This Ends Climate Change
All of the practical solutions to environmental ecocide, and its demon child mass famine migration, exist. But without trillions of available dollars being spent, the climate deniers win.
There are 5 achievable steps:
- 1. Swallow hard, cover your eyes and create a greed based model, that is the only possible way to motivate the financial world, to unlock existing available trillions, needed to create an acceptable future.
- 2. Those who have been lied to about problems and solutions, need more of the truth, but in a way that motivates them to act.
- 3. Persuade environmental and humanitarian decent human beings to stop fighting over which solutions are best, as this allows the greed and power obsessed elite, to divide and conquer.
- 4. Accept everything cannot happen at once, and ‘compromise’ may be necessary to save the natural world and the human race.
- 5. Agree that magic bullets are fairy tales, and that transitional solutions are also needed to achieve a perfect sustainable energy matrix.
None of the above will be without their green detractors and the deniers and apologists will go on the attack because this plan works. However I had to go into a dark room to steel myself for number 1.
Diverting Trillions to Climate and Poverty Solutions
The trillions that subsidise fossil fuels, can be raided to fix the planet. The International Monetary Fund says 7% of the world’s GDP is paid effectively into the pockets of fossil energy organisations.
Climate change is a threat to global peace, security, economic stability, and development. To address this challenge, our institutions need to help all our member countries integrate their climate and development goals.
Kristalina Georgieva - September 7, 2023
Managing Director - Internationl Monetary Fund
That is $7 trillion effectively ‘trousered’ by the elite, who are helping to rape the planet we live on. So we are paying them, to kill us.
Bill Gates says it will cost $5 trillion spread over a period of time to fix the whole planet. [Ref A] Others say more or less.
Regardless of which figure you accept, the problem is how do you prise money from the fingers of planet killers. Remember these are the people who would rather see their children die, than reduce their power and profits. They sure as hell, don’t care about us.
We also have to look to the world of finance, because fossil assets will continue if left purely under the influence of politicians.
The big potential Achilles heel, as revealed on Medium by Michael Campi and others, is the independent financial industry with its separate agenda of profit at any cost. Banks, hedge funds and VCs and their puppets in government, are not 100% controlled by the energy industry.
If they were, they would not have created financial instruments prior to 2007/8, based on loans to unemployed people living in mobile homes. Which then crashed economies. That also hurt industry . The good news, of course, is that the financiers were punished with an inconvenient delay to their bonuses, as we were slow to pay for the reconstruction of the infrastructure they destroyed.
However, we can learn from this. No, not the fact that money-men are greedy which we all know, but the fact that they are utterly ruthless. Not a single ruth amongst them.
Which means, if we can make it more profitable to fund green actions, these people will persuade governments to switch fossil subsidies. And since politicians prefer higher paid jobs in swish offices, than in the dirty world of fossil fuels, it will be easier to offset the coal and oil lobbies howls of indignation.
But what would make more money than the fossil assets which would, in finance language, become “stranded”?
Deep in their black hearts, the Wall Street and London financiers, know fossil fuels have a limited lifespan. So new types of futures and short term plays on green energy are more likely to produce big profits for the institutions. And eye watering bonuses for individuals.
Investment in the green world is already high, with global sustainable investment at USD35 trillion. Sustainable investment assets under management, make up around 35% of the total assets. [Ref B] But this is ‘bankable’ green investment and not what is necessary to fix the planet now.
Futures, stocks and bonds, appear to have the greatest potential, and there is a big benefit for financial institutions. If possible these organisations like using what they call ‘other peoples’ money’ (OPM). So for example, the money given to the out of work trailer home owner and the derivative sales person, was your money from a mixture of taxes and bank savings.
Fossil energy subsidies are tax dollars, so they belong to you and fit the greed criteria that, wherever possible, money should not be supplied by the financial institution shareholders.
Green bonds using diverted fossil subsidies and augmented with green derivatives, could create impressive sums for the financial sector. Old fossil assets have already delivered most of their money, while a sustainable bond and derivative structure would make profit and commission.
Big bucks is the only way to make them act, even if it is morally abhorrent to us. We have to look away, and say “OK, they bought another Ferrari but this time it helped save the world”.
Properly constructed this approach funds everything needed to create a future for everyone (even the bankers themselves).
It won’t even take away all the fossil subsidies, so this increases the chance of success as the fossil industry won’t be able to say it will collapse.
Motivating People to See Through the Lies
Evidence for the extent of deliberate lies about climate change probably starts with Exxon panicking, when their own researchers proved the oil industry could increase global temperatures by 2–4 degrees. [Ref 1]
Copious amounts of further evidence has emerged about fossil energy cabals, spending hundreds of millions to stop progress on climate change. For example, even the relatively supine IPCC was seen as a major threat with Influence Map revealing “How the oil majors have spent $1Bn since Paris on narrative capture and lobbying on climate.”
It is harder to prove how much has been spent indirectly on climate deniers and fake-solution apologists. However, if we look at the volume of false information about environmental and poverty issues, there is a deliberate agenda of persuading people to believe, there is no real problem and everything is under control. Wikipedia has great links to useful data and facts.
There also appears to be a link between the control of people via big data, and the need to defuse dissent.
As has been analysed elsewhere, people living in developed countries want to believe everything is being fixed and so willingly accept the lure of algorithm driven drivel. Don’t look up and you can’t see the bogeyman. People in the poorest communities, are all too often focusing on how to survive.
Just using a small example, the National Resources Defence Council and others found evidence that social media was being used to misdirect about climate change. [Ref 2] But sitting alongside this manipulation is what many have written about, which is a drift towards a virtual world. A meta universe that, on one hand pretends everything is OK, and on the other distracts you with endless entertainment and, of course, purchasing opportunities.
Whether blocking dissent is coordinated or accidental, the result is the same. the Centre for International Governance and others suggests dissent is policed on a wide scale. [Ref 3]
Faced with powerful embedded and well funded campaigns to mislead and manipulate the narrative on climate change, how do we offset that. Great writers have already started this particular battle, with articulate and persuasive pieces, that use truth to shine a light on the fake news and fake facts.
Others use humour to illustrate the absurdity of commiting ecocide, while grinning at a cute dog on YouTube.
The barrier to truth becoming reality in the public psyche, is however, a numbers game. Experts such as SEO specialists know how to get messages to millions but want money. This is because Google and X won’t disseminate real truth en masse, without payment.
So we need to focus on finding SEOs, PR companies, Influencers and other professionals, willing to donate time to saving the planet and incidentally themselves. It cannot be that everyone in this commercial space, is without a conscience. So all of us should try and recruit these good experts, if the word is to be spread.
We also have to acknowledge that communication has changed. We may have a view on this, but attention spans are shorter and words and images which superficially seem infantile, are the norm now. We have to learn to speak in the same language or many will not listen or maybe even understand.
So this dense article is less accessible to someone who prefers to read and write a maximum of 400 characters. Granicus (www.granicus.com) says “According to recent studies the average person’s attention span is now only 7–8 seconds long. That means you have roughly eight seconds to grab your stakeholder’s attention and engage them enough to get your message across so they can take action.”
So this part of the plan is simple.
- 1. Everyone on the side of the angels, recruit communication ‘angels’ to expertly spread the word.
- 2. Create longform and shortform versions of all key facts and disseminate them relentlessly. Post something on key social media every day. 24/7/365. I never said it would be easy.
Join Together to Win
There is an argument, that we have a limited amount of time to take decisive action to prevent the 6th mass extinction event ,talked about by many. For example World Wildlife Fund and others say we are time limited, as do the more obscure parts of IPCC reports.
Creative inventors and humanitarians and climate specialists, have ideas and tech available to slow or stop climate change and related poverty.
Free speech and healthy debate are valid and important and must be preserved. However, when a car (BEV of course) is rolling towards a cliff edge, there comes a point, when every viable means to avoid the plunge, should be deployed.
Today we are discussing methods, consequences and timing.
Currently we cannot agree when the climate and famine migration deadline is.
We have profound disagreements over whether new tech or lifestyle changes, are the key to a better world.
Advocates for their particular solutions often, do not agree about what kind of tech should be used. Nuclear is bad or perfect, wind is the only answer or vulnerable to the climate, e-fuels are evil or could be a temporary fix, solar will save the world on its own or is too Chinese, everyone must and will have a BEV next week or child miners are involved, AGVH can’t feed the poor or it can, biocoal is always wrong or might be OK, better insulation of all homes will solve most things or perhaps not.
The list of entrenched certainty about what tech is right and wrong, goes on. The London School of Economics discusses this in some detail. [Ref 4]
Lifestyle change advocates endlessly discuss consuming less meat, insulating homes (again), living in a cave and eating leaves while sharing the communal bicycle, humane and smaller farming techniques, killing nature killing us, accepting the poor have no cheap labour role anymore and the (unbelievable) related culling of 50% of the world population. Again there are more proposals, 99% without the evil intent of the last two. The UK Guardian Newspaper looks at some of this. [Ref 5]
Others went right down the middle looking at a mixture of tech and lifestyle. [Ref 6]
But, the real problem is how to find a consensus that allows us to use all and every viable effective solution (obviously not population culling) in parallel.
The crisis is multifaceted and global and cannot be solved, with a minimal selection of answers. There is room for almost anything that will get us out of this existential mess, as long as it does not involve killing people (yes even lawyers and climate deniers!!!).
The danger is that if we keep the debate going long enough, or exclude big ticket solutions like nuclear and e-fuels, we could drive over the cliff while still talking.
Someone needs to work on a way to get all the players together in a forum where parameters can be set. For example:Bio-coal power stations with carbon capture; safe nuclear with the option to decommission if alternatives come along or some focus on pollution and nature, even if it means less time on tech etc etc.
Nobody has a monopoly on knowledge. Today we might think we are right, but tomorrow new facts might prove us wrong. Leave egos at the door.
But whatever we do stop the elite from dividing us, so they are the only winners.
Compromise is a 4 Letter Word
One definition of compromise is “a way of reaching agreement in which people or groups give up something they wanted , in order to achieve an important goal”.
In reality there should by now, be no dispute over the environmental range of threats the world faces.
And that is before we even factor in judgemental self-aware AGIs or a new more lethal virus apparently genetically altered by a Chinese bat.
We should in theory, solve everything all at once now. Unfortunately that is probably impossible, but we could fix the greatest threats first and then the rest. Not exactly baby steps, but a sequential programme of action.
However to do this, pragmatic compromise will be needed, which comes back to working together.
Probably the greatest threat is the financial-industrial-food production-political elite. Perhaps, for now, they need to be ‘cancelled’ and later outflanked. That way we can concentrate on deciding what has to be done in what order. Even the idea of ignoring our masters lies and demands feels good.
Progress is easier, if we all agree that all valid solutions have their value. Then it becomes simpler to define which solutions would have the greatest impact, in the shortest time .
One of the simplest techniques for prioritisation is the “paired comparison” technique. This works when there a lot of equally good ideas (see R&D Today). The process applies logic to creating a hierarchy of solutions and makes the compromises objectively.
This way no group feels their solution, was downgraded subjectively.
This still assumes that we are all in a unified but not homogenised, grouping, who have got together to save the world. Sounds a bit grandiose but it could be organised as a forum with clever ‘moderators’. I know who I would pick for those roles. Not sure if modesty would prevent them from volunteering.
Transition to Magic Bullets
The oil, coal and gas profiteers have reason to fear transitional solutions more than anything, except possibly low temperature fusion and free green hydrogen.
Conventional alternative energy sources will be delivered at their own pace. Mostly it is logistics. For example, giant wind generators will take time to deploy and BEVs will be built as quickly as resources, battery development , infrastructure and price allows.
There is an inevitability about the end of dinosaur energy that at last, has momentum.
But the old-energy elite are busily sucking every last dollar from the dying corpse of the planet, they are feasting on. Their calculations of grubby blood stained profits, however, rely on there being no appetite for replacement transitional solutions.
It is possible that there will not be 1.5 billion BEVs in 17 years time. In parallel the 200 million ICE generators, may still be running on fossil fuel.
Regardless of what manufacturing estimate you believe, every day ICE runs on fossil fuels, is another win for big oil. The number of ICEs especially in poorer regions could be 700 million in 2040. Some analysis suggests, 400 million. But on the way to whatever figure you support, a lot of C02 and particulates will be pumped out.
Biofuels grown indoors on non agricultural land, can replace both gasoline and diesel, while we wait for superior tech. However, the attack on e-fuels has been consistent and based on fake facts about price and food loss. It has stopped production and built up an anti-biofuel lobby.
The only reason for this is that every gallon of biofuel used, creates zero profit for big oil. Biofuels are not a long term solution, but they can bridge the gap to a perfect sustainable future and cut net CO2 emissions. The very best liquid e-fuels even absorb more CO2 in production, than are emitted by combustion.
Again estimates vary, but it is possible that 40% of electricity will be produced by coal and fossil gas in 2040. At the same time there is increased demand from developing countries, for the same consumer goods, developed nations have enjoyed. On top of this we have increasing use of BEVs and increased data power demand. Some suggest this makes a total phase out of coal and gas fired power stations and CHP plants unlikely. [Ref 7]
There is also a growing scandal about replacing coal with biomass made from virgin trees. For example the UK’s Drax power station burns 12 million tonnes of wood every year, from 27 million trees imported from North America. Being part of the fossil industry, this use of trees is, of course, hidden and lies are told.
If we do not deal with this head on, anywhere up to 2 billion tonnes of coal could be replaced with trees .
Biocoal made from waste of all kinds via various new methods, produces a product identical to coal in texture and having 6000+ kCal/kg. It can be sold at around £100 a tonne, but is on the naughty list of “all bio-coal is bad”. Guess who promotes hate for biocoal. The organisations that own fossil coal.
In this case there is an interesting 4-way win
- 1. Coal fired power stations with added carbon capture could be green with new biocoal.
- 2. Waste is repurposed and could even be mined from landfill, waste dumps and the Ocean.
- 3. No trees get cut down.
- 4. The lights stay on.
The above are just two examples of many TEMPORARY interim fixes that are only really rejected, because they take away fossil profits. Instant AGVH food units prompt the same fear reflex of “ we will lose profits” in the food production industry.
This is definitely not about inferior green answers. It is about the maths. During the period up to sustainable utopia, the old-energy monsters make billions in profits by keeping fossil fuels relevant. And they do that often by feeding us with lies.
This article is just a summary and people cleverer than me, can upgrade, improve and add more detail. Then we need to inform, recruit and act.
John Gallagher
References:
Ref A (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/bill-gates-interview-climate-crisis)
Ref B (https://www.gsi-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/GSIR-20201.pdf)
Ref 1 (www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/).
Ref 2 (https://www.nrdc.org/stories/climate-misinformation-social-media-undermining-climate-action)
Ref 3 (https://www.cigionline.org/articles/how-social-media-can-silence-dissent/) and Young people, protest and dissent S Pickard, : Political Participation and Dissent in 21st Century looks at this from an academic viewpoint
Ref 4 (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2022/09/20/could-new-technology-solve-climate-change)
Ref 5 (www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/07/six-key-lifestyle-changes-can-help-avert-the-climate-crisis-study-finds)
Ref 6 (https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/tech-alone-cannot-solve-climate-crisis)
Ref 7 (www.reuters.com/business/energy/energy-crisis-revives-coal-demand-production-2022-10-19)