Climate Doomer claims only option is to get rid of all fossil fuels

Mayer Hillman is a climate doomer. His April 26, 2018 article in the Guardian UK is titled ‘We’re doomed’: Mayer Hillman on the climate reality no one else will dare mention.

Hillman is an 86-year-old social scientist. He is a British architect and town planner.

An old architect has no ideas for how to address climate change. He has joined the call for spending over $100 trillion over two decades and upending the world economy.

He has been promoting more cycling and walking in cities for a few decades. His paper was again to reduce global emissions by reaching a peak in 2015 and then starting a trend to zero emissions.

He proposed carbon rationing.

So the world is heading towards a combined human weight of globally of 62 kg. So we are heading to 620 billion kilograms of human mass in 2050. North America has the highest average body mass of any continent (80.7 kg). Everyone needs to go on an extreme diet and get to 31 kilograms.

Hillman doubts that human ingenuity can find a fix and says there is no evidence that greenhouse gases can be safely buried.

He has no ingenuity and cannot imagine or acknowledge any solution.

If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Arthur C. Clarke

He then provides three ways forward s.

1. stop using any fossil fuels.
2. minimize fossil fuel use to allow that might be safe
3. carry on as usual and mitigate effects and let the next generation try to solve it

Getting off fossil fuels is a thousand time harder and more expensive than geoengineering

Seaweed production can be ramped up to offset all CO2 production.

Macro-algae forests covering 9% of the world’s ocean surface, which could produce sufficient biomethane to replace all of today’s needs in fossil fuel energy, while removing 53 billion tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, restoring pre-industrial levels. This amount of biomass could also increase sustainable fish production to potentially provide 200 kg/yr/person for 10 billion people. Additional benefits are reduction in ocean acidification and increased ocean primary productivity and biodiversity.

But people could say ocean agriculture would be hard. Agriculture on land uses 37% is used for agriculture and 11% is used for crops. So we do it on land we can do it in the ocean. Also, people like Hillman wave off ocean agriculture while pushing for stopping the use of all fossil fuels within 20 years. People will accept ocean agriculture because then they can continue using planes, factories and cars. People will not accept poverty and not having planes, factories and cars. A rapid shift out of fossil fuels would keep people in poverty and put billions of lives at risk.

Using solar geoengineering to control the temperature while ocean farms are ramped up is a painless solution.

Climate doomers do not want painless solutions. They expensive painful solutions to punish the carbon sinners.

Iron can be placed into the ocean to restore iron levels to what they were centuries ago. Every 100 tons of iron placed into the ocean can be used to trigger algae blooms which would die in a few weeks.

Treating 20 million square miles of ocean each year would sink 3.5 billion tons of CO2 every year. In 2009, researchers, aboard the Royal Navy’s HMS Endurance, have found that melting icebergs off the coast of Antarctica are releasing millions of tiny particles of iron into the southern Ocean, helping to create huge ‘blooms’ of algae that absorb carbon emissions. The algae then sinks to the icy depths, effectively removing CO2 from the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

Emissions are still increasing and adding 20% with each doubling of world GDP

Based on the last ten years (which included a large world recession with slower growth) the world is still on track to double its purchasing power GDP every 14 years and increase emissions by 20%.

Geoengineering summary

Climate engineering has two categories: greenhouse gas removal and solar radiation management.

Greenhouse gas removal approaches, of which carbon dioxide removal represents the most prominent subcategory addresses the cause of global warming by removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Solar radiation management attempts to offset effects of greenhouse gases by causing the Earth to absorb less solar radiation.

There are several geoengineering methods.

Solar radiation management methods include:

Surface-based: for example, protecting or expanding polar sea ice and glaciers, using pale-colored roofing materials, attempting to change the oceans’ brightness, or growing high-albedo crops.
Troposphere-based: for example, marine cloud brightening, which would spray fine sea water to whiten clouds and thus increase cloud reflectivity.
Upper atmosphere-based: creating reflective aerosols, such as stratospheric sulfate aerosols, specifically designed self-levitating aerosols, or other substances.
Space-based: space sunshade—obstructing solar radiation with space-based mirrors, dust, etc.

Carbon dioxide removal (sometimes known as negative emissions technologies or greenhouse gas removal) projects seek to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Proposed methods include those that directly remove such gases from the atmosphere, as well as indirect methods that seek to promote natural processes that drawdown and sequester CO2 (e.g. tree planting). Many projects overlap with carbon capture and storage projects, and may not be considered to be climate engineering by all commentators. Techniques in this category include:

* Creating biochar, which can be mixed with soil to create terra preta
* Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage to sequester carbon and simultaneously provide energy
* Carbon air capture to remove carbon dioxide from ambient air
* Afforestation, reforestation and forest restoration to absorb carbon dioxide
* Ocean fertilization including iron fertilization of the oceans

Many of the IPCC model projections to keep global mean temperature below 2C, are based on scenarios assuming deployment of negative emissions technologies.

The IPCC projected solutions lean heavily upon carbon dioxide removal but not until after 2050.