Deadly Disinformation - The Lethal Climate Lie of Net Zero Carbon

 

Net Zero Carbon will destroy the planet. Not because it is better than doing nothing, but because we think it is enough. By thinking that it is worth striving for we don’t question the fundamentals.

It is like driving down the motorway in a borrowed car that has been rigged. We think that the accelerator and brake will allow us to control things in an emergency, but… When we take our foot off the accelerator the car carries on going at the same speed, and the brake does nothing. There is trouble ahead on this road and we can do nothing to avoid it. We will crash and die.

Net Zero Carbon is exactly the same. We are fooled into thinking that this difficult global objective is worth striving for because it is sufficient to save us. It won’t. Net Zero Carbon is the point where greenhouse gas emissions are balanced by sequestration. Emissions minus sequestration equals zero. Everything stops. But it stops at a new high level of overheating. If we are lucky that will be only +2°C, (the better +1.5°C is already lost). But that new elevated overheating stays. It is locked in. That is the accelerator pedal which keeps the car travelling just as fast. There are no brakes, so overheating still carries on trashing the planet. Ice melts, seas rise, storms, droughts and wildfires rage. And there is no way to put the demons back in the box.

Only Net Negative Carbon applies the brake. If more carbon is sequestered than emitted then greenhouse gas levels falls, as does overheating.

But everything I hear on the media only talks about Net Zero Carbon. That’s because Big Oil lobbyists have polluted the Paris Agreement and COPs as well as our atmosphere. The real science has been muzzled. And that will drive the planet we’ve borrowed to destruction.

Climate Correction 80:20

 The outline of a new piece I'm working on. What's missing?

The 80:20 Rule of Thumb

Correcting the climate is a huge project that no one can plan out completely, but the 80:20 rule of thumb applies and keeps on turning up in my exploration of solutions. The rule of thumb that any project can be 80% completed with 20% of the total effort, but the remaining 20% will take 80% of the effort fits in many ways. This paper probably covers only 20% of what needs to be done, but probably solves 80% of the problem.

Define the Problem

The 80:20 ratio crops up again. It turns out that when all the contributing factors producing the overheating and stressing the climate are compared, about 80% is down to just carbon dioxide.

Why Can’t Current Policies Work?

Flawed Objectives

The objectives of the Paris Agreement are fundamentally flawed because they lack ambition. They do not aim to return temperature rise and climate to what it used to be before industrialisation. The Net Zero Carbon objective will balance carbon dioxide levels at a new high level and a new high temperature. Even if the more difficult +1.5°C target was attained, it will be maintained. So the ice in Antarctica and Greenland will still carry on melting which will eventually flood all coastal cities. The objective should be more ambitious and say that the temperature increase should peak at +2°C (preferably +1.5°C) and then decrease back to the stable preindustrial levels by Net Negative Carbon.

Disunity

The climate change problem is global so needs a global solution. Current outcomes from the various COPs trying to stick to the Paris Agreement objectives fragment global efforts into national efforts. And the brutal fact is that each nation has to compete with its rivals with the winner being the nation still using the most fossil fuel.

State the Objective

We will return the global climate to preindustrial ranges. That is the climate that has been relatively stable for about 10,000 years, allowing human civilisations to thrive. Part of this objective would be to stop global overheating peaking above the Paris Agreement of +2°C and preferably below +1.5°C.

Copy What Works

Our ozone layer used to have holes poked in it by CFCs. This would have allowed ultraviolet radiation to beat down unfiltered, causing a lot more than deeper suntans.

Plan the Solution

80% turns out to be roughly the amount our carbon dioxide need to be reduced by.

Where Does This Get Us?

This will get us beyond Net Zero Carbon into Net Negative Carbon territory. But even by 2100 we still don’t get back down to preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide. For that we need another 20%, which will probably take another 80% of effort.

Geoengineering

This is tempting, but dangerous. Imagine a seesaw or a balance, with all the weight of the imbalance caused by excess carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on one side, and geoengineering on the other side. If the pressure from geoengineering is caused by a process that is temporary, such as pumping gases or aerosols into the atmosphere, that pumping has to continue forever. Because if geoengineering ever stops the effect of the greenhouse gases will be uncontrolled and will rapidly push temperatures to dangerous levels.

There is another example with rivers. We have found that the engineering of rivers by straightening them has caused flooding problems. To stop flooding more engineering has been required to store floodwater. So these days rivers are having the old meandering riverbeds restored so that the natural processes can turn the river into a self-managing stable system.

XR Disruptive Action or Not?

Obviously the global problem needs a global solution. That requires diplomacy but even more so, it requires political will. China would actually be one of the first to climb on board as they are taking climate change seriously: many would say not seriously enough. XR's first demand is to Tell The Truth. This is because the Big Oil camp are still peddling lies and distractions. The various COPs trying to implement the Paris Agreement are battles between climate activists and Big Oil lobbyists. They should be following the science, but that gets obscured. The current agreement is that each country will do what they can to achieve Net Zero emissions by whatever date they choose. The current plan is not working: it never would. Even if achieved, Net Zero leaves temperatures elevated and ice melting, so we need the target to be Net Negative.

Then comes the other bit of truth that is hidden. Natural Sequestration removed a lot of CO2, slightly more than half of what we emit. So Net Negative is achievable by reducing emissions to somewhat more than half. I say 75% others say 80%. Obviously not immediately but in a steady managed way.

Then the scheme that worked before needs to be copied. CFC production was phased out to save the ozone layer. Similarly fossil fuel production needs to be phased down to sustainable levels. When done globally country won't be pitted against country in keeping fossil fuels going.

All this needs political commitment, which needs minds to be changed. Disruptive protests do at least stop people ignoring the issue and pretending that everything that needs to be done is being done. It isn't.

IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report

 The IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report is due to be issued tomorrow. 

I predict that it will not say the following headline truths that desperately need to be understood.

1) Neither Net Zero Carbon nor the tougher Carbon Neutrality will stop the ice melting. If achieved they will leave any Carbon Dioxide we have added to the atmosphere up there. So average temperatures will stay at the elevated level that is melting Greenland and Antarctica. So we need to achieve Net Negative Carbon aka Carbon Negativity in order to reduce Carbon Dioxide level back to near normal.

2) Trying to control emissions isn't working and is highly unlikely to ever work, because it is the wrong end of the supply chain. We should be concentrating on controlling, rationing carbon extraction: limiting the global total of carbon extracted and burned. This ration needs to be steadily reduced down to sustainable levels.

3) Because currently the oceans and land naturally sequester about half the Carbon Dioxide we emit, the sustainable level of globally extracted carbon is not zero, but about a quarter of current levels. This is a level that fossil fuel and Big Oil should be able to live with. They might even increase profits because supply and demand will increase prices.

Martin Corney

 Methane leaks are easy to fix, and would make more money

Both the EDF and Ember, a UK-based energy thinktank, said there was no justification for fossil fuel companies being allowed to use carbon offsets as an alternative to cut methane emissions directly. This was partly because it was affordable to act onsite and partly because methane could not be minimised using offset projects that were meant to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, a different gas.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/27/methane-emissions-incredibly-cheap-to-cut-without-needing-offsets-safeguard-mechanism-inquiry-told

After COP27. Fixing the climate is still possible

 After COP27. Fixing the climate is still possible if both sides compromise, by following the science and logic. Both sides; the fossil fuel industry and climate activists believe they are fighting for survival, with their backs against the wall. Fossil fuel send in their lobbyists to get the politicians and decision makers on side, while climate activists send in their protesters to use ever more extreme measures to get them to do what they want. Both sides see this as a zero sum game. One side wins and the other side loses – complete victory or annihilation. But a win-win compromise is possible, if we follow the science. If we don’t, then if fossil fuels win, that is certain annihilation for at least half the planet’s population, but if climate activists stopped fossil fuels completely, the result might not be very different.

We needs a fresh perspective, using established ideas in a new configuration, to create a plan that puts climate change back in Pandora’s Box.

To reduce extreme climate events we need a plan that doesn’t just halt global overheating, but cools things back down to safe levels.

The plan must also be acceptable to many different parties, all with very different demands, so compromise will be necessary.

The plan must be rigid enough to be certain to work, while being flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances.

I believe that a global cap and trade market for the extraction of carbon by fossil fuel and similar organisations is the key to the solution. Cap and trade is already in use for carbon emissions, but only in limited circumstances. Capping carbon extraction with a global quota would be comprehensive and efficient. This is why the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty has received so much support from organisations like the World Health Organisation, the Vatican, and the European Parliament – it addresses the supply of carbon in fossil fuels, not the consumption and consequent emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Note that it was phasing out the supply of CFCs that meant the Montreal Protocol worked to save the ozone layer. It was not persuading consumers to stop buying aerosol cans with CFCs in that solved that atmospheric problem. Limiting the supply is far more efficient and certain than trying to limit the demand.

What about Big Oil? This is where we have to start compromising. We now know that Big Oil has been using its massive wealth to spread denial, delay and distraction about climate change so they can carry on business as usual. They still have massive lobbying power, which can scupper any plan that looks like driving them out of business. To them it’s a matter of survival – an existential threat. Luckily the plan allows them to survive, but with reduced volumes. This is where Big Oil needs to compromise, but increased prices for a smaller supply might even increase their profits. The science as to why fossil fuels in smaller volumes can still be extracted and burned is that CO₂ is sequestered naturally in large quantities, mostly in the oceans. If levels of fossil fuel extraction are reduced to well below where their CO₂ emissions balance natural sequestration, (Net Zero Carbon), then more CO₂ will be drawn out of the atmosphere than is added to it, and we start to reduce atmospheric CO₂ and consequently start to cool the planet. According to the scientists at Climate Interactive, fossil fuel extraction needs to reduce to about 20% of current levels. This reduction would happen gradually but inexorably, so that markets can adjust to replace the lost energy with renewables and efficiency savings. The reduced quotas would be totally predictable for decades ahead, and so can be planned for by any competent government.

What about helping the developing nations which are disproportionately impacted by extreme climate events? They arguably need to be compensated for the damage, partially caused by heavily industrialised nations emitting most of the CO₂. It’s debatable who is most responsible, after all, there is hardly anyone on the planet who isn’t at least indirectly responsible for CO₂ emissions. Also, because of that natural sequestration mentioned earlier, hardly any really old CO₂ emissions are left in the atmosphere. So let’s take a different approach that avoids the blame game. Let’s use the cap and trade market this plan is built on to move wealth around. That global carbon extraction quota that will be traded has value. Every barrel of oil that is extracted from the ground will need the extracting organisation to have purchased matching quota from the market. What if that quota starts as the common right of every person on the planet? Selling that quota to the market will spread wealth to developing nations, which will create a more stable world. It might be necessary to allocate the quota to countries, based on their population size, rather than giving it directly to individuals. Although, especially in the developing world, phone based financial transactions are very common.

This plan has several advantages over the Paris Agreement and the various COP arrangements. Because it is global plan it is not dependent on how efficiently each nation performs, although each nation would have to audit the organisations extracting carbon in their boundaries. The global carbon extraction quota can be extended to cover forestry and other sources of carbon. In fact it would need to, since otherwise carbon sources such as peat present too tempting a target.

What if nations refused to join or left this market? Sanction for those who don’t join would have to be extensive, and to make it more difficult to leave, the market should be organised like a trade treaty, with independent courts having jurisdiction higher than national courts. This already happens under treaties such as in EFTA or CPTPP.

Offsets are a bit of a problem. Carbon quota offsets probably need to be divided into permanent and temporary CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage).

This plan for a global carbon extraction quota market would replace nearly all other CO₂ emissions reduction measures, since few other measures are necessary. Cement production is the biggest other source of CO₂ emissions. This could of course be included by treating the carbon in the CO₂ emissions as needing quota.

What about other greenhouse gases? CO₂ is the main problem, overshadowing all other greenhouse gases, both in terms or radiative forcing and rate of growth. So controlling CO₂ in the carbon cycle is the key objective. This might change if too many feedback tipping points kick in. As global temperatures increase, we dance closer and closer to the tipping point cliff. This cliff is more like a series of crumbling ledges than an abrupt edge. If too many ledges crumble, all bets are off. So the sooner we retreat from the cliff edge, by cooling the planet, the better.

At current EU carbon quota prices of about €50 per tonne, this carbon market would be worth about half a trillion dollars each year, or over $60 per person. This would put about $5 on to the price of a barrel of oil, so about 5%. A small price to pay to save the planet. This price will of course change over time as the carbon quota reduces but will depend on future demand for fossil carbon. Arguably, this control of supply is just a more extreme form of what OPEC does, to keep the price high by rationing supply.

The Net Zero Carbon Fraud

 

COP27 is starting - but if we stick with the Net Zero Carbon confidence trick I need never plant another tree to sequester carbon – because it’s pointless.

Net Zero is only the peak of the CO2 hill. The point where we have maximum CO2 in the atmosphere, and shortly after, reach maximum temperature increase – unless we are unlucky and feedbacks take over. But what are the plans beyond Net Zero. COP26 etc don't go any further. In which case we keep the temperature increase reached at the top of the hill. There are no plans to remove extra carbon. In fact, if you read the text carefully, you see that fossil fuels keep on being produced and burnt at a rate that balances natural sequestration - plus all other sequestration efforts such as regenerative agriculture, tree planting etc. All that carbon capture effort just adds to the amount of fossil fuels that can be burnt - up to the balance of Net Zero. So in the end, the only gain is that we don't go beyond whatever high temperature increase is reached. And we just have to hope that feedbacks don't take off uncontrollably. What we should be demanding is that we come back down the other side of the hill and reduce atmospheric CO2 back to normal, along with reducing temperatures and extreme climate events. We need Net Negative Carbon, and I have a plan to do it.

So this is what the Paris Agreement is trying to achieve.

While China will only agree to this.

And what we should be demanding is this.

Only with this, or something similar, can we start to return temperatures to where they should be, and climate to what we need to prosper.