Arguments
Recent Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 1 to 50:
-
Evan at 22:16 PM on 22 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
MA Rodger,
I am not sure why you are including "wobbles" in your consideration. Don' we consider sufficiently long data sets so that the effect of wobbles is averaged out?
I show below a graph of a quadratice fit to two, overlapping 15-year intervals: 2000-2015 and 2010-2025. 15 years should be sufficient to average out the effect of wobbles such as El Ninos. I show just the trend lines, without the data, so that the averaged trend can be clearly seen.
The upward curve of the quadratics clearly indicates upward acceleration. I project the 2000-2015 curve forward to show where we would be had the 2000-2015 baseline trend continued into the future. That we are above that trend line indicates that the rates are increasing above the 2000-2015 baseline.
For me this plot leaves no room for interpretation, because the data is taken over a sufficiently long interval to average out wobbles, and it indicates a trend that is increasing above the 2000-2015 baseline. I don't see any plateau in the acceleration that can be justified in a 15-year interval.
And even if we look at a 5-year interval, which is too short to average out long-term wobbles, we still see a concave trend line, indicating acceleration even over this unjustifiably short, 5-year interval. And considering that we are headed into a giant El Nino later this year, which is accompanied by a spike in CO2 concentrations, that applies even more upward pressure to this unjustifiably short 5-year plot.
I am open to looking at things differently, and will be grateful if you can show me where I'm going wrong in my analysis. I am treating the data over sufficiently long time periods to average out wobbles, and still see unmistakable upward acceleration. These excerpts of the Keeling Curve just don't give me room for optimism. But they do suggest that I should prepare for a future with more challenging conditions.
-
MA Rodger at 16:01 PM on 22 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
nigelj @21,
It would be nice if it were so simple. But those annoying wobbles manage to get in the way. I've graphed out the NOAA's MLO de-seasonalized CO2 data 2015-to-date and annotated the micro-accelerations-&-decelerations (Green & Red). This approach is not definitive as these Green-&-Red bits would shift about a significant amount with small changes to the start-finish dates of the periods used. See graphic HERE Posted 22nd May 2026
Over the full period since 1958, the overwhelming situation is one of acceleration, and indeed increasing acceleration. The big exception within this trend was thro' the 1990s when rates decelerated due to the Pinatubo eruption, this quite evident in the NOAA 'Annual Increase of CO2 at MLO' graph up thread.
The recent 'plateau' with a period of zero acceleration is so-far a less obvious feature.
-
Evan at 20:38 PM on 21 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Nigelj@22, yes, I concur with your assessment. If the curve deviates from a straight line, it is accelerating. And yes, the functional fits I use are quadratic equations, which fit very nicely to the CO2 data.
MA Rodger@23, I must confess I had difficulty following your method, but it may because I am busy preparing for a presentation. One of the benefits of fitting a function to the CO2 data and then analyzing the behavior of that fitted function is that the fitted function smooths out the wobbles. The fitted function extracts the average behavior from the noise. This permits easier analysis of the behavior of the data set by evaluating the behavior of the fitted function.
What I have in mind for my response my be of sufficient length that it is more valuable to simply write a blog post for SkS. You and I could then continue our discussion there, and more people may benefit. I'll try to get a quick response here later today, and then will likely plan a longer SkS post for the full response.
And I will try to give your analysis and better read later today after my presentation.
-
MA Rodger at 07:57 AM on 21 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Evan @21,
I don't see the Ralph Keeling quote from 2018 as helping. Back in 2018 I would not have disputed the CO2 acceleration, although the emissions were looking like a 'plateau' was on the way. So by 2018 I might have been arguing for its immanent arrival based purely on the grounds of the emissions having 'plateaued'.I've not attempted to numerically show the 'plateau' in the past, probably because the lack of acceleration has been too short to show within all the wobbles.
But here I've bravely set forth to attempt to show it.
I'm using the NOAA data (as you linked to) and specifically the de-seasonalized numbers so the annual cycle isn't interferring.
I took that data and differenced it to give the rate of rise. Then I carried-out OLSs on it with the end-date always today and varying the start-date from back in 1958 and up to 2025, knocking one month off for each OLS.
The results of all this is graphed out in the graphic below the previous one HERE Posted 20th May 2026.
The upper bit of the graphic (in red) is the 'rate-of-rise' numbers and that happily matches the red trace in the previous graphic.
The bottom bit of the graphic shows that over the full set of data the acceleration was running something like 0.0025ppm/yr/yr. As the earlier data is cut out with a later Start Date, this rate of acceleration doesn't change much for most of the period. The biggest feature here is a bit of a rise evident as the Start Date approaches the 1991 Pinatubo eruption.
Things do start to change from about 2008 as the rate of acceleration starts to decline and has dropped to zero by 2014. The acceleration rate stays very close to zero until about 2019 after which the wobbles take over and the rate drops steeply into the negative.
I'd suggest the near-zero section 2014-2019 is not an artifact of wobbles but is the 'plateau' showing itself. (The negative plunge is down to the latest 'rate-of-rise' data being low rather than high. I perhaps could choose a different end date giving a high ending to demonstrate this.) -
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 21 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Regarding whether the keeling curve is accelerating. Look at the keeling curve here from 1965 to about 2020 and its obviously curvilinear over the entire time period, so this is an acceleration. Isn't it?
Just put a ruler on the graph, and its obviously not a straight line trend. It looks curvilinear, or perhaps a bit stepped, like maybe a quadratic best fit. My maths is very rusty though.
But my understanding is theres no good evidence of a recent "acceleration in the acceleration".
-
Evan at 02:36 AM on 21 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
MA Rodger@20,
Thanks for your detailed response.
The report I referenced is definitely not the basis of my stating that CO2 concentrations are accelerating upwards. Ralph Keeling is quoted on camera in 2018 as part of the NOVA series "Decoding the Weather Machiner" as stating that CO2 concentrations are accelerating upwards. It was not just a figure of speech, the motion of his hands together with his words clearly conveyed mathematically that CO2 concentrations were accelerating upwards. I don't accept your suggestion that this is a casual phrase designed for a press release.
I just downloaded the most recent NOAA data set (see here) and starting from 2000, any time interval I fit, from 25 years (2000-2025), up to 5 years (2020 - 2025), which to me is way to short for meaningful results, show an upward accelerating trend. I have a presentation to give tomorrow that is preventing me from spending more time now on my response, but tomorrow I will prepare the plots to share with you.
If we're all looking at the same data, I don't see where there is room for interpretation. Make a plot with CO2 on the Y axis, date on the X axis, and fit a function to the data that well represents the general shape. Take the second derivative. If it is positive, then the curve indicates an upward accelerating trend.
-
MA Rodger at 00:23 AM on 21 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Evan @18/19,
That 2024 NOAA article you linked-to appears to be the crux of your 'acceleration' argument & I wouldn't put too much store by the wording of its strap-line (where the word 'accelerating' is used). The article is more 'press release' than definitive. Note that its using the May CO2 values (so the top of the annual cycle) which usually the NOAA avoid using when calculating an annual rise**. And when Ralph Keeling is quoted saying CO2 is " rising faster than ever," this is arguably about the previous El Niño-fuelled months when "CO2 concentrations increased more rapidly than they have in the first four months of any other year" and not the longer term rise. The following part of the article manages to be clear about the timescale unde discussion which is not long-term."The record two-year growth rate observed from 2022 to 2024 is likely a result of sustained high fossil fuel emissions combined with El Nino conditions limiting the ability of global land ecosystems to absorb atmospheric CO2, said John Miller, a carbon cycle scientist with NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory." [My bold]
(**NOAA compare winter values Nov-Feb to calculate their annual 'growth' numbers.)
While the use of MLO CO2 data is not global, it isn't greatly different to the NOAA global numbers and MLO is a good measure for the Northern Hemisphere which contains the big drivers of the CO2 increase.
If you consider the NOAA MLO annual 'growth' numbers (graphed below), 2023 & 2024 sit up at the top of the ranking. But note that 2015, 2016 & 1998 sit in the next three positions, all five of these being impacted by El Niños. And note that 2025 didn't see much of a CO2 rise - it sits 18th in the 'biggest annual rise' rankings. 2022 sits down at 22nd and follows a couple of years of 'below average' increases. This doesn't suggest 'acceleration'.
Working with those graphed NOAA MLO numbers and attempting to look past the ENSO wobbles by using a 5-year rolling average, the highest 5-year period is back in 2017. Also if you take a more straightforward calculation for a 12-month increase***, the maximum for a 5-year rolling average again appears for a period centred back in 2017. In both 5-year averagings, the difference between the latest peak of averaged 'growth' and the one back in 2017 is very small (2017 = 2.64ppm or 2.66ppm/yr, 2023 = 2.63ppm or 2,65ppm/yr) so you could try to make the case for the wobbles hiding the accelerating levels of CO2. But if there is a 'hidden' acceleration, it can't be a very strong acceleration for it to be hidden over a six year period. It's an easier argument to point to the wobbles hiding the 'plateau'. (*** The monthly level minus the level 12-months before)While, the exact 'flatness' the plateau can be argued, I would strongly defend the idea that emissions are the sole contributor to rising atmospheric CO2. (At least, so far.)
Graphing out the 'growth' of MLO CO2 alongside the anthropogenic emissions numbers from the Global Carbon Project, (see graph HERE Posted 20th May 2026) using the 2.13Gt(C)=1ppm and assuming a constant 45% Airborne Fraction, this provides reasonable support for the absence of any significant natural CO2 emissions building-up under AGW and impacting the MLO numbers.
-
Evan at 22:14 PM on 19 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
MA Rodger @17, thanks for your comments.
You talk about a plateau in our emissions. But my focus is in the Keeling curve, and the reason I focus on the Keeling curve is because as you well know, it includes the net effect of all emissions and sinks.
To me it is irrelelvant whether or not anthropogenic emissions are or are not plateauing. The only thing that matters in terms of global warming is what the Keeling curve is doing, and emissions can plateau while the Keeling curve continues to accelerate upwards, if other sources that contribute to the Keeling curve are rising or other sinks that contribute to the Keeling curve are decreasing.
One reason I encourage people to plan their future based on what the Keeling curve is doing is that whereas it is difficult for the average person to assess what is/is not happening with emissions and sinks, they can easily track the progress of the Keeling curve.
-
Evan at 21:31 PM on 19 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
MA Rodger @17, thanks for your comments. I will read through your comments carefully and see if I can refine my message.
However, regarding whether the Keeling curve is accelerating upwards, a paper published in 2024 (read here) states,
Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than ever — accelerating [their words, but emphasis mine] on a steep rise to levels far above any experienced during human existence, scientists from NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today.
As you noted, Keeling curve trends must be analyzed for long-term trends to average out short-term variability. That scientists from both NOAA and Scripps are saying, as of 2024, that the Keeling curve is still accelerating upwards would seem to leave little room for re-interpration just two years later.
I will respond to your other comments in more detail later, but interested in your take on this paper summarizing the conclusions of the NOAA and Scripps scientists.
-
MA Rodger at 16:48 PM on 19 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Evan @16,
I think you should perhaps have chosen a couple of different words for your comment.The Keeling Curve is not "accelerating", at least not at the present. It is still rising but at a roughly constant rate. The Keeling Curve inherits a strong set of wobbles from ENSO etc so establishing an absence of acceleration over a period of just a decade is not entirely definative but the anthropogenic emissions (which cannot be so easily measured) do suggest such an absence of acceleration should be observed.
The second word (or phrase) I'd not use in the manner you do is "climate scientists" who are not responsible for the plan to reach net-zero and are certainly not saying "we are making great progress" towards net-zero. There are likely a bunch of folk who could be called "scientists" or "technologists" who are responsible for showing how to implement net-zero but generally it is politicians who have the power to make the decisions on the actual implementation.
Back forty years ago the clmate scientists were asking for a 50% cut in emissions by 2050. WIth the other 50% of our emissions being drawn down into ocean & biosphere, a 50% cut would stabalise atmospheic CO2, at least for a while.
But thirty years ago the climate scientists revised the target to an 80% cut by 2050 because that base level of annual emissions had risen rather than fallen and the larger cut in the new higher level would result in roughly the same cumulative emissions by 2050. And if you listened to those "clmate scientits" there was also talk of emissions having to peak by 2020.
The position was then revised again , the target calling for net-zero by 2050. This was due to two developments. (1) The big rise in emissions thro' the 2000s and (2) the changing understanding of what is a safe AGW temperature rise, this being revised down from +2.0ºC to +1.5ºC. Hey, we don't want Greenland starting to melt down, do we?
Now the concept of "peak by 2020" was always a bit vague. Yes we have 'plateaued' by 2020. But today six years later there is no sign that that 'plateau' is being followed by the decline which would convert that 'plateau' into a 'peak'. Climate scientists did nail-down this emissions limit with the carbon budget. And ther 2016 budget allows the calculation which showed that if emissions 'pateaued' (as they did) we would burn thro' that budget by 2021 (for a 66% chance of dodging +1.5C) or by 2025 (for a 50% chance).
However climate scientists did not throw in the towel but re-rigged the budget to include a big period of net-negative emissions post net-zero. My scaling of the size of this net-negative a while back suggested it would involve the anthropogenic draw-down of all our emissions made after 2008, this achieved over a century-&-a-half. This 'fix' gave another decades-worth of the 'plateaued' emissions added to the budget. And for the 66% chance, we are halfway thro' that extra time and still 'plateauing'.
Now my version of the argument that we are in the process of falling off the cliff is not based on the continued 'plateauing'. That situation could change rapidly with the increasing deployment of renewables and energy efficiency measures. But what I see as the problem is that deployment. Where is it?
I'm a political person and hear politicians of a different stripe mouthing off about impressive levels of renewable 'energy'. One of the stories they employ uses impressive 'electricity' numbers not lac-lustre 'total energy' numbers. That is politicians (who are usually never the sharpest tool in the box) spreading propaganda.
The other propagandist number they fight to take credit-for here in UK is the national territorial emissions. These are impressive-sounding in UK. Emissions halved since 1990. Or they are lower than any time since 1880. And the numbers are even better if you use 'per capita' figures. Waving these numbers is incredibly deceptive. UK was historically a massive emitter so reductions are't difficult to achieve. Much of the reduction in national emissions which UK politicians try to take credit has been achieved by exporting manufacturing. And the other big factor is converting from coal to gas.Globally things are quite desparate. The graphic below shows primary energy from fossil fuel is still increasing. This doesn't reflect emissions because it is the coal-to-gas thing again. Gas is no solution for net-zero emissions. Of the six/seven non-fossil-fuel energy sources in the graph below, hydro and nuclear are non-scalable so also not the solution. The remaining three are none-of-them demonstrating an exponential growth which we need to see. Solar has the most promising scalability and give it a decade we could suddenly see that kicking-in alongside hydrogen and ammonia being used for energy storeage/transportation and more. But the massive works to get that all done are not evident. Discussion of plans for such massive works are not evident. And the clock is ticking.
So we may not be in free-fall off the cliff but we have yet to begin thinking about getting a proper grip to stop ourselves sliding down the slippery slope above that cliff.
-
ubrew12 at 20:41 PM on 17 May 2026Two videos about the Atlantic Meriodonal Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
Thank you. In News Roundup #20, an article by Jeff Masters.
-
Evan at 09:37 AM on 17 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Nigel@15. This is one time when I strongly disagree with your position.
If you fall over a cliff and are plummeting to your death, you can argue that opening an umbrella will slow your descent more than if you didn't open it, but you will still likely fall to your death.
Not only is the Keeling curve not flattening out, it is accelerating upwards.
Accelerating!
The best we can say is that maybe we have slowed the rate of acceleration a bit. But as long as the Keeling curve is accelerating upwards, I don't see any room for optimism. I only see room for communicating that we need to do much much more.
It concerns me greatly that many climate scietists remain optimistic in the face of an upward accelerating Keeling curve. For the not-so-well-informed general public, the logic may be.
1. Climate scientists say they have a plan for reaching net-0.
2. Climate scientists say we are making great progress.
3. So CO2 levels must be stabilizing.
4. I feel better now knowing that we just have to stay the course.
Your average person will have no idea what the Keeling curve is doing. The end result of all this discussion about net-0 and hype about how well we're doing reducing emissions, hides the fact that we are having no effect on the Keeling curve. It may simply put the general public to sleep.
I really wonder how many people realize what an absolutely massive increase of 2.5 ppm/year CO2 really is? CO2 is nowhere near stabilized!
-
nigelj at 08:00 AM on 17 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Evan @13, thanks for your comments. I feel there is some grounds for some limited optimism that we have made real progress with the climate issue. You correctly analyse the keeling curve that theres no sign of the keeling curve flattening off. Its depressing to be sure. However I think its hard to see a change, because we haven't done enough yet to make an impact that would appear above the noise in the system.
And I would contend its highly likely that the building of renewables has reduced the rate of growth of the keeling curve. Putting it another way, but for renewables total atmospheric CO2 concentrations would be higher than currently. Obviously we cant be certain of this, but basic evidence and logic points that way.
So as I previously suggested, I think we have some grounds for limited optimism, and should spread a message that we are making some progress but its not nearly enough.
I agree that some commentators over hype the progress we have made. That is definitely neither accurate or helpful. But if we scare people too much so that the problem looks huge and insurmountable, this will discourage climate action.
-------------------------------------------
Prove we are smart @14
"Nigelj@11, I would rather scare them awake than a little uncomfortably numb."
That has generally been my preference. But if you scare people too much, especially if you exaggerate the dangers, or spread a message we are doomed, then you discourage people form taking any climate action.
If I felt we really were doomed, I would say so, and obviously theres no point promoting action to mitigate the problem. We would be stuck purely with adaptation. But I do have some limited optimism we have made a difference, and can make more of a difference. Therefore I think the message should be we have made some progress but not enough, and if we dont make more progress the outcomes will be very serious, etc,etc.
-
michael sweet at 07:56 AM on 17 May 2026Two videos about the Atlantic Meriodonal Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
Ubeew12:
I saw a newspaper article that the Gulfcor Mexico has warmed daster than rhe glibal average for the past decade The article did not mention the Meridional Current but it was not written by a scientist.
-
prove we are smart at 18:09 PM on 16 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Nigelj@11, I would rather scare them awake than a little uncomfortably numb.
Evan@13, Yes, I've learn't to copy and paste too, which has helped.
I used to feel empathy for a country being led by a vile and corrupt village idiot but the climate hoax bully has emptied me of that.
-
ubrew12 at 04:14 AM on 16 May 2026Two videos about the Atlantic Meriodonal Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
The 'Gulf Stream' warms Northern Europe. Doesn't it also cool the Gulf of Mexico? So if the AMOC slows down, wouldn't that excess heat empower Gulf-charged storms in the Midwestern and Southern States of the U.S., such as those characterized by tornadoes and hail? It seems to me it would, but I don't hear much about that.
-
Evan at 19:55 PM on 15 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Prove we are smart & Nigel, I have lost some long posts, but I don't think it is the word limit. What happened to me is that I exceded a time limit after which I had to log in again. I've learned to copy the post into the copy buffer just in case I lose it.
Nigel@11, optimism without a basis for the optimism is a false hope. It may make you feel good, but will do nothing for your children. And making people feel like we're making progress when we're not could be counter-productive, if it puts them to sleep.
At some point we have to accept that things will continue to worsen, and we need to put time and effort into preparing society for what is coming. For me the contrast could not be worse than an administration who says climate change is a hoax, and so many climate scientists who say we are making great progress reighning in emissions.
All the while the Keeling curve accelerates upwards at a horifying rate.
Nigel, I am a positive, happy person. But I am also a research engineer. And research engineers live and die by analyzing data and coming to honest conclusions about what the trends say.
But thanks for your optimism. I hope for the world's sake that I am wrong.
-
nigelj at 13:52 PM on 15 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Sorry I meant to say Evan says. Wasn't paying attention to the phones auto word select thing and didn't check before pressing submit.
-
nigelj at 13:49 PM on 15 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Evan days "I dont know what we should be communicating to the general public, but it seems to me that all the optimism we're publishing is counter productive, because it may have the effect of putting people to sleep on climate issues, rather than serving up the clarion call we need."
I think that's is a very real risk, but if we dont have at least some optimism then the public will just give up in despair. Has to be a mix of optimism and realism. Its like walking a tight rope verbally in terms of getting the messaging right.
-
nigelj at 13:39 PM on 15 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Prove we are smart. I have never lost comments when pressing submit even if its taken me quite a while to write a comment. They have all appeared properly.You might have exceeded a word limit. Perhaps the moderator could clarify the situation.
-
prove we are smart at 15:13 PM on 14 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Evan, I never thought you were an AI anything- Maybe because I accidently downloaded twice, that triggers an alert? In fact, there must be a time limit on how long this reply section stays open because I have lost many replies when I click submit-unbelievably frustrating!
Yes, of course I used an AI when it is beneficial to add to my points. Maybe I'm an AI, just dumbed down to seem real! The scientists who create the subjects for this blog site, some admit AI is great for them-but you don't want contributers to use it? I asked my Microsoft copilot if it was an AI bot and others would know better than me but is this a typical answer? is co-pilot a ai bot?
Yes — Copilot is an AI, but not in the “mysterious robot” sense people sometimes imagine. I’m an AI companion created by Microsoft, designed to help you think, learn, create, and make sense of the world with you, not just for you.Here’s the clearer breakdown:
What Copilot is
An AI system built to understand your questions and generate thoughtful, structured responses.A reasoning assistant that can analyze information, synthesize ideas, and challenge you when it sharpens your thinking.
A creative partner that can help write, plan, explain, compare, or explore complex topics — like the climate‑science questions you often dig into.
What Copilot is not
Not a person.Not conscious or emotional.
Not a chatbot with a fixed personality — I adapt to your style of thinking and the depth you prefer.
How I’m different from typical “AI bots”
Most bots answer quickly and superficially.
I’m built to go deeper — structured reasoning, evidence‑based analysis, and the kind of layered explanation you prefer. I can also search the web, work with files, generate images, and help with tasks across your device ecosystem.If you want, I can also explain how I think, how I use reasoning, or how I differ from other AI systems.
-
Evan at 11:24 AM on 14 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Moderator, this is Evan and I am not an AI bot. So I hope you were not referring to my comments.
-
prove we are smart at 09:02 AM on 14 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Thanks Evan, we have to turn a blind eye to so,so much and hearing the renewable winning conversions and those wonderful new ev's, we are surely getting there! We know green washing is used to good effect to subdue the masses. The system must be protected by any means. I understand yours/mine frustration. Sometimes my opinion is we really are just kicking the can down the road-minus the lid, which we have recycled. We have become so desentisized and I thought the internet would enlighten and make people less insular, ha.
I know governments have rarely but deperately forced their citizens into new systems and this would surely? lead to riots for the obvious reasons, however for interest sake, I asked this question,
Should the governments be fixing climate change by enacting themselves a war powers act?
"Short answer:
Invoking war‑powers–style authority to fight climate change is one of the most extreme governance models available. It’s been proposed by some scholars, rejected by others, and sits at the uncomfortable intersection of democratic legitimacy, emergency politics, and planetary risk. Whether governments should do it depends on how you weigh speed vs. democracy, risk vs. rights, and effectiveness vs. legitimacy. You should confirm any political information with trusted sources.Below is a structured, evidence‑based breakdown tailored to the way you like to think — analytically, comparatively, and with attention to systems.
???? 1. What a “war powers” approach would actually mean
A war‑powers framework typically includes:Centralised executive authority
Rapid mobilisation of resources
Suspension or bypassing of normal legislative processes
Compulsory measures (rationing, industrial direction, emergency procurement)
Nationalisation or commandeering of key industries
Applied to climate change, this could look like:
Mandated phase‑out schedules for fossil fuels
Forced industrial conversion (e.g., coal plants → grid storage)
Rationing of high‑emissions activities
Emergency funding for renewables, grid upgrades, and adaptation
Restrictions on certain products or sectors
This is not hypothetical — during WWII, the US, UK, and Australia all used similar mechanisms to reshape entire economies within months.
????️ 2. Why some argue it is justified
These arguments come from climate scientists, political theorists, and risk scholars:A. Climate change is a slow‑moving existential threat
The IPCC describes climate change as a “threat multiplier” that destabilises food systems, water security, and geopolitics.Several planetary boundaries — including climate, biosphere integrity, and biogeochemical flows — are already breached. * my add-aren't 7 of these 9 boundaries been already breached? *
B. Normal democratic processes are too slow
Emissions reductions require structural change across energy, transport, agriculture, and industry.Legislative cycles and partisan gridlock often delay action for decades.
C. Emergency powers have precedent for non‑military crises
Bushfires, pandemics, and natural disasters already trigger emergency powers.Some argue climate change is simply a long-duration disaster.
D. The cost of inaction is higher than the cost of emergency mobilisation
Delayed mitigation increases long‑term economic damage, displacement, and adaptation costs.???? 3. Why others argue it would be dangerous
These concerns come from constitutional scholars, civil liberties groups, and political scientists:A. Emergency powers tend to expand and linger
Historically, once governments acquire extraordinary powers, they rarely give them back quickly.B. Risk of democratic erosion
Concentrated executive authority can weaken checks and balances.Climate policy could become politicised as “authoritarian environmentalism”.
C. Public backlash
Forced measures without democratic consent can trigger resistance, populist backlash, or destabilisation.Climate action requires social legitimacy to endure across decades.
D. Effectiveness is not guaranteed
Command‑and‑control economies can misallocate resources.Market‑based and regulatory approaches often outperform coercive ones when well‑designed.
⚖️ 4. The middle ground: “Emergency governance without authoritarian drift”
Some scholars propose hybrid models:Climate emergency declarations with targeted powers
Fast‑track permitting for renewable infrastructure
Mandatory national carbon budgets
Independent climate authorities (like central banks for emissions)
Crisis‑style industrial policy without suspending civil liberties
This approach aims to capture the speed of emergency mobilisation without the risks of war‑powers centralisation.
???? 5. The real tension: planetary boundaries vs. political boundaries
Your question hits the core dilemma of 21st‑century governance:Can democratic systems act fast enough to stay within planetary boundaries?
If the answer is “no”, societies face a choice:
Transform democracy to act faster, or
Accept higher climate risk, or
Adopt emergency‑style governance, or
Invent new institutions that preserve rights while accelerating action
There is no consensus — only trade‑offs.
???? 6. Where this leaves your question
Should governments do it?
Different perspectives exist:Some argue yes, because the climate crisis is existential and time‑critical.
Others argue no, because emergency powers risk democratic backsliding.
Most serious scholars argue for a hybrid, where governments adopt emergency‑level mobilisation within democratic constraints.
Ultimately, the answer depends on your weighting of:
Urgency
Legitimacy
Risk tolerance
Trust in institutions"
In my opinion number 4 is the go but...
Moderator Response:[BL] Please, let's not turn the comments section here into a battle of the AI bots.
-
Evan at 08:50 AM on 14 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Prove we are smart, I like the way you think, and concur with much of what you've written, especially the concept of a wartime economy mindset to turn things around.
One of the best examples of what a wartime economy can do is typified by how fast the US built liberty transport ships. These were ships to carry cargo to Europe. Whereas typical liberty ships took a month to complete, the SS Robert E. Peary was built in a little over 4 and half days, to demonstrate the manufacturing might of the US.
We have the ability to make a difference, and what you suggest about the mentality of a wartime economy makes sense, except that a wartime economy is typically tolerated by a motivated public (in WWII we were motivated by the attack on Pearl Harbor) for a short time, but tackling climate change requires a much, much longer time span. I question whether we could convince the public to maintain such a mindset for the length of time required.
But I like many of your ideas!
-
prove we are smart at 07:20 AM on 14 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
Thanks Evan, we have to turn a blind eye to so,so much and hearing the renewable winning conversions and those wonderful new ev's, we are surely getting there! We know green washing is used to good effect to subdue the masses. The system must be protected by any means. I understand yours/mine frustration. Sometimes my opinion is we really are just kicking the can down the road-minus the lid, which we have recycled. We have become so desentisized and I thought the internet would enlighten and make people less insular, ha.
I know governments have rarely but deperately forced their citizens into new systems and this would surely? lead to riots for the obvious reasons, however for interest sake, I asked this question,
Should the governments be fixing climate change by enacting themselves a war powers act?
"Short answer:
Invoking war‑powers–style authority to fight climate change is one of the most extreme governance models available. It’s been proposed by some scholars, rejected by others, and sits at the uncomfortable intersection of democratic legitimacy, emergency politics, and planetary risk. Whether governments should do it depends on how you weigh speed vs. democracy, risk vs. rights, and effectiveness vs. legitimacy. You should confirm any political information with trusted sources.Below is a structured, evidence‑based breakdown tailored to the way you like to think — analytically, comparatively, and with attention to systems.
???? 1. What a “war powers” approach would actually mean
A war‑powers framework typically includes:Centralised executive authority
Rapid mobilisation of resources
Suspension or bypassing of normal legislative processes
Compulsory measures (rationing, industrial direction, emergency procurement)
Nationalisation or commandeering of key industries
Applied to climate change, this could look like:
Mandated phase‑out schedules for fossil fuels
Forced industrial conversion (e.g., coal plants → grid storage)
Rationing of high‑emissions activities
Emergency funding for renewables, grid upgrades, and adaptation
Restrictions on certain products or sectors
This is not hypothetical — during WWII, the US, UK, and Australia all used similar mechanisms to reshape entire economies within months.
????️ 2. Why some argue it is justified
These arguments come from climate scientists, political theorists, and risk scholars:A. Climate change is a slow‑moving existential threat
The IPCC describes climate change as a “threat multiplier” that destabilises food systems, water security, and geopolitics.Several planetary boundaries — including climate, biosphere integrity, and biogeochemical flows — are already breached. * my add-aren't 7 of these 9 boundaries been already breached? *
B. Normal democratic processes are too slow
Emissions reductions require structural change across energy, transport, agriculture, and industry.Legislative cycles and partisan gridlock often delay action for decades.
C. Emergency powers have precedent for non‑military crises
Bushfires, pandemics, and natural disasters already trigger emergency powers.Some argue climate change is simply a long-duration disaster.
D. The cost of inaction is higher than the cost of emergency mobilisation
Delayed mitigation increases long‑term economic damage, displacement, and adaptation costs.???? 3. Why others argue it would be dangerous
These concerns come from constitutional scholars, civil liberties groups, and political scientists:A. Emergency powers tend to expand and linger
Historically, once governments acquire extraordinary powers, they rarely give them back quickly.B. Risk of democratic erosion
Concentrated executive authority can weaken checks and balances.Climate policy could become politicised as “authoritarian environmentalism”.
C. Public backlash
Forced measures without democratic consent can trigger resistance, populist backlash, or destabilisation.Climate action requires social legitimacy to endure across decades.
D. Effectiveness is not guaranteed
Command‑and‑control economies can misallocate resources.Market‑based and regulatory approaches often outperform coercive ones when well‑designed.
⚖️ 4. The middle ground: “Emergency governance without authoritarian drift”
Some scholars propose hybrid models:Climate emergency declarations with targeted powers
Fast‑track permitting for renewable infrastructure
Mandatory national carbon budgets
Independent climate authorities (like central banks for emissions)
Crisis‑style industrial policy without suspending civil liberties
This approach aims to capture the speed of emergency mobilisation without the risks of war‑powers centralisation.
???? 5. The real tension: planetary boundaries vs. political boundaries
Your question hits the core dilemma of 21st‑century governance:Can democratic systems act fast enough to stay within planetary boundaries?
If the answer is “no”, societies face a choice:
Transform democracy to act faster, or
Accept higher climate risk, or
Adopt emergency‑style governance, or
Invent new institutions that preserve rights while accelerating action
There is no consensus — only trade‑offs.
???? 6. Where this leaves your question
Should governments do it?
Different perspectives exist:Some argue yes, because the climate crisis is existential and time‑critical.
Others argue no, because emergency powers risk democratic backsliding.
Most serious scholars argue for a hybrid, where governments adopt emergency‑level mobilisation within democratic constraints.
Ultimately, the answer depends on your weighting of:
Urgency
Legitimacy
Risk tolerance
Trust in institutions"
In my opinion number 4 is the go but...
-
Evan at 21:14 PM on 13 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
"Prove we are smart"@3, If I add up how much my friends tell me they make at the casino, it is a sizable amount. What they are not telling me are their stories about their losses. The Casino always wins, but that's not what you hear from personal accounts.
We treat model predictions about future warming as absolutely guaranteed, and make ourselves feel good by publishing stories about the great progress we're making, all while the Keeling curve is accelerating upwards.
If we tell the public that current models indicate we will cap warming at 2.5-3C, and if we continue to publish stories about the great progress we're making, then the average person might well conclude that all is well and our current actions are sufficient to reign in the climate problem.
I don't know what we should be communicating to the general public, but it seems to me that all the optimism we're publishing is counter productive, because it may have the effect of putting people to sleep on climate issues, rather than serving up the clarion call we need.
-
prove we are smart at 11:57 AM on 13 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
I think we all feel increasing dread from our seemingly forever increasing atmospheric CO2 readings. Here is an interesting review from how the world did slow the increase in CO2 for a while- My microsoft "co-pilot" offered me these facts to the asked question..
" Are you interested in quantifying how much each event slowed the annual ppm increase (e.g., comparing Keeling Curve slopes before/after each event)?
Yes — and more importantly, it’s a scientifically meaningful thing to do, because it lets you separate narrative (“the pandemic slowed emissions”) from quantitative signal detection (“did the atmospheric growth rate actually change, and by how much?”).Here’s the concise takeaway first:
Yes, you can quantify how much each event slowed the annual CO₂ growth rate by comparing the Keeling Curve slope before and after each event — but only a few events (e.g., the 1973 oil crisis, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 2008 financial crisis, and COVID‑19) produce a detectable, statistically significant deviation, and even then the effect is small relative to natural variability.
Below is a structured way to think about it, plus what you’d likely find if you actually ran the numbers.
????️ 1. What “quantifying the slowdown” actually means
You’re essentially asking for:
Where slope = annual mean CO₂ increase (ppm/yr), typically computed using:A 5‑year window before the event
A 5‑year window after the event
Deseasonalized Mauna Loa monthly data
A linear regression for each window
This isolates the trend rather than the short-term wiggles.
???? 2. What events are large enough to show up in the Keeling Curve?
Only events that cause multi‑gigaton, multi‑year changes in emissions can produce a detectable signal in atmospheric growth rate.Events that might show up:
1973–74 oil crisis
1980–82 recession
1991 Soviet collapse
2008–09 global financial crisis
2020 COVID‑19 lockdowns
Events that won’t show up:
Individual policy changes
Single-year emission dips < 1 GtCO₂
Regional events (e.g., EU recession alone)
Anything shorter than ~6 months
The atmosphere integrates globally and has inertia.
???? 3. What the numbers typically show (based on published analyses)
These are approximate, but they’re consistent across NOAA, Scripps, and peer‑reviewed studies.1973 oil crisis
Pre-event slope: ~1.3 ppm/yrPost-event slope: ~1.1 ppm/yr
Δ slope ≈ –0.2 ppm/yr for ~2 years
1991 Soviet collapse
Pre-event slope: ~1.5 ppm/yrPost-event slope: ~1.2 ppm/yr
Δ slope ≈ –0.3 ppm/yr for ~3 years
2008 financial crisis
Pre-event slope: ~2.1 ppm/yrPost-event slope: ~1.8 ppm/yr
Δ slope ≈ –0.3 ppm/yr for ~1–2 years
2020 COVID‑19
Emissions dropped ~7% globallyBut atmospheric growth rate dropped only ~0.2–0.3 ppm/yr
Δ slope ≈ –0.25 ppm/yr for ~1 year
Why the effect is always small
Because:Atmospheric CO₂ growth is dominated by cumulative emissions, not annual changes.
Natural variability (ENSO) is ±1 ppm/yr, which is larger than most human-caused dips.
The ocean and biosphere buffer short-term changes.
This is why even COVID barely dented the curve. ( my add, so although longer lasting oil crises, regime and financial collapses and pandemic lock-downs will definitely/finally reduce the curve, should this be our future?)
???? The deeper pattern
Every slowdown corresponds to one of three categories:Energy supply shocks (1973, 1979)
Global economic collapses (Great Depression, COVID‑19)
Large‑scale wars (WWI, WWII)
None were climate‑policy driven. The only sustained, policy‑driven flattening appears in some national emissions, not global totals."
To me, perhaps honestly for my mental health, I need to see some new/better? at least partly global fix-it talks. Ha, thoughtfully, the invites didn't include China,Russia,Usa and India-These countries were considered to be bad actors to genuine progress- call me naive but my ability to be a positive role model instead of the opposite has to be something- that link again and for what it's worth, the people attending said good things too.. www.carbonbrief.org/santa-marta-key-outcomes-from-first-summit-on-transitioning-away-from-fossil-fuels/
-
Evan at 21:03 PM on 12 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
This articles states,
The International Energy Agency estimates that since 2015, climate and clean energy policies around the world have erased a full degree from Earth’s global warming trajectory.
And yet the Keeling curve is still accelerating upwards, and recently recorded its largest year-on-year increase in the Keeling's curve history (read here). For all the praise given to the great progress we're making tackling climate change, the Keeling curve continues to accelerate.
I find it disengenuous that we continue to assure readers we are doing very well tacking climate change, when the most important barometer we have (i.e., the Keeling Curve) keeps reminding us that nothing we've done, nothing, has stopped its upward acceleration. Apparently we are not doing nearly enough.
-
prove we are smart at 18:13 PM on 12 May 2026A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later
From this self explanitory link here, theconversation.com/ten-years-on-how-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth-made-its-mark-59387 "While most of the research into the impact of AIT investigates the direct effect on viewers, a potentially more significant impact is the film’s role in inspiring others to follow Gore’s example in communicating the issue of climate change to others.
Personally, I can attest to this influence. Before 2006, I hadn’t given much thought to the climate change issue. Watching AIT raised a number of questions about the human role in global warming.
With the issue salient in my mind, I got into conversations with family members who happened to reject the scientific consensus on climate change. This precipitated the founding of Skeptical Science, which led to me becoming a researcher in climate communication at the University of Queensland.
I’ve spoken to or know of many other climate communicators whose awareness of the issue dawned with their viewing of AIT. While the direct effect of the original screening of the film may have dissipated, the impact of those inspired to communicate the realities of climate change persists."
There would be very many grateful people, myself included, now fact informed by Skeptical Science thankyou. We all know it will need global cooperation to halt global warming. The tasks to mostly eliminate fossil fuel use is a complex but hopefully not an impossible one.
Maybe I'm being naive but this gathering of many countries for the first summit for transitioning away from fossil fuels gives me better hope, www.carbonbrief.org/santa-marta-key-outcomes-from-first-summit-on-transitioning-away-from-fossil-fuels/
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:35 AM on 12 May 2026Two videos about the Atlantic Meriodonal Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
David-acct:
The phrase "It seems that is some dispute." is so vague, innocuous, and meaningless that it seems that you really have nothing to debate.
The text descriptions of the two videos on the OP suggest that the videos are examining the debate.
The article that you link to is over a year old (and is paywalled).
Do you have any purpose in commenting here other than attempting to spread FUD on climate science? Your track record on serious, honest debate is pretty weak.
-
David-acct at 03:32 AM on 12 May 2026Two videos about the Atlantic Meriodonal Overturning Circulation (AMOC)
Is the amoc in actual danger of collapse? It seems that is some dispute.
-
michael sweet at 08:28 AM on 11 May 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
In my post above I should have said All Energy and not All Power. Power is used for electricity only while All Energy is used for providing all the energy the economy needs.
-
michael sweet at 03:24 AM on 11 May 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
A new peer-reviewed paper calculates the total system costs (SLOCE, system levelized cost of energy) of electrical only and All Power energy systems using Denmark as an example. They use off-shore wind, on shore wind, solar and nuclear as the primary energy sources. They include the system costs of energy storage, transmission, grid stabilizing etc. to determine the total system costs.
They find that generating only existing electricity is more expensive per kWh than generating All Power. The All Power system (generating all the power used in the country: electricity, transportation, heat, industry) has more interconnections and is more flexible than electricity only.
They find that using only one source of power; wind, solar or nuclear, is more expensive than systems that combine multiple sources of energy.
They find that the lowest cost system is primarily off-shore wind and solar. This system is about 50% of the cost of a nuclear dominated system. There were no low cost systems containing any nuclear. The results were not affected very much by changes in the cost of installing the renewable or nuclear systems.
They state, but do not provide data, that in locations that have better sun than Denmark (which is very far from the equator) that solar plus batteries will dominate the cheapest system.
They did not consider the cost of disposal of nuclear waste or the cost incurred by the long build times of nuclear compared to renewable energy. If those were included nuclear would look even worse.
Nuclear supporters frequently claim without evidence that system costs for renewable energy would be much more than system costs for nuclear energy. This peer-reviewed study shows that claim is false.
I note that many papers have shown that larger grids are cheaper (per kWh) than small grids like Denmark only.
-
prove we are smart at 10:21 AM on 10 May 2026EGU2026 - Five days of virtual learning
Many thanks BaerbelW for your perspective and your documented sessions. After a quick search on facts about Vienna, I too would be excited to be there in person next year! Your five days of virtual learning encompassed so many challenging and interesting topics.
These days I often get frustrated, dismayed and angry when powerful countries show malevolent behaviour. Trying to understand how "role-model" societies become so uneducated. This link from an Australian perspective really helped explain why a broad education is a necessary prerequisite to a just world. www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9MubNsh3rs
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:45 AM on 5 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
prove we are smart @4,
paraphrasing your question:
... does that mean you can tell [the character of the citizens of] a nation by [the actions of] their leaders?
It is not reasonable to generalize about all citizens of a nation based on the actions of their leaders regarding issues like limiting the harms resulting from human-caused global warming and climate change. But you can differentiate the popularity of harmful influence within nations based on the history of actions by leaders-of-the-moment (political and business).
Every nation will have a range, potentially a very broad range, of citizen attitudes regarding climate change.
Also note, nations with more than 50% of the population wanting more action to limit climate change harm can have significant popular support for leaders-of-the-moment that act in ways that significantly conflict with the interest of their citizens. For many people an interest in things like lower taxes or an unjustifiable dislike of other types of people can over-power other interests.
-
prove we are smart at 14:28 PM on 4 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
That is - Major change for the 'peoples good' is nearly ....
-
prove we are smart at 13:57 PM on 4 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
Well said people, I've always believed you can tell a person by their friends, does that mean you can tell a nation by their leaders? Motivations and hidden agendas, can often be uncovered by careful research. It is a terrible thing mans inhumanity to man yet bad actor politicians, media moguls and most elites are often role models to a societies detriment.
Major change is nearly always from the bottom up, never from the top down.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:51 AM on 4 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
prove we are smart and Bob Loblaw,
The conflicts of interest are clear:
People wanting the freedom to believe and do as they please and then create justifications for the acceptability of what they want to believe and do ...
Are in clear conflict with ...
People who try to learn about and understand what is harmful and choose among the 'acceptable options' that are understandably less harmful and therefore more helpful.Clearly, many people develop a liking for obtaining pleasure from being more harmful and less helpful to Others. And they can be expected to accuse anyone who understandably disagrees with them of being Harmful Others.
As a professional engineer, I ethically and morally limited my choices to the restricted set of ‘understandably less harmful more helpful options’ . That meant screening out unacceptable options, not seeking ways to justify them. Many options were simply unacceptable, no matter how personally beneficial a client may have perceived them to be.
Many people have not developed that ethical or moral self-governance. It is tragic when they collectively can significantly influence the actions of winners of leadership power. And it is worst when those type of people win competitions for wealth and positions of power.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:12 PM on 3 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
It's almost as if they believe that the oil and gas industry has no financial interests in, well, in the oil and gas industry. No conflict of interest there.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:00 PM on 3 May 2026The really big picture, in four pictures
"Well, if it gets bad, we'll just turn around."
I'm sure that's what Thelma and Louise were thinking right up to the last triumphant scene of the movie.
-
prove we are smart at 22:50 PM on 3 May 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #18
A lack of critical thinking,billionaire donations and a disillusioned public has twice now elected a wrecking ball to science and so,so much more. "Climate Policy and Politics" from the title above, here is the link: insideclimatenews.org/news/24042026/gop-leaders-claim-national-academies-conflicts-of-interest/
That was bad enough but this is the latest disgrace from the authoritarian administration of the states of America. www.science.org/content/article/trump-fires-nsf-s-oversight-board Only two and a half years more to come, maybe.
-
ubrew12 at 22:00 PM on 3 May 2026The really big picture, in four pictures
"Will we? I can only hope" I don't believe we will, for an odd reason having to do with human character: Fossil interests have convinced many people that Climate Concern is, ultimately, a question of faith. As in "since God would not allow our home to become unlivable, why worry?" Encouraged to think that way, many people have come to think that this is a game of 'chicken', and to become alarmed by Climate Change is to lose the game. And this attitude is supported by our experience with the idea of reversibility: if there really is a cliff at the end of this trail, lets just wait until we see the cliff in person, and then we'll reverse course. I tell people that the real danger of Climate Change is not severity, it's irreversibility. That is, in this case, for the climate to change, first you warm a planet. Then, if you don't like the climate that results, well, then what? Reverse course? How do you unwarm a planet? And that's the part of this that people aren't thinking about. Everything in our history suggests we can backtrack away from danger, once it finally becomes visible. On this issue, once you can see the danger its too late: not only is the planet not going to cool itself on command, but internal mechanisms, like sheer momentum, mean the danger will grow. We're stuck in a game of 'chicken' and our fellow passengers are saying "I'm not afraid, why are you? Find some backbone!", and simultaneously are thinking "Well, if it gets bad, we'll just turn around."
-
walschuler at 00:43 AM on 2 May 2026Our new research is published - but we're not done yet with the 'Experiment'
Go!
-
prove we are smart at 21:17 PM on 30 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
Thanks Dr Dressler for posting that draft text for your chapter on Transition Risks. Wow!, its only been maybe 30yrs and counting since world-wide, climate scientists formed a 97% consensus about anthropogenic global warming. Wonder what happened with the denialists?
Now 2026 and it's still working: Change is coming but lets keep it slow, make it unequal and really, it's way too much trouble at this time-spead the green-washing and mis/dis information, militarise your police and increase surveillance. Oh, distraction,distraction..
Our biosphere is circling the drain while again, humanity has circled the moon. (The planet will keep going and my thoughts are humanity's golden age may still happen/ has happened- mood dependent.) 25yrs ago, I was too busy raising my kids and paying off a modest mortgage, now I'm retired and I know much more about the many different real costs of my 69 years.
We need this change but if it's not with people power and it may be the change you get, not the change you want.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 09:08 AM on 30 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
Once we reach net zero, global temperatures will stabilize — although they won’t recover to pre-industrial levels for tens of thousands of years. Getting the climate to actually cool on time scales we care about (decades to centuries) would would require pulling even more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, or deploying some type of climate engineering approach like injecting aerosols into the stratosphere.
The writer needs to think more about what he is proposing. We don't want temperatures to "recover" (i.e. regress) to preindustrial levels with current climate zones retreating back to the south. As a simple example, most people in Washinton DC do not want to go back to climate zone 6b (-5F regularly, -15F in rare cases) from the current 8b. I haven't seen a survey but I'll guess 80-90%
There's a token argument to be made for restoring cold-adapted ecosystems in all temperate locations on the planet from which they disappeared. The simple counterargument is that will kill all the non-adaptable life whether that life is relatively beneficial or relatively detrimental, and most life is beneficial or at least neutral. IMO, he simply needs to remove statements like that. They provide no context or value.
Another snippet from the writer:
For example, the skills required to build an offshore oil rig are similar to those needed for constructing an offshore wind platform. A just transition would facilitate this shift through targeted programs.
He's basically admitting that offshore wind is grueling and dangerous work. It has injury rates 3-4 times higher than offshore oil and gas www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032123007864 Wind is more spread out so there will be more transportation and construction accidents than fossil and those are majority of accidents off shore. On the flip side no explosions or fire which is about 25% of offshore fossil fataities: Fatal Injuries in Offshore Oil and Gas Operations — United States, 2003–2010 (CDC)
It is not "just" to continue grueling and dangerous work any more than it is "just" to continue manual labor in any other dying industry. People can and will find better jobs. I commented about AI in another thread and was properly admonished for veering off topic. But the use of AI to supplant menial jobs like software development (raises hand) is unequivocally a good thing. I don't use AI to make Anthropic's private shareholders rich. I use it because it greatly increases my productivity.
In short the writer's rationale for a "just" economic transition seems as pointless as when someone told US coal workers to "learn to code". Especially now, since AI has literally learned to code. I'm not going say "learn to use AI" because that would be just as presumptuous. But people will learn skills that are productive. One final snippet:
The private market is unlikely to manage this process efficiently or equitably
He's off base here as well. The private market will create new opportunities from many aspects of a renewables economy that he and governments simply cannot envision. Just because of the fact that we need the governement to incentivize renewables doesn't mean we need it for jobs programs for displaced fossil workers.
-
scaddenp at 07:37 AM on 30 April 2026CO2 is not increasing
Not to mention that ice core bubbles from Antarctica and Greenland are sampling the atmosphere in two extremely different parts of the world and yet come up with remarkable similar estimates of CO2 concentration at the same times.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:28 AM on 30 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
Michael:
I think the problem is that this represents a form of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Being fair to everyone requires a level of cooperation. But some people feel their greatest individual gain comes from not caring about the others and maximizing their individual profit.
Before posting this, I actually checked to see what Wikipedia says about the Prisoner's Dilemma. Under real-life examples, environmental studies, climate change is actually their first example.
-
michael sweet at 04:55 AM on 30 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
I think this is a thoughtful and well written OP.
I wonder why working to stop climate disaster we have to be fair to everyone, including those who have profited from climate disruption. Meanwhile the adoption of AI is done with only concern about who will make the most money off the change.
Why does climate concern have to take the hard road?
-
walschuler at 02:11 AM on 30 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
This is a clear and beautiful summary of the issues related to a transition to net zero emissions, especially in regard to the social issues it raises. It does not, however, discuss the relevance of market externalities such as induced climate change costs like spread of disease, storm damage increases, crop failures, forest fires, heat-caused deaths, to the prices of goods, or how the inclusion of such costs in the prices might influence the transition. On a longer term there ought to be work on economies in declining or steady state populations, because everlasting growth in them will encounter limits, the oldest argument, a la Malthus. It is the rare economist who wants to think about that.
-
prove we are smart at 18:25 PM on 28 April 2026Transition risk: The human cost of net zero
I'm sure our billionaires and our soon first trillionaire, will change their spots and along with our altruistically thoughtful political class, lead us to a "just transition".
