Share

cover art for 516: Geoengineering: Prologue or Epilogue for Humanity?

This Sustainable Life

516: Geoengineering: Prologue or Epilogue for Humanity?

Ep. 516

Here are the notes I read from, responding to this op-ed piece and this review for a book I've talked to the author about but haven't read.

Geoengineering Prologue or Epilogue for Humanity?

Introduction, context

  • Geoengineering is becoming a more common topic as people feel more desperate. The common theme is that when things get serious, we have to put everything on the table, even things that may not work. The problem isn't if they'll work on their intended goal, but everything else. Over and over again in history, the unintended side-effects dwarf the intended ones. In fact, the story of oil, plastics, and most of our environmental problems today, since nobody chose to pollute but did try to improve people's lives despite side-effects they hoped would be small, geoengineering continues that story. Each time people thought they would solve. Each time it exacerbated and here we are.
  • What got us into this mess won't get us out. It will get us deeper.
  • Two recent pieces on geoengineering: Gernot Wagner book and David Keith NY Times editorial. Both results of months of just writing based on years of research and dedicated practice. I've met Gernot in person. Haven't read book but got some of it vocally. Don't know Keith but mutual friends.
  • David Keith invited to engage by Twitter, which I think is disaster and one of our main problems today. People trying to checkmate each other in 160 characters, as he did in saying, please provide data.
  • I will provide data, but not the kind he thinks. As you'll see, I believe history proves his approach disastrous.
  • Both present unassailable perspective: we have to study, not dismiss out of hand, though I think they miss many have studied and out of thoughtful consideration and with difficulty but confidence reject.
  • With 7.9 billion people, no objection to some studying. Plenty of resources.
  • I don't say don't read the article or book. Besides that I haven't read the book, they mean well and want to save humanity from ecological catastrophe. Both value stopping emissions as primary.
  • I'm not saying don't read them, but I recommend other works first. I'd start
  • I may be misinterpreting, but I see them as approaching in two ways: at science and engineering level, understanding the situation, both the state of nature and the state of our technology, and innovating solutions. At the decision-making level, figuring out what we should do.
  • I have a PhD in physics, I helped launch satellites with NASA and ESA to observe atmospheres, I've invented and patented several inventions, brought them working to the world, raising millions to do it. I also ran businesses, got an MBA, and coach executives at some of the world's largest and most prominent organizations, so I'm not a babe in the woods in these areas.

How to look at it

  • What data do I suggest and what do I suggest reading first, before their works?
  • While tempting to look at it as engineering issue, I see it as high-stakes decision-making where we don't have the luxury of not responding somehow, can't possibly have all the information we want, and sections of global economy including millions to billions of lives affected, even human extinction in play.
  • There is precedent, which is the data and history to learn from.
  • Caveat: nothing is perfectly relevant. We are in uncharted territory. In all comparisons, more differences than similarities. But we have no alternate universes to practice on, only history of huge decisions. I don't like situation either, but agree on research.
  • Each comparable itself could be studied forever in infinite detail. None had control groups or alternative realities. But like Gernot and Keith, I believe more study. At end I'll get to where lines of research I prefer could lead.

Comparables and resources

  • Vietnam
  • McNamara and best and brightest from Harvard, etc.
  • Data was last war. Sought numbers in kill ratio, etc.
  • But underlying model was Domino Theory, we're huge and they're third-world, we beat Hitler
  • Johnson focused on domestic agenda, where he was master, and just wanted this to go away. Didn't face it.
  • Military said we have solutions. Believed they could overpower, had to overpower because of Domino Theory.
  • Domino Theory was wrong, without basis. Numbers distracted from hearts and minds.
  • Simple, enjoyable resource on decision-making: Path to War, "Television critic Matt Zoller Seitz in his 2016 book named Path to War as the 6th greatest American TV-movie of all time"
  • Also Fog of War about McNamara's reflections looking back
  • Space shuttle
  • Some data but not relevant so had to extrapolate. People felt desperate and scared not to act.
  • Lots of ways to interpret. There always will be. In this case they made the wrong choice. They knew if they chose otherwise, people could always second guess and say they were wrong.
  • Resource: One of Harvard's case studies of conflicting interests. As physicist, Richard Feynman's stories of decision-making morass.
  • Building highways into cities, Robert Moses, Jane Jacobs
  • Robert Moses always had the data and always got the funding. But data and projections were based on a model as flawed and unfounded as the Domino Theory, that traffic implied demand and more roads would lower congestion. Opposite happened most of the time. We have to live with results for centuries, including today's climate and pollution.
  • By contrast, look at Amsterdam, especially channel called Not Just Bikes. Amsterdam could have looked like Houston does today. Imagine Houston looked like Amsterdam and was as livable.
  • Resources: The Power Broker and Death and Life of Great American Cities.
  • D-Day and Eisenhower
  • To launch or not launch invasion where weather is difficult to predict, can make all the difference, and if you don't go one day, moon and tides mean next time might be a month or never. Hundreds of thousands of men's lives at stake, or all of Europe and free world.
  • Resource: Ike: Countdown to D-Day starring Tom Selleck for focusing on the decision-making and teamwork amid civilization-in-the-balance stress.
  • Green Revolution and Norman Borlaug
  • Faced with people dying immediately, he did what he could to save them. Mid-career he saw the consequences. He enabled more population growth. He used the term "population monster". If anyone knew population, the consequences of its growth, and balancing saving people now and risking bigger problems later and facing the systemic problems now, he did.
  • He spent the latter half of his career talking about the population monster, helping the Population Media Center, for example.
  • Resource, his own quote: The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only.
  • Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the “Population Monster”. . . Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth…
  • We haven't acted, his prediction is happening, and geoengineering will at least repeat the problem, more likely augment it. At least it seems a close comparison.
  • Also, recent PBS American Experience on him.
  • Cuban Missile Crisis
  • Joint Chiefs of Staff said situation was serious and we had to act before missiles were armed.
  • Even JFK thought negotiation wouldn't work. It did. We didn't invade.
  • We learned decades later that the warheads were armed, Castro had approval. If he expected to be killed, he could have launched missiles to kill tens of millions and start WWIII.
  • Data suggested invading was best option.
  • Resource: Movie 13 Days. I haven't yet read the book.
  • CVS Drugs -> Health
  • All advice was to keep selling their top profit line. If they didn't, anyone could walk a few steps to another store.
  • Within twelve months they reached former profit levels.
  • Big case: the abolitionists pushing to end slavery in the British Empire. 1807.

Their model and mine

  • I think they see situation like we're heading to a cliff and have to stop the car. They say best solution is to take foot off gas, which is pollution and greenhouse gases, but that doesn't stop the car. Their solutions are more like putting chemical in gas tank to stop engine.
  • I'll grant that view, but only looking at climate misses full situation. Our environmental problems are more than just temperature. If they see the cliff in front and rapidly approaching, I think they see it like the end of Thelma and Louise, broad, flat, lots of space. Not cops behind.
  • But more than climate. It's more like we're on a thin promontory or like thin pier over since there are many other dangers. To the right might be biodiversity loss, which could doom us too. To the left, pollution. About 10 million people a year die from breathing air. But we need more dimensions we could fall off so maybe there are land mines, which represent deforestation, and huge storms representing ocean acidification, and we have to construct more things to represent overpopulation, overfishing, running out of minerals, depleting aquifers, depleting topsoil, and you've seen the headlines and know many more, few of which geoengineering would help and most of which it would exacerbate, not buy us time.
  • So geoengineering is more like we're headed toward a cliff, already with cliffs immediately to our left and right, and more, and geoengineering is like slashing the tires or causing the engine to seize violently, which might possibly keep us from the cliff in front, but first causing us to lose control. Here the analogy is too small because it could cause us to fall off both the left, right, and other dimensions, hit a land mine, get hit by lightning, roll over and crash, and so on.
  • But their version of the Domino Theory and self-confidence blinds them from seeing anything other than one problem and all the other side-effects and the line of thinking that got us here.

Lessons

  • Acting out of desperation, helplessness, and hopelessness, even when desperate, produces poor decisions.
  • Don't have to ignore long-term to act on short-term. We can regret wrong decisions
  • Study leadership and decision-making. Rarely do technical solutions to social problems solve them.
  • Look for social solutions to social problems. Look at Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand, Population Media Center.
  • Expect unintended side-effects to be greater than effects, as Norman Borlaug eventually realized.
  • Then there's how to learn any performance-based skill: practice. Want to get to Carnegie Hall, Wimbledon, or NBA finals? Practice. If you haven't practiced, you haven't developed the skills. Want to live sustainably? Try! If you pollute more than the average, you probably don't know many solutions that work. Just spoke with James Rebank, a bestselling author, a farmer who started path to industrial. When he tried regenerative things he couldn't have imagined worked.
  • Watch Fog of War to see how McNamara saw how flawed their process was. For that matter, the term fog of war comes from Von Clausewitz. I'm in the middle of reading his work, but listen to my episode with Marine Corps General Von Riper, who cleaned up the floor with the US military in the millennium challenge, playing a woefully under-resourced red team.

Solutions?

  • My goal here is not to be comprehensive, just some quick thoughts since I don't want to take too long to respond to David Keith's tweets.
  • There is a solution that works. Not full solution but major part: live sustainably, as humans have for about 300,000 years. The knee-jerk response is, "but we live differently today." Yes, how we live is what we have to change. The longer we wait, the harder.
  • I just recorded a conversation with a guy who lost his legs to flesh-eating disease. Would you rather live sustainably or lose both legs? Because if you prefer living sustainably, well he was minutes from death, but just returned from Tokyo with a silver medal and shared how lucky his life and great he's made it. He points out everyone suffers and we all face challenges often we didn't ask for. If he can with the choice you don't want, we can do so with the preferable choice. Only we'll eat more vegetables and live closer to family. Mostly life improvements.
  • They downplay the possibility. Listeners to this podcast know I lived like the average American, probably polluting more, but dropped 90 percent. It was as hard for me as everyone, but once committed, doable. Once done, fun, freedom, joy, and better, because living by universal values. Actually, still going as skills develop.
  • Engaging people we disagree with, who think there's no problem, who see population as impossible to change
  • Pope and evangelicals
  • Following domination to stewardship transformation (and Earth not center), grains of sand prophecy interpretation.
  • Contraception: I haven't had vasectomy, but if you can imagine colonizing Mars, I can imagine an implant that can stop and start flow of sperm. Nearly half of pregnancies accidental. Nearly 300,000 years of human history was replacement level and endured. I can imagine a similar device for women. I can even imagine Popes endorsing.
  • When we change our values we innovate just as much, but in direction of new values, which I propose to be stewardship and increasing Earth's ability to sustain life.
  • We can come up with more solutions if we try. Few people are innovating by those values, certainly not in Silicon Valley, Washington DC, or academia.

More episodes

View all episodes

  • 795. 795: Lorraine Smith, part 1: Leaving mainstream "sustainability" to pursue actual sustainability

    01:17:35||Ep. 795
    Lorraine is one of the few people I know who saw mainstream sustainability efforts for what they are: ineffective and often counterproductive but self-congratulatory. I call most of them "stepping on the gas, thinking it's the brake, wanting congratulations."Unlike most others, once she saw their counterproductivity, if not outright lies, she left. She works to promote an "economy in service of life." I think it's easy to see that our current global economy is not serving life. The amount of life on earth is decreasing.Lorraine shares her history of ramping up on mainstream sustainability, her disillusionment, her acting by her values to exit, and her finding what to do. We also commiserate on the challenges we face in living by different cultures than mainstream. It's hard. We face headwinds every day, even from people who want to help us; especially from people trying to help us, like people who claim to be environmentalist but don't change culture or themselves.
  • 794. 794: Lorna Davis, part 3: Before taking the sustainability leadership workshop

    53:53||Ep. 794
    Lorna first appeared on this podcast in 2021. We became friends and remained so, though we challenge each other, as you'll hear in this conversation. We don't try to. Just things about the other annoy us. But how much we respect and learn from each other outshines that annoyance.Lorna knew about the Spodek Method and workshops for years. I don't know why she didn't join one until now, but something clicked and she decided to. I think meeting Evelyn led her to see the technique appealed to people like her and unlike me; that acting as much as I do on sustainability didn't result from a quirk of mine.In this episode, she shares her views, concerns, and thoughts about the workshop and how it might affect her and her relationships. We plan to record another conversation after she finishes the workshop. If you haven't thought about taking it, learn more about it here, then compare how you feel about taking it with what Lorna expresses.I don't know about you, but I'm curious how she'll experience it. Have I overpromised? Is there something quirky about me leading me to unique or unusual results?Don't forget to come back to listen to her experience after taking the workshop.
  • 793. 793: Nick Loris, part 1.5: Heartwarming nature, family, and fatherhood

    49:47||Ep. 793
    People I talk to on the political left who care about the environment see people on the political right as opponents to defeat. When I share that I talk to people from Heritage Foundation, where Nick worked, they sound skeptical at best, more commonly incredulous and fearful.In this episode, you'll hear heartwarming stories of Nick's childhood with his father, then Nick today finding a way to manifest what he experienced then. You'll also hear he just got married, so I predict the commitment he made in this episode helps contribute to his growing family life.I'm starting to find it hard to believe people see others as opponents regarding the environment and sustainability. Treating them that way makes things adversarial. I wish they'd stop. Let's see if working together, practicing sustainability leadership, such as with the Spodek Method, helps us work together to solve our environmental problems more effectively.
  • 792. 792: Travis Fisher, part 2: The spirit that America was founded on, Cato, and sustainability

    01:16:20||Ep. 792
    We recorded this conversation just after the election. We talked about it, especially Travis's and the Cato Institute's views. One of his main views is that the US puts too much executive authority in the president. I'm alsoWe shared our concerns about the Inflation Reduction Act coming from different standpoints, but agreeing with each other.Our main conversation was about approaching sustainability from a view of freedom, not coercion or imposing values. I share my view thatIf you think living more sustainably makes people’s lives worse, you have to become a better dictator.If you think living more sustainably improves people’s lives, you learn to become a better marketer, entrepreneur, or leader.Travis agrees on the problems with top-down coercion and we took off from there.My interview in Washington Square Park where the interviewer tried to rile me up.My post: If you think living more sustainably makes people’s lives worse, you have to become a better dictator. If you think living more sustainably improves people’s lives, you learn to become a better marketer, entrepreneur, or leader.
  • 791. 791: Sustainability Leadership Is a Performance Art

    01:06:59||Ep. 791
    I'm following up my recent solo post, 790: Talking to a guy injecting on the sidewalk, with another extemporaneous one. This one is also with a former podcast guest and fellow teacher of our sustainability leadership workshop, Evelyn Wallace.This episode gives an inside view of how I develop ideas in our entrepreneurial team. In particular, I share a few insights into what I offer in the workshops. I've long known to avoid facts, numbers, and lecture. I avoid convincing, cajoling, and coercing, which I call bludgeoning. Most sustainability work I know of go in those directions.I've long seen leadership as a performance art. We learn to practice arts through practicing the basics, which is why my books Leadership Step by Step and Initiative teach through experiential learning: practicing the basics.Our sustainability leadership workshops teach the basics of sustainability leadership. As with any skill or art, mastering it creates freedom to express oneself, as well as liberation, fun, self-expression, self-awareness, and other skills that make life transcendent.
  • 790. 790: Talking to a guy injecting on the sidewalk

    47:59||Ep. 790
    On a beautiful sunny Saturday, 9:50am, I was walking to Washington Square Park to charge my battery and talk at 10am to my friend Dan McPherson (he's been on the podcast, where he shared about his heart attack at age 46 the week before we recorded). I saw the guy in the picture injecting. I asked if I could take his picture and a brief conversation ensued.Instead of my planned conversation with Dan, we recorded my experience and thoughts about the conversation with the guy injecting on the sidewalk. I haven't edited anything. I recorded with just my headphone microphone so sorry about the audio quality, but I think you'll be able to understand us fine.I also didn't prepare. I'm not speaking from notes or even more than a few minutes to reflect. You'll get to hear my thoughts raw.As it happens, Dan is about a third of the way through my book, Sustainability Simplified. It came up in conversation, so you'll get to hear the impressions of someone who has read it. Only at the very end of the call did I think to text Dan the pictures, so listen to the end to hear his thoughts on the book.
  • 789. 789: Solomon Schmidt: Author of Legal Gladiator, on Alan Dershowitz

    53:40||Ep. 789
    As a podcast host, I get pitched a lot of authors, books, and more. Most aren't relevant or are counterproductive to sustainability. I received an email promoting the author of Legal Gladiator, a biography of Alan Dershowitz. I knew the name from the news, but didn't know more than the name, maybe a whiff of his being controversial.I looked up the book and author and found both fascinating. I scheduled talking to Solomon unrecorded to meet him and see if the connection would fit. I like bringing leaders from any field to sustainability since the field nearly completely lacks it. Solomon and Alan both seem like leaders, so I invited him.Quoting from the book's page:Praise for Solomon Schmidt:“You are a very talented young man with a bright future ahead of you.”—Pres. Donald Trump “An amazing young author.”—Mike Tyson “[You have] quite a remarkable record. [I’m] really impressed.”—Dr. Noam Chomsky “Solomon, thanks for all you do.”—Gov. Mike Huckabee “Solomon...is perhaps the youngest child historian in America.”—Steve Doocy“Solomon’s doing the hard work and getting after it.—Jocko Willink “[I have] admiration for all [Solomon is] doing to make this a better world—and a more educated world.”—Dame Jane Goodall"A reputable author."—Rep. Jamie RaskinWe talk mostly about Alan, though also about Solomon. We don't talk much about sustainability, though the leadership shines. I am confident you'll find this episode, Solomon, and Alan fascinating. I'd love your thoughts.
  • 788. 788: Susan Liebell: John Locke, Stewardship, and the US Constitution

    01:11:19||Ep. 788
    I quote Susan in my book, Sustainability Simplified. In it you'll see how much John Locke influenced my long-term vision for the US to understand and solve our environmental problems. Learning about the Thirteenth Amendment, which (mostly) banned slavery, and its improbable path to passage and ratification led me to think about solving our environmental problems similarly.I learned that many people working to abolish slavery worked hard when drafting the US Constitution to make it able to support abolitionism and to disallow property in man. Slaveholders opposed them, so they accepted compromises. Still, they put enough into the Constitution to enable weakening the institution enough to eventually end it. I wondered if sustainability might have similar precedent, like some law or phrasing of the Constitution that might have disallowed polluting or depleting.It turns out there was. It was in John Locke's Two Treatises on Government. The more I researched the man, his writings, and our Constitution, the more he seemed to apply to our environmental problems. That research led me to a paper by Susan Liebell, which I link to below.My conversation with Susan explore the application of his work and theories.Her paper that brought me to her: The Text and Context of "Enough and as Good": John Locke as the Foundation of an Environmental Liberalism
  • 787. 787: Travis Fisher, part 1: A nonpartisan, libertarian view on the environment from the Cato Institute

    46:26||Ep. 787
    I've been curious in what ways libertarian views on the environment and sustainability differ from conservative views. Travis worked at the Heritage Foundation, which is more conservative, and now works at the Cato Institute, which is more libertarian. Since I haven't spoken to many libertarians directly, I'm interested in this conversation to learn, so it's a conversation, not a debate.Early in our conversation, he describes some of their differences and similarities, and why he chose Cato. He shares some of his training and background that led him to his views.Then we talked about a few issues: the Inflation Reduction Act, regulation, how government funding of many programs results in industries growing without being profitable from its customers. We look at several moral hazards, including government gaining money and power from permitting polluting behavior and distributing funding evenly so everyone votes for something even if it doesn't help.We recorded just before the election so talked about recording again after the election to talk about how its results affect the political, energy, and pollution landscape.