Returning to the prime directive

After spending a few installments establishing that ‘bias’ is a fundamental flaw in both humans and our computer models, I feel comfortable moving beyond the pedantic premise of this serial into a more personal (and perhaps more conventional) blog. I won’t continue explicitly encouraging readers to think independently (you should). Instead, I will share my (biased) opinions without further qualification. I’m sure I’ve never entirely avoided bias, anyway, and I’ll cite primary data where available. I remain committed to transparency and fact-based arguments while encouraging opposing viewpoints that hold to the same standards.

It’s time to return to the prime directive of this newsletter, namely describing the unfortunate changes humans have wrought in our planet’s atmosphere while outlining areas for technological solutions. I’ve tried to narrow this scope somewhat by considering only solutions that create the conditions for a natural healing process that aligns with both Human Nature and Mother Nature rather than those that seek to repair the damage directly.

Nevertheless, the basics persist: Clever engineering is necessary but insufficient to steer humanity from the precipice that otherwise virtuous humans are being pushed toward, Thelma & Louise style. Moreover, considering Nature and the global scale of the problem necessarily restricts our choices: There are laws of Physics and Economics that we cannot evade or repeal, however unattractive our options might be.

<rant>

The prevailing wisdom, namely that we must “decarbonize” our energy supply entirely to “net zero” by any means necessary, flies squarely in the face of history and ignores chemistry fundamentals. “Energy transitions” are unprecedented in human history, and expecting that they will happen in the future is absurd, Vaclav Smil 1 be damned . Humans have never abandoned a source of energy once tapped, and it’s dangerous to believe that we will do so now. Moreover, even if such an audacious goal were achieved instantly by royal decree and unanimous consent, the durability of already-emitted carbon dioxide combines with the uncertainties in climate models in uncomfortable ways. Success is far from assured.

Further, such an unprecedented “energy transition” is being advanced using the fatally flawed tools of economics and politics rather than hard-headed engineering focusing on cost. Instead, attention is focused on the nebulous hope of future “innovation”. Given the projected cost of the “transition” (many trillions of dollars!), you’d think that cost engineering would get the bulk of the attention. Instead, attention is focused on billionaires’ bets on cleverness or factional support of political blamesmanship.

Unfortunately, in the current media environment, flash trumps substance.

Finally, economic and political ‘solutions’ continue to be supported by ‘leading’ academics who benefit from the funding and attention directed at their areas of expertise. The impenetrable jargon and endlessly complicated models dangle the promise of partial but effective solutions, with each specialty taking its share of dollars and glory. Like well-intentioned academic “centers” named for a generous benefactor, this approach supports siloed intellectuals who create more hope than progress while the problem worsens. And, as in numerous reports from the National Academies (of Science and Engineering) called for by Congress, politicians feel free to pick and choose aspects that are most palatable to their constituents. Unfortunately, any engineering prescription to cure our atmospheric problems can’t be a menu; it must be an architectural drawing.

If you think I’m too alarmist, challenge my assumptions and reasoning! Of course, I would love to be proven wrong. But, if you find my position credible, absorb this fact: If we don’t clean up the mess we’ve created over the past 350 years of industrialization, even the romantic aspiration of complete decarbonization ( engineering net zero) won’t assure climate stability.

</rant>

I’ll continue this in future installments. But, for now, I am closing with a revealing citation pertinent to the drift toward delusion that has characterized the past few decades. In a recent post in Heather Cox Richardson’s Substack, she cites an article from nearly 20 years ago from a reporter covering the Bush 43 administration, who reported:

[A senior advisor to G. W. Bush] said that .. [news reporters] were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That's not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” from Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush , by Ron Suskind, New York Times Magazine, October 17, 2004.

I agree with two of the general ideas the Bush advisor promotes, (1) ‘the best way to predict the future is to create it’, and (2) America is, for the moment, uniquely positioned to shape the future. But I reject the arrogant attitude that political action, even by Earth’s most powerful country, can create whatever Truth it chooses. That attitude fails particularly miserably in the case of climate. No matter which empire is predominant, politicians cannot repeal the laws of Science to suit their desired outcomes. It’s been appreciated for millennia that human attempts to evade a higher power are ultimately and delusionally destructive [Proverbs 16:18}. 2