Someone recently asked me, with everything going on right now, why am I still putting so much time into Third Act Maine, and working so hard to pass laws here such as Make Polluters Pay? This, this is why.
Geoengineering is not merely tragic; it is not a viable option at all.
Shading the earth with increased cloud-cover (acid clouds, no less) does not decrease the levels of atmospheric carbon nor current levels of heating. In fact, it is likely that tropospheric heating will continue to rise with insulation from clouds. Think of it this way, it is cooler on a rainy summer day, but it does not become winter even after a month of rain. Clouds are highly effective barriers to heat dissipation.
Moreover, we can't just commit to a time-span long enough to achieve zero emissions (which is already politically unlikely). Because of the rebound effect, we will have to commit to creating extra clouds for long enough to achieve lower atmospheric carbon levels. The moment we stop shielding the planet with artificial clouds, the carbon still in the atmosphere will cause a sharp rise in temperature, commensurate to that carbon content. In other words, it will be hotter after geoengineering than before, unless we commit to cloud-cover lasting for a very long time.
As carbon will be elevated in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, this is not feasible in any way. The political will to carry on a project of that magnitude is non-existent. This project would outlast all currently existing political bodies. Due to depletion and degradation of various resources, as well as the very likely collapse of economic structures to finance industrial activity, it is also not likely that we will have the technological capacity to keep this project going until atmospheric carbon reaches safe levels again. So, starting this project is guaranteeing a fatal increase in heating when it inevitably ends too soon.
Finally, cloud-shielding the planet will have serious affects on plant life, and therefore on the entire planetary capacity to produce food. Less than two years of volcanic clouds after Mt Tambora erupted in April of 1815 caused devastating floods and drought worldwide, which, combined with the drop in temperature in the already cold Little Ice Age, caused widespread human famine. Now, scale that to the decades of cloud-cover needed to effect short-term climate moderation.
I am very encouraged by all the clean energy developments in China. Some Chinese friends mentioned another about which I am skeptical. They said China is now burning municipal waste for energy and capturing all the polluting and dangerous chemicals so it does not pollute. Does anyone know details about this?
Look up 'Energy from Waste' in the UK. 2.5% of generation. But some say equivalent emissions to coal. It's driven not by carbon but by the lack of landfill sites. Long contracts (e.g. Newhaven) lock local councils into heavy financial commitments and make it impossible to get out.
I should have remembered this. I'm pretty sure this is just what I read about years ago. I think it is used for some of the waste in N.E. but not sure how much. I believe my household waste is shipped over 1,000 miles to Ohio or Illinois. Not sure if it is then buried or burned (I will find out). Royal
I don't know about China but there is a lot of waste burning for power generation in Denmark and I don't think people living in the neighbourhood are exactly enthusiastic about it.
Royal: "Getting rid of" anything unwanted is a seductive approach of wasteful societies. In our sick societies, no calculation is made of the loss of resources that "getting rid of" entails. Immediate gratification is the only game. We are scouring the earth for its resources and then destroying them by creating wasteful methods of "getting rid of". It doesn't make any difference how we choose to do it. Recycling is the only faux reuse method urged by a blind society and recycling is a total failure. After that failure is recognized, other methods such as shooting waste into the sun or filling up the Grand Canyon or incineration are all the same. Reuse is doable and realistic but it would take a major reorganization of manufacturing which would cause some loss of easy profits, so it must not be considered.
To answer your last question, I started and ran a highly successful company which took most of the "polluting and dangerous" chemicals (a misleading and useless designation) around Northern California for effective reuse. The preferred designation would be "controlled and valuable" chemicals, ready for reuse. The company was called Zero Waste Systems Inc. (the historical source of the term Zero Waste). We found new homes for thousands of tons of reusable chemicals of every description annually. Since the loss of that company, not one effort at broad scale reuse of chemicals has appeared anywhere on earth that I know of. What a loss!
Scientifically: some corrections. You are conflating stratospheric so2 'clouds' and tropospheric water vapor clouds. Stratospheric so2 'clouds' reduce warming by increasing Earth's albedo (reflectivity). Moreover, not all water vapor clouds have the same effect: depending on type and altitude, some decrease while others increase net albedo.
Philosophically: how dare you or anyone else tell anyone what options are on the table? We are in a climate emergency. If your background is anything like mine, you have flown, lived in cities, and reaped many other carbon-intensive benefits of the modern world. It is morally wrong for me, you, or anyone else to declare scientifically-sound climate interventions off-limits. This is the kind of Ivory Tower imperialism that causes normal folks to stop caring about climate.
Scientifically, that is partially correct. But, under those clouds, there is no reduction of the carbon levels that lead to warming. Unless we can keep the shades up there long enough to bring down carbon content, then there will be a catastrophic rebound when we stop.
Philosophically... I have kids. I would not put them or anyone else through that for the sake of a few years of temporary reprieve here in the present.
Moreover, my background is not like yours. I do not fly, don't live in a city, and have sourced most of my needs locally for at least 30 years. And I am not in the Ivory Tower. I work for a small non-profit that seeks to create affordable housing in my small corner of the world.
Finally, "normal folks" are terrified of geoengineering. My mother, who knows nothing of the science, knows that we mess around with things like that only at the world's peril. Nobody will be put off of climate science because some "interventions" are declared nonviable because they are too dangerous to pursue... that's just common sense...
Ok, maybe one more finally... we don't actually have the technological capacity to do this at scale anyway. So the whole point is sort of moot. Best we invest our energies and resources in systems that will actually help the future by reducing carbon.
Elizabeth: I work in Zero Waste. Eliminating the covering of the earth with discarded detritus from wanton manufacturing of unneeded gewgaws is a soluble problem if it were based on science; for the the first time ever, an approach that has never been tried. But avoiding pollution and destruction does not add to the GDP. Abortive and ineffective cleaning up of pollution does add a lot to the GDP. Similarly, avoiding emissions and solving the climate challenge adds nothing directly to the GDP which is the kiss of death under capitalism. On the other hand, generating sulfuric acid aerosols and distributing them into the atmosphere will add a lot to the GDP as new companies are formed and gigantic government subsidies are given to them. Capitalism is the enemy, specifically profit maximization.
Absolutely..........playing god is not only extremely profitable for big companies....it also fuels the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$worshipping system that has a big role in heating the planet.
Small solutions are the best solutions....distributed grids sound pretty democratic to me. BUT SOB SOB....how will the trillionaires continue to hoover up more of the dying world's wealth generating capacity???
Another objection to geo-engineering, in addition to the excellent points you have raised, is that leaving the excess co2 in the atmosphere will acidify the oceans with a cascade of deeply undesirable ecological consequences.
It has never sounded to me that geo engineering is scientifically sound as a climate solution.
It does fit in rather nicely however, with all the engineering feats our techy civilization likes to come up with......so far as I know, not one of them.........from fracking to carbon capture, nuclear to AI, takes in the full cycle of costs.
Green clean grids are possible...........we don't need to start one more brainiac idea to solve a human caused problem with another man made engineering of the natural world.
The precautionary principle alone should stop us.........and how dare you suggest that none of us dare tell anyone what options are on or off the table.
The mess we've already baked in place should teach us all humility........but also Voice. Full speed ahead for green energy and affordable EV's.........but I won't be silenced concerning the arrogance and hubris of imagining you can fix one man made disaster by inventing another one.....and moreover, as Elizabeth argues, one that you'd have to keep doing to prevent the warming kicking in even harder once the engineers ran out of options.
[Last edited 1030 PST Feb 22 2026. Gotta love post-submission editing. But beware of over-editing ;^).
Disclaimer: Gemini 3 ("free") helped me with word choice and flow. All putatively intelligent content is organic, however. I'm not willing to pay more for *correct* answers ;^D -MA]
"It is morally wrong for me, you, or anyone else to declare scientifically-sound climate interventions off-limits."
Huh? "Scientifically sound"? Sure, and it's scientifically sound to keep burning fossil fuels, except for the downsides of ocean acidification and global climate change! What could possibly go wrong with the wide range of geoengineering proposals? [Addendum: When you're in a hole, your next step is to stop digging. You didn't hear it here first -MA].
Everything Ms. Anker has said is "scientifically sound", i.e. factually and logically correct, even if not the whole story: that would take way more than a comment on Mr. McKibben's substack! But capping the trend of GMST is a *collective action* problem, not a scientific one! How dare she tell anyone what options are on the table? Why, because she's aware of the risks of some proposals, and is not willing to FAFO! Have you heard of the precautionary principle? Why do you think you're entitled to dismiss her arguments? She's as normal as you and me!
"This is the kind of Ivory Tower imperialism that causes normal folks to stop caring about climate".
And yours is the kind of heedless, aggressive techno-optimism that, despite impressive progress to date, has so far failed to halt the profit-driven transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere by the gigatonnes annually. Some geoengineering proposals are clearly motivated by self-interested parties, who seek personal profit at everyone else's expense. Just like Charles Koch, Joe Manchin, and Elon Musk! You might be even working for one or more of them*: hey, if I'm so smart, why ain't I rich? How dare you forget that every collective action has winners and losers? I, for one, prefer not to be the latter!
Interestingly, and importantly, geoengineering is not restricted to artificial clouds and sulphur deposition. There are other feasible options such as adding high-reflectivity roofing to buildings (no black shingles), creating high albedo driving surfaces, and having more robust urban vegetative development. The biggest concern here is that we tend to focus on the science fiction aspect of climate management (terraforming) rather than the achievable shifts in our societal development. Large scale governance is possible, with marked coordination and collaboration to systematically change all of these things. The discussion of excessively obtuse options, again such as terraforming, is actually one of the largest points working against climate governance. Please be aware of this and shift your perspective to discuss more feasible options that have been viable since at least 2012.
Nicely put. The only outcome regardless of anything humans believe or think they are capable of controlling, is that human population will drop dramatically along with everything else- which is exactly what is required by the physical World to balance the systems again. Think of a wobbling plate on a stick.
I've appreciated Hansen's independent GW research ever since reading "Storms of my Grandchildren". He is unique in that he has authority to present his science findings and be taken seriously, even when his conclusions are not mainstream. That's where I learned about Eemian, amoc slowdown, paleoclimate.
He does all this from Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions lab at Columbia. They are always low on funding, because James is the world's worst fundraiser. I've been supporting them for 15+ years, so just leaving this note here to help him out.
If you donate, make sure to note it's for James' lab.
1. I continue to be horrified over tRumpfs horrendous policy of attempting to subjugate Cuba by energy blockade.
2. I continue to shake my head over Puerto Rico, 360 days yearly of tradewinds and sunny days, not going to a decentralized renewable power system RIGHT NOW.
3.as for new coal mascot. I'd like to reuse a vowel and call it E-Coli.
The mistreatment of immigrants by Trump policy, and recent cold-blooded murders of two American heroes, has focused attention of the evils of those who promote hate. However, the harms caused by those who promote ignorance affect many more people. For many, the active promotion of ignorance starts in church with promotion of Creationism. There are, sadly, many who successfully promote ignorance about vaccinations and other public health issues. Sellers of many kinds of nutritional snake oil successfully promote ignorance. Of all the large scale promotions of ignorance, the active selling of ignorance about climate science will cause the most widespread mayhem, as well as property and personal damages.
Bill. I’ve been hearing about some rampant corruption in the Northeast, regarding very large solar fields, being built with no consideration for environmental protection, and even sited in remote areas that do not have an electrical infrastructure, sufficient to utilize the power that’s generated. And apparently, multi billion dollar corporations have figured out that the best way to build out and connect all of this, is to raise the price of electricity, for people who will will not benefit from this power, which is, instead, being harvested to run giant AI centers. Regular single family homes, paying $400/month, above what they used to pay. And, in an area that’s dark in the winter and sometimes in the summer too, and where it’s been alleged that portable diesel generators are being used to pump up the numbers for solar installations that don’t begin to produce power at capacity. If this is true, and their’s corruption and waste being perpetrated at the expense of consumers, then wouldn’t it be prudent to have better oversight and accountability for our money, as well as the environment that these installations are supposedly being built to protect? I’m all in favor of solar, but if there’s rampant waste and fraud involved, then no one and nothing is being served, and the actual goals of having green energy are being subverted. If wisdom dictates the switch to green energy, then wisdom in the siting and efficiency of these systems seems only fair.
Here in Aotearoa NZ the public conversation has changed sharply in the last two weeks, following back-to-back extreme weather "events" affecting much of the country. Over the past three years the climate crisis has been virtually non-existant in our news, despite increasing severity of storms etc., overtaken by "cost of living crisis", austerity policies and a focus on deregulation and winding back of "growth constricting" environmental protections. But suddenly, we are hearing the words "climate change effects" every day. It is more than a shame that it takes disaster to arrive before we even acknowledge what is going on, never mind actually act upon it. We have an election here this year, so we will just have to wait and see how and if this translates to accountability at the ballot box.
It appears the tide has turned and the three pronged approach may now gain widespread support for objective research and serious risk-risk assessment of the many ways to accomplish the third leg of the “3-legged stool” … with your solid endorsement:
Ken and Heinz, so much has been researched and tested, so many papers written, and so many scientists and engineers have discussed (deliberated, debated and disagreed) that it is impossible to respond succinctly in this space, so I inquired Claude AI to explain a simple concept requiring drawing down double global emissions from now until net zero decarbonization is achieved in 2050. Claude generally does a very good job but needs to be coached and given clarification.
Take a look specifically at Claude’s reply to my second question and see what you think:
Your second point is rarely mentioned in plans and proposals. When addressed, people think of technological approaches like the Swiss company Climeworks' - these are too expensive and cannot be adequately scaled up. What is rarely considered: part of global warming is due to the world having lost 1/5 of its vegetation since 1850. Of the gained agricultural land 75-80%, about 38million km2, are used for beef production. Vegetation: forests, natrual prairies, wetlands, bamboo plantaions, expanded kelp forests, etc. could absorb the excess CO2, that humans put into the air, within decade. However, much of the beef-producing land and the 9,000km2 of land presently not used by humans, a total of 30,000-40,000km2, would be needed. That is doable. The Chinese show us how to realize huge afforestation programs. We also would have to forget about 1.5 billion electric cars, and build trains, hgih-speed to small, slow light and ultra-light rail lines. China built much more high-speed trains than the rest of the world combined! For shorter commutes, we need slow ultra-light vehicles, not steel cars. We need to build mostly with wood and/or bamboo, not steel and concrete, use extreme-white paint and apply passive solar principles, not more air conditioning. And governments need to curb consumerism, credit/bank lending, and data centers/A.I. To save our civilizations and the world as we know it, the people must demand radical, comprehensive government actions - this is the only way of halting the vicious cycles that completley destabilize our climates. (Compare also Peter Fiekowsky's analysis, Climate Restoration, 2022) Simpler, ethical living, closer to nature and to each other, will make us healthier and happier.
To remove past emissions to 350 ppm, one would have to capture and safely store about 70 ppm. That is not possible because just ONE ppm CO2 is 7.8 billion metric tons.
And reducing emissions takes none of the CO2 already added out of the atmosphere to lower global temperatures.
I've started to see mentions by conservatives that overpopulation is a problem. Cutting off USAID will kill off some people. None of whom were spewing carbon. Desperate people do desperate things. When they're wealthy and have power it get ugly quickly.
I am no conservative and I understand the callous implications of the suggestions you’ve seen.
Objectively, overpopulation is a problem that no one wants to address, for fear of denying basic freedoms and going down the path of eugenics. But it presents a very real problem of managing Earth’s finite resources to provide for all life.
I recently watched a documentary about the degradation of the natural world in the last 75 years. After WWII, the global population was 2.5 billion; in 2026 that number has nearly quadrupled.
The documentary refers to this 75 years as “the great acceleration”.
We are in a new planetary era where nothing is untouched by man - the Anthropocene.
The Human Race must quickly make some decisions on how we are going to effectively address multiple challenges, especially concerning the warming climate and our plans to shelter climate refugees. We are on the knife’s edge.
Anyone familiar with ecology can easily understand what overpopulation means to a species. But we have long cherished the notion that for humans there are no limits. This belief is built into everything we choose to do.
Those of us past a certain age, remember "I=fn(P,A,T)": Our total "environmental" impact is a function of population (P), some measure of per-capita income or affluence (A), and a technological force multiplier (T).
60 years ago, global total fertility rate was 5.1 children per woman. In 2023 it was 2.2. Delta-P is no longer the primary driver of delta-I: delta-A and delta-T now matter more.
Both are evolving rapidly, but 'T' holds the key to capping global warming: all we have to do is act collectively, to take the profit out of fossil-fuel technology and drive the otherwise free market toward carbon-neutral energy. Once that's accomplished, 10 billion people won't cause much more global warming than 2 billion. Look within 'A' for the economic inequality at the foundation of anthropogenic climate change, and the otherwise inexplicable delay in decarbonizing the US economy.
Thanks for saying this. People get really caught up in overpopulation and science fiction as outlets for climate action. Overpopulation isn't particularly problematic if there are systems built into global structures that can self-regulate the natural global climate and ensure distribution of necessary resources. It's been driving me crazy as a Gen-Z trying to get my circle to understand this but education isn't what it used to be.
The 2.5 billion 75 years ago and almost 9 billion today is critical part of stories, and is rarely included. The youngest, and therefore most fertile, area in the world is continent of Africa. You understand how that will be used in closed-door meetings to dictate policy. Climate migration will be dramatic and inevitable. When people can’t tolerate the heat and there’s not clean water to drink, they’ll pack up their families and get out. Those with wealth will use planes and trains. Musk, Thiel, Andreessen, JD know this. None of them are dumb. Callous horrible men, yup.
Bill is an amazing source of both the worst and the best news of the week.
I'm gobsmacked by how fast countries such as Indonesia and Puerto Rico are moving.......we all need to pick up the pace......a better world is possible.
Yes. The US is presently free-riding on the decarbonization investments of other nations: every kWh of fossil carbon left unburned anywhere, benefits everyone in the world equally, even your coal-rolling Trumpist neighbor. Only collective, i.e. government, action to take the profit out of selling fossil fuels, can drive our national economy to zero emissions. Please vote Democratic, at least until some Republican candidate publicly supports collective decarbonization.
Someone recently asked me, with everything going on right now, why am I still putting so much time into Third Act Maine, and working so hard to pass laws here such as Make Polluters Pay? This, this is why.
Geoengineering is not merely tragic; it is not a viable option at all.
Shading the earth with increased cloud-cover (acid clouds, no less) does not decrease the levels of atmospheric carbon nor current levels of heating. In fact, it is likely that tropospheric heating will continue to rise with insulation from clouds. Think of it this way, it is cooler on a rainy summer day, but it does not become winter even after a month of rain. Clouds are highly effective barriers to heat dissipation.
Moreover, we can't just commit to a time-span long enough to achieve zero emissions (which is already politically unlikely). Because of the rebound effect, we will have to commit to creating extra clouds for long enough to achieve lower atmospheric carbon levels. The moment we stop shielding the planet with artificial clouds, the carbon still in the atmosphere will cause a sharp rise in temperature, commensurate to that carbon content. In other words, it will be hotter after geoengineering than before, unless we commit to cloud-cover lasting for a very long time.
As carbon will be elevated in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, this is not feasible in any way. The political will to carry on a project of that magnitude is non-existent. This project would outlast all currently existing political bodies. Due to depletion and degradation of various resources, as well as the very likely collapse of economic structures to finance industrial activity, it is also not likely that we will have the technological capacity to keep this project going until atmospheric carbon reaches safe levels again. So, starting this project is guaranteeing a fatal increase in heating when it inevitably ends too soon.
Finally, cloud-shielding the planet will have serious affects on plant life, and therefore on the entire planetary capacity to produce food. Less than two years of volcanic clouds after Mt Tambora erupted in April of 1815 caused devastating floods and drought worldwide, which, combined with the drop in temperature in the already cold Little Ice Age, caused widespread human famine. Now, scale that to the decades of cloud-cover needed to effect short-term climate moderation.
This is not an option. Full stop.
I am very encouraged by all the clean energy developments in China. Some Chinese friends mentioned another about which I am skeptical. They said China is now burning municipal waste for energy and capturing all the polluting and dangerous chemicals so it does not pollute. Does anyone know details about this?
Look up 'Energy from Waste' in the UK. 2.5% of generation. But some say equivalent emissions to coal. It's driven not by carbon but by the lack of landfill sites. Long contracts (e.g. Newhaven) lock local councils into heavy financial commitments and make it impossible to get out.
Thanks Steve,
I should have remembered this. I'm pretty sure this is just what I read about years ago. I think it is used for some of the waste in N.E. but not sure how much. I believe my household waste is shipped over 1,000 miles to Ohio or Illinois. Not sure if it is then buried or burned (I will find out). Royal
I don't know about China but there is a lot of waste burning for power generation in Denmark and I don't think people living in the neighbourhood are exactly enthusiastic about it.
Royal: "Getting rid of" anything unwanted is a seductive approach of wasteful societies. In our sick societies, no calculation is made of the loss of resources that "getting rid of" entails. Immediate gratification is the only game. We are scouring the earth for its resources and then destroying them by creating wasteful methods of "getting rid of". It doesn't make any difference how we choose to do it. Recycling is the only faux reuse method urged by a blind society and recycling is a total failure. After that failure is recognized, other methods such as shooting waste into the sun or filling up the Grand Canyon or incineration are all the same. Reuse is doable and realistic but it would take a major reorganization of manufacturing which would cause some loss of easy profits, so it must not be considered.
To answer your last question, I started and ran a highly successful company which took most of the "polluting and dangerous" chemicals (a misleading and useless designation) around Northern California for effective reuse. The preferred designation would be "controlled and valuable" chemicals, ready for reuse. The company was called Zero Waste Systems Inc. (the historical source of the term Zero Waste). We found new homes for thousands of tons of reusable chemicals of every description annually. Since the loss of that company, not one effort at broad scale reuse of chemicals has appeared anywhere on earth that I know of. What a loss!
Elizabeth,
Scientifically: some corrections. You are conflating stratospheric so2 'clouds' and tropospheric water vapor clouds. Stratospheric so2 'clouds' reduce warming by increasing Earth's albedo (reflectivity). Moreover, not all water vapor clouds have the same effect: depending on type and altitude, some decrease while others increase net albedo.
Philosophically: how dare you or anyone else tell anyone what options are on the table? We are in a climate emergency. If your background is anything like mine, you have flown, lived in cities, and reaped many other carbon-intensive benefits of the modern world. It is morally wrong for me, you, or anyone else to declare scientifically-sound climate interventions off-limits. This is the kind of Ivory Tower imperialism that causes normal folks to stop caring about climate.
Scientifically, that is partially correct. But, under those clouds, there is no reduction of the carbon levels that lead to warming. Unless we can keep the shades up there long enough to bring down carbon content, then there will be a catastrophic rebound when we stop.
Philosophically... I have kids. I would not put them or anyone else through that for the sake of a few years of temporary reprieve here in the present.
Moreover, my background is not like yours. I do not fly, don't live in a city, and have sourced most of my needs locally for at least 30 years. And I am not in the Ivory Tower. I work for a small non-profit that seeks to create affordable housing in my small corner of the world.
Finally, "normal folks" are terrified of geoengineering. My mother, who knows nothing of the science, knows that we mess around with things like that only at the world's peril. Nobody will be put off of climate science because some "interventions" are declared nonviable because they are too dangerous to pursue... that's just common sense...
Ok, maybe one more finally... we don't actually have the technological capacity to do this at scale anyway. So the whole point is sort of moot. Best we invest our energies and resources in systems that will actually help the future by reducing carbon.
Elizabeth: I work in Zero Waste. Eliminating the covering of the earth with discarded detritus from wanton manufacturing of unneeded gewgaws is a soluble problem if it were based on science; for the the first time ever, an approach that has never been tried. But avoiding pollution and destruction does not add to the GDP. Abortive and ineffective cleaning up of pollution does add a lot to the GDP. Similarly, avoiding emissions and solving the climate challenge adds nothing directly to the GDP which is the kiss of death under capitalism. On the other hand, generating sulfuric acid aerosols and distributing them into the atmosphere will add a lot to the GDP as new companies are formed and gigantic government subsidies are given to them. Capitalism is the enemy, specifically profit maximization.
Absolutely..........playing god is not only extremely profitable for big companies....it also fuels the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$worshipping system that has a big role in heating the planet.
Small solutions are the best solutions....distributed grids sound pretty democratic to me. BUT SOB SOB....how will the trillionaires continue to hoover up more of the dying world's wealth generating capacity???
THE DEVIL WEARS A DOLLAR SIGN.
Another objection to geo-engineering, in addition to the excellent points you have raised, is that leaving the excess co2 in the atmosphere will acidify the oceans with a cascade of deeply undesirable ecological consequences.
It has never sounded to me that geo engineering is scientifically sound as a climate solution.
It does fit in rather nicely however, with all the engineering feats our techy civilization likes to come up with......so far as I know, not one of them.........from fracking to carbon capture, nuclear to AI, takes in the full cycle of costs.
Green clean grids are possible...........we don't need to start one more brainiac idea to solve a human caused problem with another man made engineering of the natural world.
The precautionary principle alone should stop us.........and how dare you suggest that none of us dare tell anyone what options are on or off the table.
The mess we've already baked in place should teach us all humility........but also Voice. Full speed ahead for green energy and affordable EV's.........but I won't be silenced concerning the arrogance and hubris of imagining you can fix one man made disaster by inventing another one.....and moreover, as Elizabeth argues, one that you'd have to keep doing to prevent the warming kicking in even harder once the engineers ran out of options.
[Last edited 1030 PST Feb 22 2026. Gotta love post-submission editing. But beware of over-editing ;^).
Disclaimer: Gemini 3 ("free") helped me with word choice and flow. All putatively intelligent content is organic, however. I'm not willing to pay more for *correct* answers ;^D -MA]
"It is morally wrong for me, you, or anyone else to declare scientifically-sound climate interventions off-limits."
Huh? "Scientifically sound"? Sure, and it's scientifically sound to keep burning fossil fuels, except for the downsides of ocean acidification and global climate change! What could possibly go wrong with the wide range of geoengineering proposals? [Addendum: When you're in a hole, your next step is to stop digging. You didn't hear it here first -MA].
Everything Ms. Anker has said is "scientifically sound", i.e. factually and logically correct, even if not the whole story: that would take way more than a comment on Mr. McKibben's substack! But capping the trend of GMST is a *collective action* problem, not a scientific one! How dare she tell anyone what options are on the table? Why, because she's aware of the risks of some proposals, and is not willing to FAFO! Have you heard of the precautionary principle? Why do you think you're entitled to dismiss her arguments? She's as normal as you and me!
"This is the kind of Ivory Tower imperialism that causes normal folks to stop caring about climate".
And yours is the kind of heedless, aggressive techno-optimism that, despite impressive progress to date, has so far failed to halt the profit-driven transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere by the gigatonnes annually. Some geoengineering proposals are clearly motivated by self-interested parties, who seek personal profit at everyone else's expense. Just like Charles Koch, Joe Manchin, and Elon Musk! You might be even working for one or more of them*: hey, if I'm so smart, why ain't I rich? How dare you forget that every collective action has winners and losers? I, for one, prefer not to be the latter!
* "Disinformation as an obstructionist strategy in climate change mitigation: a review of the scientific literature for a systemic understanding of the phenomenon" (https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/articles/4-169/v2)
It sounds like the same reverse elitism that the current administration endorses is showing through in your accusations.
HUH??
oops, edit!
Interestingly, and importantly, geoengineering is not restricted to artificial clouds and sulphur deposition. There are other feasible options such as adding high-reflectivity roofing to buildings (no black shingles), creating high albedo driving surfaces, and having more robust urban vegetative development. The biggest concern here is that we tend to focus on the science fiction aspect of climate management (terraforming) rather than the achievable shifts in our societal development. Large scale governance is possible, with marked coordination and collaboration to systematically change all of these things. The discussion of excessively obtuse options, again such as terraforming, is actually one of the largest points working against climate governance. Please be aware of this and shift your perspective to discuss more feasible options that have been viable since at least 2012.
Nicely put. The only outcome regardless of anything humans believe or think they are capable of controlling, is that human population will drop dramatically along with everything else- which is exactly what is required by the physical World to balance the systems again. Think of a wobbling plate on a stick.
Um... I have a doctorate in geological math...
Come on, Bill. "And obviously I’m a big fan of windpower." You could have played up that pun a little bit more.
I've appreciated Hansen's independent GW research ever since reading "Storms of my Grandchildren". He is unique in that he has authority to present his science findings and be taken seriously, even when his conclusions are not mainstream. That's where I learned about Eemian, amoc slowdown, paleoclimate.
He does all this from Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions lab at Columbia. They are always low on funding, because James is the world's worst fundraiser. I've been supporting them for 15+ years, so just leaving this note here to help him out.
If you donate, make sure to note it's for James' lab.
https://csas.givenow.columbia.edu/#
1. I continue to be horrified over tRumpfs horrendous policy of attempting to subjugate Cuba by energy blockade.
2. I continue to shake my head over Puerto Rico, 360 days yearly of tradewinds and sunny days, not going to a decentralized renewable power system RIGHT NOW.
3.as for new coal mascot. I'd like to reuse a vowel and call it E-Coli.
The mistreatment of immigrants by Trump policy, and recent cold-blooded murders of two American heroes, has focused attention of the evils of those who promote hate. However, the harms caused by those who promote ignorance affect many more people. For many, the active promotion of ignorance starts in church with promotion of Creationism. There are, sadly, many who successfully promote ignorance about vaccinations and other public health issues. Sellers of many kinds of nutritional snake oil successfully promote ignorance. Of all the large scale promotions of ignorance, the active selling of ignorance about climate science will cause the most widespread mayhem, as well as property and personal damages.
Bill. I’ve been hearing about some rampant corruption in the Northeast, regarding very large solar fields, being built with no consideration for environmental protection, and even sited in remote areas that do not have an electrical infrastructure, sufficient to utilize the power that’s generated. And apparently, multi billion dollar corporations have figured out that the best way to build out and connect all of this, is to raise the price of electricity, for people who will will not benefit from this power, which is, instead, being harvested to run giant AI centers. Regular single family homes, paying $400/month, above what they used to pay. And, in an area that’s dark in the winter and sometimes in the summer too, and where it’s been alleged that portable diesel generators are being used to pump up the numbers for solar installations that don’t begin to produce power at capacity. If this is true, and their’s corruption and waste being perpetrated at the expense of consumers, then wouldn’t it be prudent to have better oversight and accountability for our money, as well as the environment that these installations are supposedly being built to protect? I’m all in favor of solar, but if there’s rampant waste and fraud involved, then no one and nothing is being served, and the actual goals of having green energy are being subverted. If wisdom dictates the switch to green energy, then wisdom in the siting and efficiency of these systems seems only fair.
Bill, thank you for continuing to sound the alarm, no matter how difficult the message is.
Brilliant piece! Thank you!
Here in Aotearoa NZ the public conversation has changed sharply in the last two weeks, following back-to-back extreme weather "events" affecting much of the country. Over the past three years the climate crisis has been virtually non-existant in our news, despite increasing severity of storms etc., overtaken by "cost of living crisis", austerity policies and a focus on deregulation and winding back of "growth constricting" environmental protections. But suddenly, we are hearing the words "climate change effects" every day. It is more than a shame that it takes disaster to arrive before we even acknowledge what is going on, never mind actually act upon it. We have an election here this year, so we will just have to wait and see how and if this translates to accountability at the ballot box.
It appears the tide has turned and the three pronged approach may now gain widespread support for objective research and serious risk-risk assessment of the many ways to accomplish the third leg of the “3-legged stool” … with your solid endorsement:
1. Reduce emissions (decarbonize)
2. Remove past emissions <350ppm
3. Restore albedo (direct cooling)
Let’s talk over VT brew 🍺 I’ll buy🙏
Ken and Heinz, so much has been researched and tested, so many papers written, and so many scientists and engineers have discussed (deliberated, debated and disagreed) that it is impossible to respond succinctly in this space, so I inquired Claude AI to explain a simple concept requiring drawing down double global emissions from now until net zero decarbonization is achieved in 2050. Claude generally does a very good job but needs to be coached and given clarification.
Take a look specifically at Claude’s reply to my second question and see what you think:
https://claude.ai/share/89307d1a-b92f-4b8d-ac31-55021af91f9e
Your second point is rarely mentioned in plans and proposals. When addressed, people think of technological approaches like the Swiss company Climeworks' - these are too expensive and cannot be adequately scaled up. What is rarely considered: part of global warming is due to the world having lost 1/5 of its vegetation since 1850. Of the gained agricultural land 75-80%, about 38million km2, are used for beef production. Vegetation: forests, natrual prairies, wetlands, bamboo plantaions, expanded kelp forests, etc. could absorb the excess CO2, that humans put into the air, within decade. However, much of the beef-producing land and the 9,000km2 of land presently not used by humans, a total of 30,000-40,000km2, would be needed. That is doable. The Chinese show us how to realize huge afforestation programs. We also would have to forget about 1.5 billion electric cars, and build trains, hgih-speed to small, slow light and ultra-light rail lines. China built much more high-speed trains than the rest of the world combined! For shorter commutes, we need slow ultra-light vehicles, not steel cars. We need to build mostly with wood and/or bamboo, not steel and concrete, use extreme-white paint and apply passive solar principles, not more air conditioning. And governments need to curb consumerism, credit/bank lending, and data centers/A.I. To save our civilizations and the world as we know it, the people must demand radical, comprehensive government actions - this is the only way of halting the vicious cycles that completley destabilize our climates. (Compare also Peter Fiekowsky's analysis, Climate Restoration, 2022) Simpler, ethical living, closer to nature and to each other, will make us healthier and happier.
Heinz Aeschbach, MD, pres. of Humane Civilization Worldwide humanecivilization.org
To remove past emissions to 350 ppm, one would have to capture and safely store about 70 ppm. That is not possible because just ONE ppm CO2 is 7.8 billion metric tons.
And reducing emissions takes none of the CO2 already added out of the atmosphere to lower global temperatures.
What's your evidence nuclear can scale "in time?" There's only one country trying hard to scale both at the same time, and it's no contest.https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/wind-water-solar-continue-to-vastly-outpace-nuclear-in-china-f3cea33fad24
I've started to see mentions by conservatives that overpopulation is a problem. Cutting off USAID will kill off some people. None of whom were spewing carbon. Desperate people do desperate things. When they're wealthy and have power it get ugly quickly.
I am no conservative and I understand the callous implications of the suggestions you’ve seen.
Objectively, overpopulation is a problem that no one wants to address, for fear of denying basic freedoms and going down the path of eugenics. But it presents a very real problem of managing Earth’s finite resources to provide for all life.
I recently watched a documentary about the degradation of the natural world in the last 75 years. After WWII, the global population was 2.5 billion; in 2026 that number has nearly quadrupled.
The documentary refers to this 75 years as “the great acceleration”.
We are in a new planetary era where nothing is untouched by man - the Anthropocene.
The Human Race must quickly make some decisions on how we are going to effectively address multiple challenges, especially concerning the warming climate and our plans to shelter climate refugees. We are on the knife’s edge.
Anyone familiar with ecology can easily understand what overpopulation means to a species. But we have long cherished the notion that for humans there are no limits. This belief is built into everything we choose to do.
Absolutely true.
Those of us past a certain age, remember "I=fn(P,A,T)": Our total "environmental" impact is a function of population (P), some measure of per-capita income or affluence (A), and a technological force multiplier (T).
60 years ago, global total fertility rate was 5.1 children per woman. In 2023 it was 2.2. Delta-P is no longer the primary driver of delta-I: delta-A and delta-T now matter more.
Both are evolving rapidly, but 'T' holds the key to capping global warming: all we have to do is act collectively, to take the profit out of fossil-fuel technology and drive the otherwise free market toward carbon-neutral energy. Once that's accomplished, 10 billion people won't cause much more global warming than 2 billion. Look within 'A' for the economic inequality at the foundation of anthropogenic climate change, and the otherwise inexplicable delay in decarbonizing the US economy.
Thanks for saying this. People get really caught up in overpopulation and science fiction as outlets for climate action. Overpopulation isn't particularly problematic if there are systems built into global structures that can self-regulate the natural global climate and ensure distribution of necessary resources. It's been driving me crazy as a Gen-Z trying to get my circle to understand this but education isn't what it used to be.
The 2.5 billion 75 years ago and almost 9 billion today is critical part of stories, and is rarely included. The youngest, and therefore most fertile, area in the world is continent of Africa. You understand how that will be used in closed-door meetings to dictate policy. Climate migration will be dramatic and inevitable. When people can’t tolerate the heat and there’s not clean water to drink, they’ll pack up their families and get out. Those with wealth will use planes and trains. Musk, Thiel, Andreessen, JD know this. None of them are dumb. Callous horrible men, yup.
We are agreed. These masters of the tech universe fully believe they are shaping the future. We’ll see…
Thanks, as ever, for being three steps ahead of the moment...(Now two steps?) Grateful...
Bill is an amazing source of both the worst and the best news of the week.
I'm gobsmacked by how fast countries such as Indonesia and Puerto Rico are moving.......we all need to pick up the pace......a better world is possible.
Yes. The US is presently free-riding on the decarbonization investments of other nations: every kWh of fossil carbon left unburned anywhere, benefits everyone in the world equally, even your coal-rolling Trumpist neighbor. Only collective, i.e. government, action to take the profit out of selling fossil fuels, can drive our national economy to zero emissions. Please vote Democratic, at least until some Republican candidate publicly supports collective decarbonization.
I'm not American......though I was arrested against the Keystone, in Washington with Bill a decade or more ago.
We've solarized, have a heat pump, an EV.........do everything we can to implement....and fight big Fossils.
Be well.......and let's not give up.
Thank you for your service!
Hats off for ‘Bezosified’. Quality pun.