6 thoughts on “It’s Not Enough To Prevent Climate Change”

  1. approaches that seek to return atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to preindustrial levels within one to two generations.

    I did a search and found no mention of carbon dioxide (or CO2). So this is kind of new: greenhouse gases. It does mention carbon capture and decarbonization though. So we’re going to reduce greenhouse gases, and decarbonize. Got it.

    To avoid the risk of overshoot, a climate restoration goal might best be combined with a 2°C temperature target.

    Well, overshoot is clearly risky, so important safety tip there, good thinking.

    We all know the most potent greenhouse gas is water vapor, so we’re going to need some big dehumidifiers. Really big ones. And of course the water that’s been removed from the atmosphere will need to be sequestered somewhere, so it doesn’t leak back in. Deep reservoirs underground maybe. Or deep in the ocean. If the water is piped down deep in the oceans, it would take a long time before it diffuses back to the surface right?

    I don’t understand where all the skepticism is coming from. We can do this!

    1. Their other big target is methane. Methane is produced naturally, so they will always have an enemy, but it is also produced by industries that they hate, like public sanitation, farming, and energy production.

      Some environmental consortium is launching a satellite to monitor methane. They are going to mainly focus on monitoring energy production locations. I might be wrong here but detailed satellite monitoring of methane isn’t something that is done. This means that measuring what was previously unmeasured will lead to claims of, “Record set for yearly methane release into the atmosphere. We must act now.”

  2. Twenty-some years ago the primary argument for importing wolves from Canada and releasing them in Yellowstone National Park was “to restore the ecosystem.” Restore it to when? That magic moment between the arrival of the white man and after the removal of the American Indians, I guess.

    In any case, one of my counter arguments was that if we were going to be restoring ecosystems, why not restore Yellowstone to the one it had ten thousands years ago. When it was covered by ice a half mile thick.

    1. It is kinda funny how Native Americans are held up as examples of living with nature and treating it with religious reverence but in both North and South American indigenous populations engaged in continent wide reshaping of the environment.

  3. Restoring the climate as laid out in the article is a dumb idea but we certainly should have the goal of maintaining the environment through active stewardship. The government doesn’t have enough money to care for the land it has. Many landowners do take on the responsibility of tending to their trees, brush, ect. Perhaps robotics and AI will solve the cost problem.

    Many environmentalists have the view that nature knows best and letting nature taking its course will lead to the best outcome. I take the view that for good or ill we can’t change nature on a climate scale and to try is folly but down on the ground, for plants and animals to thrive they need to be cared for as one tends a garden.

    Don’t see many environmentalists out there clearing out ladder fuel or thinning trees so they don’t starve.

Comments are closed.