WARNING -- THIS MIGHT BE DISTURBING TO MANY AS IT WAS TO US
How many times have you heard or read that "What's happening is worse than (the scientists) predicted!" The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose modeling, biases, and mentality drives most governments' assessments and goals, including our own, unfortunately and consistently underestimates the future.
Here are some of the reasons why:
- First, scientists are people and like other folks they have biases and emotions. As scientists, in general they have a bias to err on the side of least drama and to adhere to scientific norms of restraint, caution, objectivity, skepticism, precision, rationality, certainty, dispassion, and moderation.
- Now as a clear but scary example of the IPCC's tendency to underestimate the future, it's completely left permafrost out of its predictions and assessments!
- Permafrost with 1.7 trillion tonnes of carbon and around 60 billion tonnes of methane, is arguably the biggest eco-time bomb of all! As the Woodwell Climate Research Center put it, permafrost "has historically been excluded because of gaps in data that make existing estimates of emissions less precise."
- Its president, Dr. Max Holmes, went on to say it's “especially alarming… that permafrost carbon is largely ignored in current climate change models.” That’s because permafrost thaw emissions could take up 25-40% of our remaining emissions budgeted to cap warming at 2°C. Imagine leaving the cost of rent out of your household budget. It doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay it, it just means you won’t be prepared when that bill arrives."
- Equally unrealistic is the IPCC's view that future outlooks are "unlikely" if they're outside the middle two-thirds of all probabilities! Would you get on a plane with a one in three chance of crashing?
- We could go on as there are many other aspects of the disfunctionality of the IPCC, well laid out in the sobering study, What Lies Beneath, but in the interest of brevity, we'd like to examine the current and predominant concept of a carbon budget, mentioned by Dr. Holmes, and its ramifications.
- A carbon budget is the cumulative amount of greenhouse gas emissions permitted/allowed over a period of time to keep within a certain temperature threshold or cap considered okay if we get close to and even right underneath it but don't hit it -- but we're not really sure.
- First, the very mental and emotional attitude of "permitting/allowing" more greenhouse gas emissions in our view insidiously grants some subtle degree of approval to them and lack of urgency in lowering them. This general attitude, in our view, like previous Congressional bills and the most recent one, the IRA, is usually a cover for "business as usual, as much and as long as possible". In our view, this is probably one of the major reasons why all the U.N. COP climate conferences had lots of voluntary pledges, promises, "goals" and caps but no financial incentives and disincentives to get there!
- Contrast that with reducing greenhouse gas emissions ASAP in a "full court press" with accelerating and increasing financial incentives and disincentives like True Cost Transformation Fees and Green Economy Rebates, seen in our Petition's Plan.
- Second, Dr. Holmes' metaphor of a household having a budget with fixed income and a landlord needing a fixed rent is in our view not quite right. That's because with the pollution, climate and biodiversity emergencies and humanity, nothing is fixed! Everything is in motion, nothing is certain; the household income, the rent, the utilities, the cap might turn out to need to be lower, much lower because of new research, observations etc.
- Bottom line: There are things we know, things we think we know but find out we didn't know, lots of things we know we don't know about (like the tens of 1000s of untested chemicals), and things we don't even know we don't know. Like who could have conceived or predicted that propellants in a spray could destroy the life-protecting ozone layer high up in the atmosphere? Or that coastal deforestation affects interior rainfall? Or that burning fossil fuels could lower sperm counts?
- While the universe of what we don't know we don't know is possibly infinite, there are a couple of things we do know. Logic, experience and the law of unintended consequences tells us the more greenhouse gases we emit, the more chemicals we recklessly use without tests, the more changes we recklessly make to degrade the Earth’s major ecosystems, the more unintended consequences we’ll have to deal with. If we continue this uncontrolled experiment on ourselves, our children and our world, we’ll continue to discover after the fact new problems we often had no idea could even emerge.