Illusory Truth, Truth, and Threats
And some of my geopolitical ramblings
Until the Russian invasion of Ukraine I felt something was brewing. Now, I rather feel things are playing out. On a human level this is just heartbreaking, since so many suffer.
On a systems level though it is quite interesting. Considering that the status quo is unsustainable, we must accept change will come, one way or another. The pathway of coordinated, rational and peaceful systemic change seems beyond reach, so we will probably see more unpredictable, nonlinear change processes unfold.
Accepting systems change at a global scale is a highly nonlinear process, I believe it is essentially impossible to predict where disruptions, as war in Europe, Africa and Middle East, upcoming fascism worldwide, and oligarchy in the USA, will take us. But the current trajectory feels a bit like a Mad Max scenario to me.
One thing is clear, the world is changing. The big question however, is not who will be the leading world power. Nor how AI is going to change our lives. Or whether we will build settlements on Mars. The big question is will we wake up in time to save the biosphere of planet Life, the blue water planet that has brought forth all life known to us.
The threat can be summarized in one word: pollution. And long term impacts from pollution, such as species loss and irreversible climate change. Instead of nourishing the ecosphere, we are destroying it. Here, I would like to stress that we are able of fulfilling beneficial ecosystem functions, like any other species. How we got too smart to behave ecologically intelligent is the story of modem man, in my opinion.
In this post I would like to focus on the perfectly odorless and invisible pollution that epitomizes industrial modernity, and happens to be a cornerstone of life. You may be sick and tired of hearing this molecule mentioned, as it is also highly politicized, but I will nevertheless, as it is getting so much attention for a reason.
We have built the industrialized modern world with fossil fuels and used millions of years of stored sunlight to change the face of the earth. All the while dumping the combustion waste in the atmosphere, mostly without giving it a second thought.
This however is taking us back to a climate of millions of years ago, similar to the Mid-Piacenzian Warm Period, when sea levels were 25 m higher and CO2 levels were around 400 ppm (we’re now at 420+ ppm). The the last 10 thousand years, when human civilizations emerged, has seen very stable CO2 levels, of 275+/-10 ppm.
This story about photosynthesis and fossil hydrocarbons connects directly with Russia and the USA, both major fossil fuel producers. I think it is safe to say a Putin wouldn’t be possible without Russian oil and gas. And I would argue, a Trump neither.
Their international “fuck you” attitude is possible thanks to domestic energy abundance and energy independence. A stance China and the EU cannot afford, which may be a blessing in disguise. What we see is that the US and Russian sense of independence is causing isolation, which, I believe, will ultimately weaken them.
Apart from providing calories the value of fossil fuel (ff) assets depends on global demand. Big economies with relatively few ff assets, such as the EU, China and India have all begun to invest heavily in decarbonization.
Some will swear decarbonizaton is not needed and economically disastrous, others will say it is absolutely necessary ASAP and basically already the most economic option. This debate is very heated because whole industries, and all the people whose livelihoods depend on these industries, have become existentially dependent on the outcome of this debate. At least in their minds.
Below I will give an example of how heated things are getting. I will also use this occasion to platform my previously published stance with regard the to odorless and invisible molecule from fossil origin.
My stance is as radical as simple: ban emissions by 2050 in Europe, and try to get China and India on board. Give ff producers time to prepare and let them know they can only keep serving the market as long as they accept an extended producer responsibility for the full lifecycle of their products, and comply with the emissions regulations.
Ultimately they would have to show that all fossil carbon extraction is matched with geological fossil carbon storage. Putting it back where it came from, instead of dumping it in the atmosphere, or loading it onto the biosphere (nature-based carbon capture and storage) .
Will this ever happen? I think this might depend on how successful we are at providing people with illusory truth protection. The most effective antidote is probably critical thinking skills. In other words education.
Another problem is “nature denialism”. Only a city person can believe something as silly as limitless growth is to be pursued. This concept is absolutely nonexistent in nature. What comes close is excessive growth, which in nature we call a plague.
A plague typically causes mass destruction followed population collapse. Indeed, it is fair to say mass extinction is built into our current economic model. And what does my head in is that most economists still seem oblivious to this.
We humans are social animals, which probably explains why we tend to use our unequaled brain capacity for belief systems and manipulation. Our social nature makes group think prevalent, as belonging to a group makes us feel safe.
The first time you hear an outlandish claim you will probably think what a nonsense. But when you hear the same claim repeated many times, by many people, it will ring more true. In psychology this is called the Illusory Truth Effect.
Social media provide an excellent platform to spread disinformation, reaching many at low, or no cost. A few weeks ago, during the bush fires in Los Angeles, a meme went viral on LinkedIn, reaching almost 800 thousand views in a week.
The post conveys the message that “The emotional narrative of saving the planet with Net Zero is misguided. The harsh reality is that forest management is far more effective.”
The post prompted me to rant a bit in a comment how stupid I find it. And I decided to something I usually don’t do. I decided to write David a personal message and call him out. That’s when things became interesting in a sort of uneasy and even frightening way.
David was quick to reply saying “[…] 80% of scientists do not support manmade climate change.”. That is lie number one. Actual agreement among scientists about anthropogenic climate change is virtually 100%.
And he continues more aggressive “The amount of evidence sitting ready for Government enquiries to be held into one of the biggest frauds of the century is staggering. There are a lot of angry people seeking to throw climate scientists into jail.” The longing for kill-the-messenger violence is palpable.
In the same message David writes “There is not a shred of evidence to support the theory that CO2 causes warming.”, a repetition of the lie, and “Climate science is dead.”, another repetition. All the while David is building illusory truth in the minds of his audience. We see this tactic applied in politics as well.
In the meantime another physicist on LinkedIn, Wouter Schiferli, took the time to find some actual numbers. In a comment on LinkedIn he writes:
The numbers don't make any sense at all. Annual CO2 emissions of California were 370 Mt in 2022 (megaton = million metric tonnes). Reaching net zero means these emissions are no longer present.
The emissions from wildfires in California in 2023 are estimated at 9.1 Mt (both from CARB data). These are fast cycle emissions which are at least partially compensated by regrowth of vegetation.
The major effect of volcanic eruptions is that they cause SO2 emissions which can lead to cooling. The Hunga-Tonga eruption emitted water vapour which can lead to warming in the short term. However, this is a short term effect (at most a couple of years) which is not the case for the 370 Mt of emissions. Direct CO2 emissions are more difficult to estimate but are estimated at 2-5 Mt. (Google USA today article).
Since I am a curious by nature I decided to explore David’s motivation a bit more. Soon I realized Davis is driven by resentment, because he has seen funding go to green projects rather than his projects:
I tried to put to Government a program to capture CO2 from coal power stations and convert it into methanol. We could have achieved 50% reduction in emissions, 50% cut in costs, and use of fossil fuels. But solar and wind grabs all the investment and still uses large volumes of fossil fuels in coal and gas.
And I must say I feel compassion and even agree he has a point.
With the change of the political tide in the US David clearly feels empowered. He continues saying “NetZero will be all but finished at the end of 2025. Government grants for green will evaporate. […] We are winning, climate scientists are losing.”
I decided to use Wouter’s numbers to fix David’s meme, and low and behold it’s all the other way around:
Of course David was not impressed with my alteration of his meme. After all he had already written me “I am just not going to get into the numbers game.”. And he keeps his eyes on the ball: “What I have to do is convince the majority of voters to shut down renewables and end Paris Accord. […] Once done, we will present how scientists lied and deceived people. hopefully we can put some in Jail.”
My takeaways from recent political developments and my interaction with David are that
the last meaningful international climate agreement, the 2016 Paris Accord, is indeed dead, both from lack of social support, and also because the 1.5C warming it aimed to prevent is already upon us;
social unrest is likely to increase, while societal structures are crumbling;
oligarchs are taking over, which means fascism and totalitarianism.
Apparently this is how primates, with very big brains, take responsibility and manage crisis. I understand this, considering our nature as status seeking social animals, looking for short term gains. But it seems at odds with the evolution of our biological form. Small brains and a long neck would have made it much easier to bury our heads in the sand.
Related posts:
Please consider supporting my work by becoming a paid subscriber. Paid subscriptions allow me to dedicate more time to researching and writing.
Hello Tycho, Been awhile since we communicated. You know that air pollution isn't contained in a region like the EU. So banning emissions there from tailpipes, heating, industrial activity, electricity generation, agricultural applications, etc. would simply transfer emission output elsewhere. Mining, transporting ores, smelting, transporting metals, fabricating parts for wind/solar/hydro/geothermal/tidal..., assembly wherever including transport of the infrastructure elements, all have embedded energy at each step.
Do you think that the EU or any developed region will voluntarily go on energy diets? Meanwhile there are billions seeking to increase their throughput by whatever means possible as they are in INvoluntary simplicity currently. Note that I am not questioning the relative emissions from the posted diagrams. It truly doesn't matter how accurate either one is, as you can be sure that all the FFs able to be harvested and used will be used. Humans aren't exempt from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle