, but have to be audited independently and must be published in full detail. Total transparency of all the income and all the costs is a prerequisite, just as the full scientific data and outcomes must be published) on all transactions above 100U$ or €. This threshold would stop the poor for having to pay for the global endeavor.
All technology like planes and drones must be owned or leased by the CSG and must have supranational rights to use national bases and airspace and so onto without any restrictions to keep meddling by governments at a minimum.
There can only be one basic goal that rules the whole process: a stable climate to keep species and people alive and healthy.
