Time to prepare for The One Degree War

Standard

Amidst the noise of the day-to-day debates, we have lost sight of the simple logic of the advice coming from the world’s top climate scientists. Despite the uncertainties in the details, the science carries one underlying message from which we can draw only one rational conclusion.

It is time to declare a global emergency and mobilise all available resources, political will and human ingenuity towards one task – to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change to an acceptable level.

Today, we are releasing a paper detailing our response to this conclusion. ‘The One Degree War Plan’ began to take form a few years ago, the product of a challenging conversation between myself and Professor Jorgen Randers. Jorgen, a lifelong advocate for action on sustainability, rose to prominence in 1972 as one of the original authors of the Club of Rome’s famous “Limits to Growth”, the bestselling environmental book of all time – over 30 million copies in 37 different languages.

Jorgen and I had both accepted the scientific reality and were discussing the question it posed – what would a rational response to the climate science look like? If you stripped away all the politics and debate and took a fresh look, what would be the logical action plan?

In 2008, after many more such conversations, we decided that we needed to articulate our answer to that question, in detail and on paper.

We started by considering what the science meant, in human terms.  This was the simple part, as the peer-reviewed climate science is very clear on the level of risk. There is a high degree of certainty that humanity will face severe disruption to the global economy and society, with widespread economic damage, geopolitical instability and human suffering. Perhaps more importantly, there is a lower but still material risk of catastrophic collapse and tipping points being past that would see the effective collapse of our current civilisation and economy. Once this was understood, we could begin to consider what a logical response to this level of risk would be.

But before we got there, we made another initial but fundamental conclusion: that the momentum in the climate system is now so great that the world will, before long, wake up to a threat of this magnitude. It will recognise that despite the remaining uncertainties, we cannot afford to risk the collapse of the global economy and civilisation. Thus an appropriate response – one that recognises the science and the true scale of the risk – will occur.

When this emergency response is designed, we concluded it would need to aim to bring warming below 1 degree, and therefore, CO2e concentrations below 350ppm. Anything less would leave civilisation at too great a risk of catastrophe, and would therefore be irrational. Our remaining task was then to develop a plan of action that was capable of achieving this outcome.

The attached paper is the result. It has taken over a year of development and research, including considerable feedback from colleagues and modelling by C-Roads, the climate simulator developed by MIT, the Sustainability Institute and Ventana Systems.

We were actually surprised by the outcome of our work, which showed that not only is One Degree and 350ppm possible, it is surprisingly achievable and practical. It certainly requires that we act very soon and that we act with a level of determination and commitment not seen since WWII, but it can be achieved. In recognition of this comparison, we called our paper The One Degree War Plan.  It is a plan that shows what humanity can achieve – and we believe will achieve – when it develops a rational response to the climate threat.

We are releasing our paper for public reaction and comment, because we recognise that this is not an intellectual exercise. A response like the One Degree War Plan, if it is to be implemented, is going to require years of development by global experts across many disciplines. It will also require strong public support globally if our political leaders are to have the courage to adopt such an approach.  This in turn will only happen if many millions of people engage and decide that, in the end, we are a rational species and this is the way forward we consciously choose to take.

Building a robust plan and the support to implement it is of course an enormous task. So we think now is a good time to start.

We encourage you to consider this paper, to circulate it amongst your networks and to help us together build the courage we need to face reality.

Click here to download the full paper

37 thoughts on “Time to prepare for The One Degree War

  1. Andrea Koch

    Hi Paul,

    Interesting document and strategy. My area of focus is Sustainable Food, with a particular interest in soil carbon sequestration. I applaud you for balancing the scales a little by suggesting the encouragement of farming practices which sequester soil IN ADDITION to reducing beef consumption. May I suggest that you go one step further, and recommend a shift in consumption of all food, including meat, towards foods that have been farmed using methods which restore soil health and sequester Soil Organic Carbon (SOC). These approaches, known as Carbon Farming, allow farmers to produce food and fibre AT THE SAME TIME as carbon is sequestered in the soil.

    The Carbon Farming movement in Australia has beef producers who are using conservation farming practices (the movement calls it “Carbon Farming”), which actually produce carbon positive beef, i.e. more carbon is sequestered in the soil than CO2e is released into the atmosphere. These farmers use “cell grazing” techniques which emulate natural savanna type herd feeding patterns , and graze the cattle on deep rooted perennials which sequester carbon in the soil.

    One amazing example of this is in Western Australia, in sandy soil which has had big problems with salinity and erosion under “traditional” farming methods. These innovative farmers have reduced erosion to zero, are bringing salinity under control, and have been able to produce an income in the significantly drier years that the West has experienced in recent times (the records show that climate change has already hit the hardest in that region of Australia).

    There are many other approaches to farming which sequester carbon in soil, but I like to use this example as a showcase of how beef can actually be produced in a fashion which reduces GHG emissions rather than adds to them.

    Interestingly, Al Gore is now across the concept of soil sequestration, and is fully aware of the potential Carbon Farming has to offset existing emissions, and also to sequester the legacy load, as you will read in this article http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/1. Professor Rattan Lal, of Ohio State University, who is referenced in this article, was a keynote speaker at the 2008 Carbon Farming Conference, and is in close communication with leaders of the Carbon Farming movement in Australia.

    The good news is that Australia has some amazing “Carbon Cockies” as we call them, who are already putting the theory into practice, with incredible results. The tragedy of it is that because the Australian Government did not sign on to article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, these farming practises are not being recognised or rewarded in the current carbon trading environment. Instead, we have farming land being purchased by corporate carbon trading entities, taken out of food production and being planted fence to fence with trees (which was covered under Australia’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and which has been leveraged with tax incentives which drive investment in tree plantations to sequester carbon). This is an alarming trend, given that the UN FAO is advocating a 50% increase in food production to feed the world’s population of 9 billion by 2050. This, together with low levels of investment in soil science over the past two decades, means that the Carbon Farming movement is having to fight hard to get its achievements and research recognised.

    It is time for us to start making a distinction between “carbon negative food” and “carbon neutral food” and to start rewarding innovative farmers who are working hard to put food on our tables now and to ensure that future generations can also put food on their tables.

  2. Fantastic work – challenging yet positive. I want to make 2 quick points, the first regarding the red meat/methane issue, and the second on the white roofs.

    1 – May I suggest that it is not the animals themselves that are the problem? Rather it is how we humans are managing them. Our unsustainable industrial agriculture model is the culprit, and the sooner we return properly managed grazing animals to our grasslands the better.

    Could I ask you all to look a little more into the massive positive impact changed grazing management could have. Please remember that some 2 billion people, the “bottom” third of our species, are almost totally dependent on domesticated livestock for their very existence. Domestic livestock are not just about feeding the affluent developed nations.

    Methane is produced by bacteria in the rumen of all ruminant animals, a group which includes camels, wildebeest, alpacas, bison, mountain goats and 90+ species of antelope, as well as domesticated cattle, sheep and goats. This link http://www.abc.net.au/rural/vic/content/2009/08/s2649106.htm is to some very interesting (and to my way of thinking inherently logical and natural) research that shows that different bacteria in the soil under the cattle oxidize more methane in a single day than the cow emits in a whole year.

    Professor Tim Flannery has stated that sequestering carbon into the soils of our grazing lands is one of the best means we have available to us for dealing with climate change. We have been raising awareness of the role of building soil carbon from a climate change perspective – but as you will see when you look through the presentation http://www.soilcarbon.com.au that the real outcome of changing management is three-fold – healthy environment, healthy financials, and healthy society.

    2 – re the white roofs idea – There is also an as yet unrecognized “geo-engineering” aspect to regenerating grasslands, because grassland has a 60% higher albedo than bare soil. This means that if we were to restore degraded land that is currently, say, 80% bare ground and 20% grass covered to be 20% bare soil and 80% grass covered, we would also have a dramatic and positive impact on the nett reflectivity of our planet’s surface.

    So a programme of green grass and white roofs would be even more powerful We have over 10 billion acres of degraded and desertifying grasslands on our planet, and if we restored just 10% of this not only would the amount of CO2 sequestered be huge, but we would also significantly enhance the albedo effect as well..

  3. Hi Paul,

    I like your plan! It is nice to see a vision for a way forward that isn’t all doom and gloom. However, you do not appear to address ocean acidification, as best articulated here http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2009/10/you-cant-fish-and-not-have-hope.html and which will not be helped by geoengineering schemes that reflect sunlight.

    I agree that it is going to take an act of extreme retribution from Mother Nature for most people to wake up the the war that is looming. There are many forms this might take, but for where I live in New Jersey, the moment is upon us, although practically no one is prepared to jump off the train tracks just yet. The “other greenhouse gases” from toxic gasoline and ethanol emissions are fast poisoning our trees, which dropped their leaves a month early this fall.

    The conclusions that they are all dying will be inescapable next spring, even to the most stubborn denier.

  4. Is it better to decommission cars, power plants immediately and thus require energy, materials etc. to replace or focus on new cars, power plants etc. and reducing energy requirements so as to replace with nothing?

  5. John Hirsch

    Excellent paper… but, I fear a utopian and altruistic view of how mankind will respond when, as you suggest, a critical mass of people wake up to the problem. There is a big difference between the current situation and the WWII scenario. At that time, we had a reasonable expectation that life on the planet would return to normal (BAU) once the invading powers were vanquished – and that is exactly what happened. Unfortunately the future scenario you paint means a significantly lowered standard of living for the developed world – definitly not back to BAU.
    So, unfortunately, I think the developed world’s response to the need to do “what is necessary” will be to become insular, self serving (especially in the northern latitudes) and bar the door against the hordes of climate refugees from the worst affected parts of the planet.
    cynical, yes – but a more realistic conclusion.
    I remember well studying “Limits to Growth” in 1972 and would also note that mankind’s single biggest problem and the reason we are in this climate mess is still the same – overpopulation. Your paper, surprisingly, does not address this in terms of measures that would would need to be taken to restrict population. All species eventually figure out how to arrive at optimum levels (sometimes with very unpleasant measures) but humans haven’t figured that out yet!

  6. Sarah Severn

    Paul and Jorgen,
    Bravo and very timely. I am forwarding to all BICEP coalition members and will incorporate into a rather lengthy internal document that I have prepared to answer specific questions on the science and economic costs. I had drawn heavily on the McKinsey work for that, but was uncomfortable with the 450ppm scenario, so this is very helpful. Hopefully you will get support from the academics, scientists and economists so that those of us working on closed loop and climate strategy in business can continue to rally support for our efforts.

  7. From what I’ve read of your paper, which is the ONLY complete proposal that I’ve read, there are a lot of good, do-able ideas there, many of which my family already does. But reading the part about white rooftops makes me wonder again, why does nobody talk about our blacktop roads and the semi-trucks going down it, as they contribute – a lot – to the whole warming thing. The global warming issue began just about when the D.O.T. started paving America with asphalt instead of concrete – black instead of white. And the number of parking lots has grown to a rediculous rate – to accomodate the growing number of cars. The number of cars has grown – but they sit, a good proportion of them, in blacktop parking lots ALL DAY – in unshaded (deforested) and hot parking lots. I believe these things – asphalt and semi-trucks – needs to be a part of all of these discussions. Thank you so much for working on this. I will pass it on . . . and one day you may be named as our saviors.

  8. Brian Taylor

    The one degree war won’t be won by ignoring the population bomb.

    Your paper altruistically suggests a cross subsidy from the rich to the very poor to offset the impact of carbon reduction. I suggest this will lead to even faster to even bigger problems. All animals, humans included, are programmed to breed. As soon as there appears a chance of offspring surviving, we are all at it again. Impoverished third worlders suddenly finding themselves with free money is unlikely to dampen reproduction. It will take several generations to get education and welfare in place for zero population growth and more time to put a lid on total human numbers. We just don’t have the time for a softly softly response.

    No way will affluent westerners voluntarily lower their lifestyles and embrace barefoot poverty which is where we all end up if the planet’s resources are equally shared. Rape and pillage of the planet is the capitalist economic model. Couple that with a population explosion and winning the one degree war is impossible.

    The inescapable fact is that humans are now in plague proportions. Our trajectory is 6 billion today going to nine billion, seemingly unstoppably, by 2025 or thereabouts. We already need 1.2 planets to sustain our current lifestyles.

    The animal kingdom shows us what happens when overshoot turns into collapse. Disease is what usually wipes out plague animals, rarely hunger. Protecting billions from bird flu, swine flu, spanish flu, hanta virus, ebola and all the other nasties is actually counter productive despite the enormous tugs to the heart strings photos of starving masses produce.

    This seems heartless but sadly we must face these unpleasant consequences. As you quote Churchill. Doing our best is not enough. We must do what is necessary to meet the goal. About 2 billion westerners seems to be about the carrying capacity of this third rock from the sun. How can we humanely and rapidly get the population down to 2 billion? War, disease, starvation and human bastardry will triumph over any orderly plan I am sure.

  9. I have been thinking along similar lines, but using the idea of “Emergency Management” rather than warfare. This came about from training as a Civil Defense volunteer, here in New Zealand, while reading Kunstler’s “Long Emergency”.

    There are four steps or phases for responding to natural disasters and emergency situations:
    1. Readiness: being prepared, implementing disaster avoidance and/or mitigation measures
    2. Response: acting when (during and after) a emergency event occurs
    3. Recovery: cleaning up and restoration
    4. Retribution: (slightly facetious addition by some EM people – there is always blame to be attributed). But in the case of warfare the importance of judgment or reconciliation is not to be underestimated (e.g. Nuremberg trials, prosecutions for crimes against humanity).

    The Emergency Management concept has a well-developed command-and-control model emphasizing organizational structure that is both cellular and scalable, often relying heavily on volunteers. This might be of use as the basis of a social or community movement.

    I am skeptical that any government would have the courage, or even simply the foresight, to treat climate change, peak oil (and yes, the “population bomb” too), as emergencies – but they certainly ought to.

  10. Hi Paul (& Folks :-)

    I first discovered your work a couple of weeks ago when a friend recommended I look at “Addicted to Money” (recently aired on ABC).

    I downloaded your paper and have been chewing on it since.

    I have, in my own small way, been bangin’ on about this stuff for years too. Often in the form of posing the following question to clients when I was doing bits of spasmodic consulting – “You do know that you cannot hope to establish a sustainable anything in an unsustainable context…don’t you?”

    This was usually met with suddenly relaxed lower-jaws and long, potentially awkward moments, while the ‘search-spidies’ tear around the neuronets trying to process it; then the ‘too hard’ protocol redirects them to their job description, the good ol’ ‘that’s not my problem’ disclaimer is triggered and the conversation continues as if the question was never asked. I’m sure you’re pretty used to that little scenario ey? :-)

    Anyway, in light of what I have read so far, including the excellent comments herein, I consider this is a bold, significant and oh so necessary starting point. And it is indeed heartening to finally find a ‘starting point’ worthy of the title.

    May I begin my additions to the mix (& I sincerely intend to continue adding to this mix), that we are facing an wholistic raft of interconnected non-linear issues, and that if we don’t adapt our very thinking in the first instance – and by that I mean now – or all the other ‘nows’ will likely amount to a bunch of ‘thens’ and ‘if onlys’.

    The observations of the so far reluctantly listened to ‘leading scientists’ (e.g. IPCC etc), have also served as a starting point in terms of identification and awareness of issues. But if we are going to act meaningfully and potently to address them, we must draw upon and engage the absolute plethora of sciences & scientists that have been busily infusing their disciplines with the non-linear necessity called wisdom.

    Nor can we approach this with our much loved and hard earned (usually at the expense of others), vested interests, save one…a collective vested interest in minimizing the damage. Yeh! I know! That’s what everyone reckons they are already doing. Well, I don’t reckon we’re going to get much further with the same ol’ bullshit either…do you? :-P

    I believe President Barack Obama was on the right track when he said:

    “We must ask, not just is it profitable, but is it right?”

    I also support some of Brians views on human nature as well; though I don’t know about the ‘population bomb’ thing. I think ‘the bomb’ has more to do with how we are going about living here than the numbers of people living here…and culling is a pretty hard sell in anyone’s language. :-)

    For now, my stance is simply this:

    I too believe that we have the capacity, ability and resources to meet these challenges and even benefit from them…but even if we miraculously find the collective will, I don’t believe that we can afford to approach any future with the same mindsets & paradigms that got us here. And I’m not talking about changing the content of our thoughts…I’m talking about changing the shape of our thoughts!

    I’ll finish off for now with a couple of videos that elaborate and expand upon on some of my inputs far more eruditely than I can here. And with the question, why aren’t we doing this stuff already (e.g. look at the date of Amory Lovins’ Oil Endgame video)?:

    This first one is the ‘must do’ and I believe it’s message to be fundamentally necessary to any approach to anything we do. Yes I know it’s impossible, but no less impossible than what we are talking about here :-). And even if the ‘key players’ can get a grip on it, I reckon it will dramatically improve our chances by organically filtering through the projects and communities, as and if we take viable, meaningful action. So in a nutshell, I’d call this the ‘How to do it’ bit:

    These ones are some ‘What to do’ bits:

    http://blog.ted.com/2008/05/paul_stamets.php

    http://blog.ted.com/2007/12/amory_lovins.php

    http://blog.ted.com/2009/03/learn_more_abou.php

    http://blog.ted.com/2009/09/3_warpspeed_arc.php

    (The non-linear bit is extrapolating this information, intertwining it, interconnecting it, and joining the dots without missing the point! :-)

    Hmmm! Funny how they’re all TED Vids ey? No I’m not a rep :-)

    I reckon that’ll do for a start…

    Cheers

    Stephen G

    PS Hey Paul! This is a conversation isn’t mate? So where are ya? Come on…INTERACT! :-)

  11. Paul Gilding

    Lots of great comments on this post, thanks to you all. A few responses to them collectively. Firstly population, this is unfortunately a “horse has bolted” issue. It would have been great to address is 30 years ago, but alas now, the momentum is such that the value of intervention is marginal BECAUSE the rate is coming down by itself i.e. it will stabilise by itself 2050 or so. Population is dropping in many countries (minus immigration) e.g. Japan, Italy etc. The numbers show that increasing wealth outstrips increasing population easily in terms of impact. That’s today’s issue.

    Secondly, many of you – stephen, john others – raised the issue of human nature, greed etc. I’ve spent a lot of time pondering this, and indeed I’m currently writing the hope/despair chapter of my book. I don’t buy it (that the cause is lost and hopeless). I think in some ways its a cop out – an excuse for giving up. I see the data all around us showing how tough it is and how ugly it WILL get, but there’s a big difference between 2 degrees, 4 degrees and 8 degrees in terms of human suffering. So I will carry on!

    And as Stephen said, (and thanks for the vid links) it WILL take a major shift in our thinking to get there, that’s for sure.

    I totally love the carbon farming ideas and action. This is a huge area of opportunity and I’m very bullish on it’s potential.

    Paul

  12. Good onya Paul :-)

    Excellent! Now that we’ve identified a couple of major potential ‘cop-outs’, we may be able to use this to adjust our focus on this conversation and further progress the discussion paper…whadyareckon? :-)

    I think if there is anything to be learned from what we have learned/are learning from Climate Change Science & myriad other observations of science and other ‘foundations’ of our cultures/civilisation it is that all these things are interconnected.

    Using Soil Sequestration of Carbon for example – hasn’t much of this got to do with employing practices that nature does by nature? In other words, applying the tenet ‘less is more’ with regard to management? That we are learning that we don’t actually need to control every single step of a process? That healthy soil has a staggeringly profound positive effect on the world? And that it’s not necessarily the worms, or the bacteria, or the mycelia or the minerals as individual components per se that are the discreet raison d’etre for these profound results, but the staggering interconnections transmitting the effects which are produced via their relationships? That perhaps the very ‘foundations’ of our civilisation may be in question, or should be? That perhaps what we thought were the ‘foundations’ of our civilisation are not foundations at all? That perhaps they are pillars which sit on foundations and that those foundations are in fact embedded in nature as nature?

    What I’m alluding to here is that although some of these views may be construed as ‘cop outs’, that it may be useful to consider that our civilisation has pillars or perhaps even foundations that have ever been unseen, right under our skyward pointing noses. That if indeed we do need to change the shape of our thoughts (i.e. resulting in more harmonic, constructive, life-promoting designs), and that changing them after the fact would be fairly ineffective, then not doing it and saying we did would be equally ineffective, wouldn’t it?

    What is the current data from the global ‘cop out-ometer (i.e. the ‘response ability’ of the planet in general)? Do we have one? If we did, would the arrow be leaning toward a high level of acceptance and effective common sense responses to challenges, or would it lean more toward ‘copping out’? (Please Note: Observations of the insane by the insane do not in my view constitute valid independent assessments (Insert Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Prinicple here ? ). I appreciate that my question is perhaps unrealistic in practice. For present purposes I hope that it is treated as illustrative and perhaps at best rhetorical).

    I would bet everything on my observation that the arrow on the global ‘cop out-ometer’ would be almost at the extreme level of ‘copping-out’. I also know, from my own experience that there is ‘no waste in nature’.

    It has also been my observation that so far, ‘we’ have consistently designed in a manner that is ‘exclusive’ (usually a pretty good indicator of a ‘linear’ mindset/approach). If it is somewhere near true that much of the population are in ‘cop out’ mode, are we going to continue our ‘exclusive’ design modalities under the assumption that our ‘cop-outers’ have nothing of value to contribute and are not a ‘resource’? Or worse…that we will not accept their contributions because they are not contributing in a manner that is ‘proper’ or ‘appropriate’ or ‘convivial’ or ‘convenient’? Or can we design so that they can be included as a resource?

    I’m a great believer in the power of stories, and ever since I was a child I wondered why all the ‘grown-ups’ weren’t living, or at least building our world in accord with our stories (i.e. then mostly ‘fairy stories’). But now that I’m a bit older and perhaps a tad more cynical (which unfortunately seems to have become the new definition for ‘realistic’), I see that perhaps we have been living our stories….we just went straight for the ‘happily ever after’ bits? :-)

    It is important to me that I feel that I can contribute to a conversation in a manner that to me feels constructive. In this case, the conversation has already begun to be distilled into a document. And I feel strongly about contributing to it and that of all the documents and conversations I have seen that this is the most practical, realistic and potential. ‘Naturally’ (perhaps), it is also important that my contributions would also need to be perceived as constructive by other contributors. So clearly the dynamic of the challenges we face are fractal; they exist on the micro as they do on the macro and are very similar indeed…

    I believe that unless we design to include ‘human nature’ as it is and ‘humans’ nature AS IT IS and nature as nature, then we will continue struggling to join the dots, whilst missing the point…not to mention excluding what may prove to be one of our most valuable and most prevalent resources….denial.

    I’m also a believer in working with what we’ve got…rather than what I wish was there…and this document by far meets those parameters better than any other I’ve seen…

    So in my first attempt at addressing the document itself and in an attempt to begin targeting my contributions hopefully constructively, I would like clarify the intended focus/purpose of the document as a document, by asking the following:

    1) Is this intended to be a mandate to focus a gathering of ‘doers’ regardless of the direction ‘crisis perception/acceptance’ of the rest of the world? – “The main point of this paper is to detail what the level of mobilisation and action required to stop climate change could look like and to begin the process of refining such a plan. ” (page 2)

    2) Or is it intended to be ‘sold’ to the rest of the world in the hope that we will begin implementing within the specified time-frames? – “We are therefore writing this paper to encourage people to plan for such a One Degree War sooner rather than later.” (Page 4)

    3) Or is it a document that simply needs to be done so that it can be filed away and we can say we tried our best, walk away feeling superior and hope that when ‘society perceives a crisis’ that in our last minute panic we will out of the myriad other ‘action plans’ filed away, reach for this one? – “Therefore society will, when the crisis hits and the scale of the threat is understood, demand a plan to achieve no more than 1 degree of warming. ” (Page 4)

    4) Or is it all of the above?

    Hoping that if nothing else, at this seemingly early stage, my contribution helps to get the porridge bubbling :-)

    Cheers

    Stephen G

  13. Wayne

    Why not make it a few degrees? Even 5 degrees? One degree leaves me feeling I’m standing too close to the edge & could fall off anyway.

  14. Don

    Paul, you have already made your choices. 5 kids eh? Didn’t think that population was a problem whilst you were making that lot maybe?

    “Do as I say, not as I do.”

    Never heard that before.

  15. Mark Duffett

    It staggers me how anyone can invoke a WWII/climate analogy and still contrive to avoid nuclear power, as the ‘One Degree War Plan’ does. Of all the disruptions to the prewar economic order that the ODWP document mentions, one is conspicuously omitted: the Manhattan Project. The Allies did not eschew nuclear technology in pulling out all stops to win WWII. If you do, you’re not fair dinkum.

  16. Humankind is pure greed until it hits the wall of fear…and once the wall is removed humans immediately revert to pure greed.

    The one thing that can change that dynamic is also the one thing the overwhelming majority of humans are NOT greedy for – education.

    So remember the sailor’s motto – “One hand for the ship and one hand for yourself.”

  17. Myrthe Baijens

    Dear Mr Gilding and everyone else here,

    I’m glad we’ve got this plan, let’s implement it. I have 2 questions about it:
    Stephen Glanville suggested 4 ways of how this document was meant to be used. Which way is the right one? Is there currrently a group of people or an institution working it out already? If so, I’d love to join in.

    Second question: table 1 gives an overview of all emissions per sector and shows a pathway toward zero emissions. But as I read in The Stern Review, about 60% of emissions are already absorbed by soil, vegetation and oceans. (How) is this incorporated into the plan? If not, I think the effort needed would be significantly smaller than stated in the plan, though still enormous.

    Kind regards,

    Myrthe Baijens
    Student from The Netherlands and Germany

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s