Climate Emergency revisited

THE PROBLEM:
The Planet has a 'Climate Emergency'.  Australia acknowledged one in Fiji in July, 2022 at a Pacific leaders conference. Months of negotiation over the Climate Safeguard Mechanism failed to prevent a moratorium on new fossil projects and expansions and even wind down existing fossil operations.  If science based climate evidence was used to guide this climate policy, it probably would have become apparent that strategy is needed on a deeper and more fundamental level. 
DATA POINTS AND CONJECTURE:
It's still a climate war and it's still a technology war.
There's still a lot of delay (the new denial) and plenty of competition between existing and emerging technologies.
But - it could be an appropriate technology Renaissance...
https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia
Most of climate science has a spatial component. With new satellite tech coming online a finer grain or greater accuracy and confidence in climate data is being researched and assessed.
The evidence is becoming more reliable and the results and predictions are becoming more horrifying. Many scientists conclude their research papers with a 'Call to/for action'. The alarm bells are ringing loudly. Radio Ecoshock, anyone? Why not a UN report? https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
How could anyone know that natural gas is an essential/crucial energy source for the transition if there's no transition plan to make that assessment?
Fossil fuel is a dying/dead dinosaur/Ancient sunlight energy source, increasingly unnecessary/non-essential over time (like a vanishing wedge as uptake of appropriate tech increases) and we need to put most of our efforts into R&Ding and commercialising sustainable or even C negative energy sources. Adaptation through C emission mitigation and C removal technologies and strategies are needed which, in my opinion, is the most radically conservative position to take. Public Private Partnership (PPP) can work well if there's transparency in finance.  Pragmatism can erode ambition but applied science can uncover new design possibilities to move progress forward but is difficult to accurately model. Game changing tech is coming online on a daily basis around the world.
Achieving 'Net Zero' C emissions is ambitious and globally recognised as a good long-term goal for the Planet if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change but 'Net Negative' C emissions are better and needed to clean up the CO2, CH4 (although more short-term) and other persistent greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere if we are to heal the global climate system and possibly save many species from going extinct including our own.
Show me the evidence and show me the money to back the evidence with action.
It's not in Australia's self-interest to be cynical.
HYPOTHESES:
1. An evidence based 'Net Negative'  'Just Green Transition' plan based on principles of equality, ecology, economy and ambition can be delivered with a sense of necessity and urgency.
2. 'Appropriate Technology' should be the kernel of a 'Just Green Transition' plan.
3. 'Appropriate Technology' decentralised manufacturing (Industrial Revolution 4.0/Industry 4.0) can be scaled up to local production lines (which could possibly use some robot/machine automation but the tech would need to create additional upstream and downstream jobs) and still be 'appropriate' if consumed 'locally' (though may be pushing the definition boundaries if exported at great distance), is affordable and 'Net negative' or 'Carbon negative' in it's production and application during it's service life.
4. 'Appropriate Technology' should be able to be upcycled or recycled at the end of it's service life.
5. Fossil fuel technology is already obsolete (with an exception of classic cars and motorcycles) and needs to be replaced with appropriate electric, biomass or a combination of both technologies (eg.a large self-powered biochar kiln or even an ECHO2 that produces electricity, process heat and biochar and has the potential for scaling down and scaling up), as soon as possible if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change.
6. That technology is the central determinant of an economy's composition and health
7. That materials determine what needs to be mined, what design is possible and what components can be produced
8. That anything is possible and it's never too late for change.

Write a comment

Comments: 0