Researchers: why relying on new technology won’t ‘save the planet’

Posted: April 21, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, opinion, research
Tags:


The would-be planet savers imagine their mythical problem demands something more drastic than current efforts. Based on faulty climate assumptions their so-called solutions sound unpleasant, or worse. They propose ‘widespread deployment of both behavioural and technological responses’. You-must-obey type of thing.
– – –
Overreliance on promises of new technology to solve climate change is enabling delay, say researchers from Lancaster University.

Their research published in Nature Climate Change calls for an end to a longstanding cycle of technological promises and reframed climate change targets, says Phys.org.

Contemporary technological proposals for responding to climate change include nuclear fusion power, giant carbon sucking machines, ice-restoration using millions of wind-powered pumps, and spraying particulates in the stratosphere.

Researchers Duncan McLaren and Nils Markusson from Lancaster Environment Centre say that: “For forty years, climate action has been delayed by technological promises. Contemporary promises are equally dangerous. Our work exposes how such promises have raised expectations of more effective policy options becoming available in the future, and thereby enabled a continued politics of prevarication and inadequate action.

“Prevarication is not necessarily intentional, but such promises can feed systemic ‘moral corruption’, in which current elites are enabled to pursue self-serving pathways, while passing off risk onto vulnerable people in the future and in the global South.”

The article describes a history of such promises, showing how the overarching international goal of ‘avoiding dangerous climate change’ has been reinterpreted and differently represented in the light of new modelling methods, scenarios and technological promises.

The researchers argue that the targets, models and technologies have co-evolved in ways that enable delay: “Each novel promise not only competes with existing ideas, but also downplays any sense of urgency, enabling the repeated deferral of political deadlines for climate action and undermining societal commitment to meaningful responses.

They conclude: “Putting our hopes in yet more new technologies is unwise. Instead, cultural, social and political transformation is essential to enable widespread deployment of both behavioural and technological responses to climate change.”

The researchers map the history of climate targets in five phases…

Continued here.

Comments
  1. Chaswarnertoo says:

    Clown world.

  2. JB says:

    “Prevarication is not necessarily intentional,…”

    Maybe in some other Universe where everything is defined in Orwellian double-speak. Mass-movements typically attract muddle-headed thinkers.

  3. Stuart Brown says:

    JB – prevarication very intentional in my case!

    “Instead, cultural, social and political transformation is essential…”

    Oops guys, your underwear is showing…

  4. oldbrew says:

    Whiff of strongarm tactics in the ‘remedies’ demanded. Dangerous stuff.

    It gets worse…

    APRIL 21, 2020
    Rising CO2 causes more than a climate crisis—it may directly harm our ability to think
    by University of Colorado at Boulder

    Put simply, when we breathe air with high CO2 levels, the CO2 levels in our blood rise, reducing the amount of oxygen that reaches our brains. Studies show that this can increase sleepiness and anxiety, and impair cognitive function.

    https://phys.org/news/2020-04-co2-climate-crisisit-ability.html
    – – –
    Speak for yourselves, Boulder 😂

  5. ivan says:

    The simple answer is for them to persuade governments to dump all the stupid climate change nonsense since the earth can and will look after itself.

    The problem saying that is there will exploding heads at the IPCC, UN and most NGO’s which is not surprising since they make vast amounts of money from the scam.

  6. stpaulchuck says:

    ” to solve climate change” <— starting from a false premise. What could possibly go wrong?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s