9 thoughts on “Monday Message Board”

1. There comes a time when, in the interests of honesty with ourselves and others, we have to admit that the world is getting worse on almost all parameters. To persist with outright or excess optimism – be it blind, congenital, trained reflex, an adopted ethic or even an attempt to stay inside the tent – begins to look strangely out of touch to any scientifically educated and realist critical thinker.

   We have reached the point (and I would argue we reached this point some time ago) where outright and excess optimism have become downright dangerous. They feed too easily into all the modern humanist myths that people want to believe. I can name cornucopianism, techno-optimism and humanist self-worship of human nature, capacities and developed disciplines.

   The above is not a religious argument. I am not arguing for a return to any theistic, pantheistic or other metaphysically premised religion. I am arguing that in jettisoning religion and becoming scientific, secular humanists we simply embarked on a new way to fail to understand the world and fail to understand ourselves. This new way entailed the inability to give up worship. We jettisoned the god(s) we worshipped, really as proxies for worshipping ourselves which we always did any way, only to turn to closer worship of our productions or even to direct self-worship to our nature and capacities: we deified our science, our disciplines, our capacities and our selves.

   We does this leave us? It leaves us with our new shibboleths. The largest, most worshipped, most enabled and hence most powerful of these modern shibboleths are private property (as justification and crystallization of human self-interest to the point of absolute self-love and other-destruction) and the economy as money, markets, products and possessions.

   We don’t understand the world, or ourselves or the now out-of-control systems we have created. We don’t understand that we have crossed all the boundaries, in every sense in which that phrase can be taken. To raise criticism of all humans, all cultures, all groups and all modern human systems to this level is to be ruled outside the tent, outside all tents and indeed outside of every cultural group. It means of course to be utterly ignored. But outside the tent there is still perhaps some chance of seeing some key truths which others refuse to see. But never “The Truth”. There is no such thing.

   “That truth is the correspondence of a representation to its object is, as Kant says, merely the nominal definition of it. Truth belongs exclusively to propositions. A proposition has a subject (or set of subjects) and a predicate. The subject is a sign; the predicate is a sign; and the proposition is a sign that the predicate is a sign of that which the subject is a sign. If it be so, it is true. But what does this correspondence or reference of the sign, to its object, consist in?” – Charles Sanders Peirce.

   Peirce’s key question is “What does this correspondence or reference of the sign, to its object, consist in?” This question is solvable, I hold, at the level of empirical ontology. I do not know if Peirce solved it in his own manner. (I need to look into that.)

   The parsimonious (Occam’s Razor) solutions to the question of why we humans and our human civilization are in the very-near terminal state they are is that:

   (a) we can’t help ourselves because we are fundamentally purblind and corrupt; or

   (b) while as early modern humans we were evolutionarily adapted to hunter gatherer existence we have proved to be unable to evolutionarily, culturally or intellectually adapt (probably all three) to create a sustainable, advanced civilization; or

   (c) many of our theories in the social sciences disciplines, especially but not only economics, by which theories we run our civilization prescriptively, are fundamentally flawed and lead to dead ends and inevitable collapse on all branches.

   To fail to take these possible explanations seriously at this point looks perverse to me. If (a) and/or (b) pertain then we are inevitably doomed. Nothing can be done. If (c) pertains as the only other possible explanation, and the only one that offers any hope, then some persons of reputation and courage must walk outside the current tent(s) and commence for their disciplines a Baconian level Great Instauration, or complete renovation, of their discipline. As a hint, the path lies through empirical ontology (not metaphysical or religious ontology and I shouldn’t have to say that) via the unification of real system and formal system theory. I’ve had to stay very general here or I will exceed all word limits and there is no sandpit that I can see.

   I admit there’s about about a 99.9% chance that all hope is already gone. I write for the 0.1% chance that we might still have.

2. Big Seaweed

   I am in a minority of approximately one here in advocating a serious policy commitment to carbon sequestration. See my comment from August 2022: https://johnquiggin.com/2022/08/15/sandpit-193/#comment-254917 and open letter to Pascal Lamy’s Overshoot Commission.

   It was thus a nice surprise for my 79^th birthday to read a report by Zachary Shahan at CleanTechnica on a 69-page study on seaweed sequestration from the reputable Energy Watch Institute. This is godfathered by the German Green politician and eminence grise Hans-Josef Fell. Other luminaries include energy modeller Christian Breyer, and for this study the Indian-German marine biologist Professor Victor Smetacek.

   This is not an IPCC report, it’s not peer-reviewed, and the modelling is thin at best. Carbon removal is not a mature consensus proposal within the climate science community. Still, this paper is a lot more credible than my solo efforts and I urge readers to take a look at it.

   Half of the report rehearses the case for large-scale sequestration to restore the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, currently 425 ppm, to near the pre-industrial level of 350 ppm more or less. I was already on board with this sort gf ambition, so I didn’t find much new here, but the fuller presentation may convert some sceptics like my readers.

   They estimate the sequestration needed as 1700 gigatonnes of CO2 or 450 Gt of carbon. The last 100 Gt comes from removing the future fossil fuel emissions until we hit net zero. Incidentally, my back-of-an-envelope total guesstimate was 700 Gt of CO2 for a 400 ppm target. This is clearly in the same area, and not bad for retired amateur work. In any case we are a long way from negotiations on a real policy commitment. Rough orders of magnitude are good enough for the current issue, which is whether to throw significant R&D resources at carbon removal science and technology, or wait to the last minute then panic.

   For me, the interesting stuff was on seaweed, on which Smetacek is an expert. I had imagined oceanic seaweed farming as giant rafts with a forest of ropes hanging underneath for kelp to stick to. Smetacek proposes to use existing Sargasso seaweeds, which float naturally and mostly reproduce by fission. Farmers will need smaller rafts as bases for increasing the natural carbon-fixing production by vertical mixing of the water layers, bringing nutrients to the surface. Given food, sargassum seaweed grows fast, like kelp. The weed – 50% carbohydrates – would then be cropped sustainably, using other mobile rafts.

   The weed can be used in three ways: as a biofuel feedstock in a near net zero cycle, as a construction material with carbon fibres (huh?) for medium-term sequestration like timber buildings, or compressed into bales, weighted, and dumped on the vast oceanic abyssal plains. The first use does not face any great technical obstacles, and would be an incremental development of current near-shore seaweed farming. The second is frankly wishful thinking, as the slot is taken by engineered timber, a mature technology transitioning to the big time. The third is also sky-blue theorising and pretty much untested, but looks sound in principle, and goes for the jugular of permanent removal.

   There is one known snag with dumping. Page 35:

   “ The long-term storage of bound carbon by sinking seaweed to the cold and pressure-intensive seabed could lead to the decomposition of the seaweed biomass, causing acidification, oxygen depletion, and ecological damage, even resulting in biological “dead zones” in the depths. This can be counteracted by compressing the seaweed biomass under high pressure into larger bales. Aerobic digestion then takes place on the outer surface bur progresses extremely slowly into the dense material. However, these relationships have not yet been thoroughly researched and validated. They must be assessed with a responsible attitude towards the ecological risks that these effects pose in comparison to the global effects of permanent overheating.”

   Testing this proposition will be expensive, as the sites are far out at sea, then 2,000 – 6,000 metres deep with water pressures of 200 to 600 atmospheres; Researchers will need completely robotized and very tough observation devices. It will also take time as the biological processes are slow. The same holds for the validation of the marine component of another biologically-based carbon removal strategy, enhanced rock weathering. This involves spreading powdered basalt on farmland, which turns into soluble bicarbonates, which are washed into the oceans by rivers. re-mineralised there into the skeletons of diatoms and fish, and finally fall as a gentle steady rain of bony fish shit on to the ocean floor. This would incidentally bury the rival seaweed bales. However, it will only seem expensive compared to the pitiful level of current research funding of marine science. Funding every single proposal in the field with a blank cheque would still be insignificant compared to the $2 trillion annual investment on green technologies. It is still insignificant compared to the $1.5 billion in public funds annually spent worldwide on research into fusion. This cannot possibly – according to its promoters, not sceptics – be deployed on a significant commercial scale before electric grids everywhere have been entirely converted to wind/water/solar renewables.

   Timing is important. The strongest objection to carbon removal is that until we reach net zero, it will always be less efficient in reducing GHGs than just deploying more cheap renewables. Rejoinders: one, this argument would rule out almost all research into anything. Deployment of current tech is generally cheaper and more effective in the short run, but your descendants will not thank you for the one-sided choice. Two, look at the modest sums immediately involved, see above. Three, it takes time to turn round a battleship. The shift from net-zero deployment to full-scale carbon removal will involve the shifting of resources measured by trillions, entirely different technologies, and radically new policies, business models and governance. These will take a decade to set up, even after the knowledge base is secure.

   As the EWG say (page 4):

   “If carbon removal is to become effective at scale before mid-century and help cool the earth, the decisive years are are now. Now is the time to re-examine old beliefs, reassess risks, be open to competing technologies, enable innovation and research, and test solutions so that we can then focus alll our resources and energy on the most effective levers.”

   If you still don’t believe the authors or me, I invite you to think about a typical best-case scenario for the energy transition, say this one from Mark Jacobson’s Solutions Project. http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountryGraphs/TimelineWorld.png In 2025, we are in the middle of the phase of rapid electrification and the switch to renewables. This is actually happening, it’s not a pious wish: https://ioplus.nl/_next/image?url=%2Fapi%2Fmedia%2Ffile%2F1.1_A_GER_2025%25402x.png&w=2048&q=75 . In Jacobson’s scenario, renewables go from 20% of energy demand in 2020 to 80% in 2030. Growth slows dramatically after that. The decade from 2040 to 2050 only accounts for the last 5%, slowly chipping away at the difficult cases of cement, steel, aviation, petrochemicals and shipping.

   How will the affected industries and their investors react to crashing demand? They will have little incentive to invest in innovation in already cheap generation technologies, and further economies of scale will be impossible with shrinking output. They will use all their new-found political leverage to keep the party going. Carbon removal is the only candidate of the right scale. They will strongly prefer artificial markets to direct state investment in spite of the massive paperwork involved in proving sequestration volumes. Endangered hagfish will find few friends. https://www.jameswimberley.es/Blog%20posts/2012/Weekend%20hagfish%20slime%20fashion%20blogging.htm

   Schuiling, Smetacek, and Beerling may be treated as cranks today, but their graduate students will be giving speeches to anxious plutocrats at Davos five years from now. These won’t be sympathetic to the hagfish. The biologists will hold a stromg hand, and could even demand equal treatment to the great Manchester phycologist Kathleen Drew-Baker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Drew-Baker . Her research on peculiar seaweed sex rescued Japanese seaweed collectors from penury by turning them into seaweed farmers, who reciprocated by making her into a local goddess with a nice shrine and annual religious junket.

   Beat that, Alfred.

3. Planetary Boundaries science is now robust albeit still incomplete. The signs, taken as a whole, warn of the critical situation we are in. Imagining that one fix on one parameter will solve everything (if the fix could work) is of course completely unrealistic. I am not saying anyone commenting here is imagining this, necessarily. However, the effects of single fix headlines, straplines and even disquisitions give the general public the impression that the addressed issue is the only one to really worry about. Then the next step is to suggest there is or will be a technofix, econofix, geofix or biofix. (Some of these terms are neologisms in this context but the context gives you the idea.)

   https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html

   What is really being avoided still is the necessary, but also likely impossible, processes to reduce the human footprint on planet earth.

4. Yes, yes, yes – let us put it all back together!! I believe we can do it. Thank you, James. (From the cheap seats, I think people handwring about this too much – let’s just try all of it.)

   Iko, no offense but I hope what you predict will not happen. (Not that I understand it in any detail.) I agree though, thinking about the future is rather terrifying right now. It is difficult not to feel overwhelmed.

5. I see from the Wikipedia that Drew-Baker’s birthday is coming up. We should think of some way to celebrate! I will have to read up on this junket business.

6. N,

   I don’t want it (environmental and civilizational collapse) to happen either. But plain scientific literacy and objectivity tell me it will happen from this point, almost certainly.

   The problem is the entrenched, multi-level and interlinked nature of the systemic problems in our biosphere and environments, in our physical economy, in our political economies, in our power politics, in our cultural constructs and finally in our collective heads.

   George Monbiot does a very decent job of evoking all this and referring to our denial and trivialisation of the terrifying extent and magnitude of our predicament:

   https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/30/capitalism-is-killing-the-planet-its-time-to-stop-buying-into-our-own-destruction

   I have argued that, unfortunately, we will not act until we are terrified. Nature will terrify us soon enough. No extra human arguments or demonstrations will be necessary. Whether we can still avoid total catastrophe at the late point will be the issue.

   We are all far too comfortable at the moment, me included. I don’t pretend I am any better than anyone else. Even those who know (to a high degree of certainty) what will happen still cannot viscerally believe or fully imagine it. Perhaps it is better so but not at the cost of delaying action. Hope by all means but take extensive, holistic, interconnected and reinforcing actions. That has to be our way of proceeding.

7. Corrigendum

   The senior moments become alas more frequent with every tick of the clock. I managed to omit the link to the EWG’s seaweed study: https://energywatchgroup.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ocean-Farming-ENG.pdf

8. Re the 2032 Olympics due to be held in Queensland (not just in Brisbane venue-wise) I read that:

   “Olympic venues are in the planning and approvals phase across Queensland before funding is approved for design.” – ABC News

   Okay, let’s see if I have got this right. This means that before Fri, 23 July 2032, we must complete:

   (a) The planning and approvals phase;

   (b) The design phases of all projects;

   (c) The building processes of all projects;

   (d) The commissioning of all projects; and

   (e) All last minute arrangements and coordination.

   We have a bit over six years left for this. Given the pace of current projects in Australia, large and small, the huge trades, skills and materials shortages we face plus the likely global instability with the political, economic, conflicts, climate change and pandemics crises we very likely face… I give this Olympics project very little chance of being ready and run successfully. If we muddle through, our state will be broke afterwards. The Olympics will be a disaster for ordinary citizens of Queensland.

9. Google’s AI research tends to support my concerns:

   “While there is no official confirmation that the 2032 Brisbane Olympic venues will not be ready, there are significant concerns and risks that project delays could occur. A report by the Queensland Productivity Commission identified factors like construction industry decline, surging costs, and labor shortages as potential threats to the Games’ timeline. The Queensland government is working to address these challenges by removing barriers like the Best Practice for Industry Conditions (BPIC) policy and adapting the venue plans to manage costs and risks.

   Risks to venue readiness

   Economic and construction challenges: The construction industry is currently facing declining productivity, surging prices, and labor shortages, which could impact the timely delivery of projects.

   Productivity concerns: A recent interim report indicated a decline in productivity in Queensland since 2018, with best-practice industry conditions adding to the cost of major projects.

   Industry-wide constraints: The overall construction industry is under strain from factors like cost escalation, inflation, and labor competition, which could affect the Olympics infrastructure program.” – Google AI.

   Of course, I go much further and I contend that the Olympics will a social and economic disaster for Qld and Brisbane.