Interesting read. We are facing a very risky climate future. Humans collectively will need to act to reduce the risk. How do we best do that?
Developing nations will naturally focus on meeting basic human needs first, which means making sacrifices for the environment will be largely a luxury for them, and unlikely to occur.
That leaves developed nation, most of which have benefited historically from development. Surely they must lead. A massive increase in research and innovation is a must. But what if that doesn’t deliver quickly enough? Well then surely behaviour change would be better than no response.
So, both approaches are required at the same time: technology through innovation, plus behaviour change. Ethics, justice and wealth requires that developed nations lead strongly.
Will that happen. I don’t think it will. Too many developed nations not prepared to do so, seems to be proving politically difficult. Trump2 is the latest example.
Sadly, humans will probably only be prepared to take stronger action once the impacts become much worse, by which stage it will likely be too late. We may be lucky to make some major technological breakthrough. But I for one would prefer humanity to be less of a gambler. The Precautionary Principle still has so much going for it.
This piece seems to be suggesting that there are some simple technical solution being ignored in favour of moralising.
If you don’t find worth in philosophical environmental ideas such as ‘alienation from the natural world’ that’s fine however, why so little curiosity about *why* society created this problem in the first place? The fact remains that we are falling drastically short of our global emissions targets, which only continue to rise every year. You can’t explain why with thermodynamics alone; perhaps some social sciences are in order?
The author argues that climate change is a technical issue rooted in thermodynamics—specifically, the unintended atmospheric consequences of energy technologies—not an ethical or moral crisis. They critique the environmental movement’s framing of climate change as a moral indictment of capitalist greed or a reflection of alienation from nature, describing this perspective as dominant in wealthy nations but alien to people in poorer countries. The author suggests that while affluent societies debate degrowth and personal lifestyle changes, developing countries are more pragmatic and open to technical solutions like geoengineering, as they cannot afford ideological barriers. The piece concludes that addressing climate change requires technical solutions, not societal overhauls or moral transformation.
Evaluation of Logic
1. Core Argument (Thermodynamics vs. Ethics):
• The author is correct in identifying climate change as fundamentally a thermodynamic problem: excess heat caused by greenhouse gases. However, framing it exclusively as a technical issue ignores the role of societal values, consumer behavior, and political systems in causing and perpetuating the problem. These are intertwined and cannot be neatly separated.
2. Critique of Environmental Values:
• While the critique of “degrowth” and “moral purification” resonates with some perspectives, it dismisses valid concerns about overconsumption and resource depletion. Reducing emissions isn’t just about thermodynamics; it also requires shifts in societal habits and systemic change. Consumerism, for example, directly drives demand for fossil fuels and deforestation.
3. Perspective of Developing Nations:
• The author accurately highlights the pragmatic focus in developing nations, where meeting basic needs often trumps environmental ideology. However, the claim that environmental concerns are “First World Problems” oversimplifies. Climate change disproportionately harms poorer nations, and many are also leading in renewable energy adoption and conservation efforts.
4. Dismissal of Green Ideology:
• By portraying environmentalism as affluent moralism, the author oversimplifies a diverse movement. Not all environmentalists reject technical solutions or focus solely on “personal purification.” Many advocate for systemic, policy-driven solutions while addressing the cultural and ethical dimensions of overconsumption.
5. Overemphasis on Technical Solutions:
• While technical fixes (e.g., geoengineering, renewable energy) are crucial, they are not sufficient alone. Without addressing systemic issues like consumption, economic inequality, and political inertia, technical solutions may be undermined or lead to unintended consequences.
Critique of Tone and Framing
The tone of the piece feels dismissive and polarizing. It creates a false dichotomy between technical solutions and ethical considerations, rather than recognizing their interconnectedness. The characterization of environmentalism as out-of-touch “moralism” seems reductive, as it ignores the pragmatic and science-based strategies many environmentalists advocate.
Why This Piece May Bother You
• The writer downplays the role of consumerism, overconsumption, and systemic inequality—issues you believe are central to the climate crisis.
• The argument seems to mock or trivialize the environmental movement’s ethical concerns, framing them as impractical or elitist.
• It narrowly defines climate change as a technical issue, which may feel reductive if you see it as both a systemic and value-based challenge.
Final Thoughts
The piece does raise valid points about the importance of technical solutions and the pragmatic focus of developing countries. However, it dismisses the broader, systemic nature of the problem and seems overly critical of environmentalism without acknowledging its contributions. If the writer’s framing consistently feels unbalanced or misaligned with your values, unsubscribing might bring more clarity and peace of mind.
To call climate change a thermodynamic problem is too simplistic even scientifically. It also involves chemistry and molecules' interactions with light, and the survival times of molecular species in the atmosphere. And it involves the interactions of increased heat with biology of organisms and the complex problem of the impact of those interactions on ecological communities. E.g., if increased heating causes extinction of a species, no thermodynamic intervention can reverse the extinction. Increased heating may also adversely impact ecosystem services, the loss of which may create other problems.
Your proposal of "thermodynamic solutions" also doesn't address the question of time scales. E.g., depending of the time scale of cooling, climate change may continue to disrupt the food supply for some years. Nutrition is not simply a matter of energy intake (a thermodynamic problem), but also intake of minerals, biological fiber, and other nutients needed for proper functioning, as well as being overall a matter of kinetics (whence enzymes). Food supply for humans is also a social issue.
As for the claim that developing countries don't care about degrowth, there are certain strains of degrowth thought, such as ubuntu and buen vivir that are based on ideas from developing countries. But more generally, I suggest you look at this book:
• Martínez Alier, Joan. (2011) El ecologismo de los pobres: Conflictos ambientales y lenguajes de valoración. 5.a ed. ampliada. Barcelona: Icaria editorial.
which shows that distributional problems and conflicts arising from environmental issues are not just a figment of Starbucks-drinking ideologues' imaginations.
Good challenging essay. I've read about terraforming Mars or exoplanets by the use of solar mirrors etc and thought ' it would take a much simpler solution to re-terraform Earth'
I did some searches and I find that initiatives like that are disallowed because they take focus away from what you call the moral problem.
There is a risk though ... in finding tech solutions to environmental problems. Our ecosystem is vastly complex and doesn't tend to behave as we might hope if we give it simple fixes.
I'm interested to see what happenx next, but I very much support your view here. We gotta fix real life - not hope for human nature to change.
Third world countries look at the problem differently. True. But they are not the ones causing it in the first place. I would really like to know if they truely see it as a problem with thermodynamics. I personally doubt that.
Since they don’t emit so much they might just not feel to be on the forefront of emission reduction. But they’d rightly point the finger in the direction of first world countries when it comes to having coastal regions washed away by rising sea levels.
So true, most people are worried about climate change but the intermittent renewable energy sources located far from load centers Democrats are currently pushing will never provide sufficient reliable energy. The best answer is nuclear power plants located at existing coal fired plant locations that already have cooling and distribution infrastructure and are close to where electricity is needed. We also should be leading an international effort to develop geoengineering solutions to the problem because we will never reduce carbon emissions in time to stave off disaster.
The ethical problem is the failure to adopt thermodynamic methods to cool the world by reflecting sunlight. This is the moral imperative of our world, to prevent and limit climate collapse. Carbon is morally and thermodynamically secondary to albedo. Immediate reversal of the darkening of the world, with the planet now 3% less reflective than in 2000, must displace all carbon action as the priority climate crisis. Loss of clouds may be the worst tipping point. Carbon is not relevant to reversing the loss of clouds, ice, snow and aerosols, which can only be slowed by rebrightening the planet. Failure to see this is morally odious.
The most efficient world cooling method is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, mimicking the natural addition of sulphur to the high atmosphere by volcanoes. But because SAI is intrinsically global in scope, it requires intergovernmental agreement that will need extensive discussion and research before it can be deployed at scale. Estimated cost per degree of cooling with SAI is $18 billion per year, about 0.1% of the estimated investment needed to achieve the same heat removal with emission reduction. Many other cooling methods are proposed, such as marine cloud brightening, marine nanobubbles, ocean iron fertilization, iron salt aerosol, space mirrors, cirrus cloud thinning, ocean thermal energy conversion, marine permaculture and more. All these deserve investment and research. However, because these methods would destroy the business model for renewable energy by undermining its case for public subsidy on climate grounds, there are massive campaigns of disinformation designed to ensure we do nothing to cool the planet. If these delusional campaigns retain their influence there is high likelihood of the collapse of civilization due to climate disruption.
I was with you until the conspiracy theory about green energy influence. Yes, all corporations have some influence in society, but surely the exponentially larger *fossil fuel* industry would totally minimize that whatever influence is held by a burgeoning green energy sector?
It is not a conspiracy theory, simply an exploration of why there is such strong opposition to research into sunlight reflection. The renewable energy industry has influence beyond its financial scope due to the argument that its agenda is primarily moral.
Interesting read. We are facing a very risky climate future. Humans collectively will need to act to reduce the risk. How do we best do that?
Developing nations will naturally focus on meeting basic human needs first, which means making sacrifices for the environment will be largely a luxury for them, and unlikely to occur.
That leaves developed nation, most of which have benefited historically from development. Surely they must lead. A massive increase in research and innovation is a must. But what if that doesn’t deliver quickly enough? Well then surely behaviour change would be better than no response.
So, both approaches are required at the same time: technology through innovation, plus behaviour change. Ethics, justice and wealth requires that developed nations lead strongly.
Will that happen. I don’t think it will. Too many developed nations not prepared to do so, seems to be proving politically difficult. Trump2 is the latest example.
Sadly, humans will probably only be prepared to take stronger action once the impacts become much worse, by which stage it will likely be too late. We may be lucky to make some major technological breakthrough. But I for one would prefer humanity to be less of a gambler. The Precautionary Principle still has so much going for it.
This piece seems to be suggesting that there are some simple technical solution being ignored in favour of moralising.
If you don’t find worth in philosophical environmental ideas such as ‘alienation from the natural world’ that’s fine however, why so little curiosity about *why* society created this problem in the first place? The fact remains that we are falling drastically short of our global emissions targets, which only continue to rise every year. You can’t explain why with thermodynamics alone; perhaps some social sciences are in order?
Here’s a summary and evaluation of the piece:
Summary
The author argues that climate change is a technical issue rooted in thermodynamics—specifically, the unintended atmospheric consequences of energy technologies—not an ethical or moral crisis. They critique the environmental movement’s framing of climate change as a moral indictment of capitalist greed or a reflection of alienation from nature, describing this perspective as dominant in wealthy nations but alien to people in poorer countries. The author suggests that while affluent societies debate degrowth and personal lifestyle changes, developing countries are more pragmatic and open to technical solutions like geoengineering, as they cannot afford ideological barriers. The piece concludes that addressing climate change requires technical solutions, not societal overhauls or moral transformation.
Evaluation of Logic
1. Core Argument (Thermodynamics vs. Ethics):
• The author is correct in identifying climate change as fundamentally a thermodynamic problem: excess heat caused by greenhouse gases. However, framing it exclusively as a technical issue ignores the role of societal values, consumer behavior, and political systems in causing and perpetuating the problem. These are intertwined and cannot be neatly separated.
2. Critique of Environmental Values:
• While the critique of “degrowth” and “moral purification” resonates with some perspectives, it dismisses valid concerns about overconsumption and resource depletion. Reducing emissions isn’t just about thermodynamics; it also requires shifts in societal habits and systemic change. Consumerism, for example, directly drives demand for fossil fuels and deforestation.
3. Perspective of Developing Nations:
• The author accurately highlights the pragmatic focus in developing nations, where meeting basic needs often trumps environmental ideology. However, the claim that environmental concerns are “First World Problems” oversimplifies. Climate change disproportionately harms poorer nations, and many are also leading in renewable energy adoption and conservation efforts.
4. Dismissal of Green Ideology:
• By portraying environmentalism as affluent moralism, the author oversimplifies a diverse movement. Not all environmentalists reject technical solutions or focus solely on “personal purification.” Many advocate for systemic, policy-driven solutions while addressing the cultural and ethical dimensions of overconsumption.
5. Overemphasis on Technical Solutions:
• While technical fixes (e.g., geoengineering, renewable energy) are crucial, they are not sufficient alone. Without addressing systemic issues like consumption, economic inequality, and political inertia, technical solutions may be undermined or lead to unintended consequences.
Critique of Tone and Framing
The tone of the piece feels dismissive and polarizing. It creates a false dichotomy between technical solutions and ethical considerations, rather than recognizing their interconnectedness. The characterization of environmentalism as out-of-touch “moralism” seems reductive, as it ignores the pragmatic and science-based strategies many environmentalists advocate.
Why This Piece May Bother You
• The writer downplays the role of consumerism, overconsumption, and systemic inequality—issues you believe are central to the climate crisis.
• The argument seems to mock or trivialize the environmental movement’s ethical concerns, framing them as impractical or elitist.
• It narrowly defines climate change as a technical issue, which may feel reductive if you see it as both a systemic and value-based challenge.
Final Thoughts
The piece does raise valid points about the importance of technical solutions and the pragmatic focus of developing countries. However, it dismisses the broader, systemic nature of the problem and seems overly critical of environmentalism without acknowledging its contributions. If the writer’s framing consistently feels unbalanced or misaligned with your values, unsubscribing might bring more clarity and peace of mind.
wait you're getting ChatGPT to write your blog comments!??
Why??!
Haha, I think this may have been longer than the original article!
Should we tell her about the carbon emissions she created by using AI to do this?!?
I appreciated this morally odious and reductionistic piece.
I volunteer in a climate group and agree that Climatism is a moral crusade or quasi-religion.
Don't hesitate to ban wackos, although these two are entertaining.
What an awful thing to leave behind
To call climate change a thermodynamic problem is too simplistic even scientifically. It also involves chemistry and molecules' interactions with light, and the survival times of molecular species in the atmosphere. And it involves the interactions of increased heat with biology of organisms and the complex problem of the impact of those interactions on ecological communities. E.g., if increased heating causes extinction of a species, no thermodynamic intervention can reverse the extinction. Increased heating may also adversely impact ecosystem services, the loss of which may create other problems.
Your proposal of "thermodynamic solutions" also doesn't address the question of time scales. E.g., depending of the time scale of cooling, climate change may continue to disrupt the food supply for some years. Nutrition is not simply a matter of energy intake (a thermodynamic problem), but also intake of minerals, biological fiber, and other nutients needed for proper functioning, as well as being overall a matter of kinetics (whence enzymes). Food supply for humans is also a social issue.
As for the claim that developing countries don't care about degrowth, there are certain strains of degrowth thought, such as ubuntu and buen vivir that are based on ideas from developing countries. But more generally, I suggest you look at this book:
• Martínez Alier, Joan. (2011) El ecologismo de los pobres: Conflictos ambientales y lenguajes de valoración. 5.a ed. ampliada. Barcelona: Icaria editorial.
which shows that distributional problems and conflicts arising from environmental issues are not just a figment of Starbucks-drinking ideologues' imaginations.
Good challenging essay. I've read about terraforming Mars or exoplanets by the use of solar mirrors etc and thought ' it would take a much simpler solution to re-terraform Earth'
I did some searches and I find that initiatives like that are disallowed because they take focus away from what you call the moral problem.
There is a risk though ... in finding tech solutions to environmental problems. Our ecosystem is vastly complex and doesn't tend to behave as we might hope if we give it simple fixes.
I'm interested to see what happenx next, but I very much support your view here. We gotta fix real life - not hope for human nature to change.
Third world countries look at the problem differently. True. But they are not the ones causing it in the first place. I would really like to know if they truely see it as a problem with thermodynamics. I personally doubt that.
Since they don’t emit so much they might just not feel to be on the forefront of emission reduction. But they’d rightly point the finger in the direction of first world countries when it comes to having coastal regions washed away by rising sea levels.
Two thirds of current emissions come from developing countries.
So true, most people are worried about climate change but the intermittent renewable energy sources located far from load centers Democrats are currently pushing will never provide sufficient reliable energy. The best answer is nuclear power plants located at existing coal fired plant locations that already have cooling and distribution infrastructure and are close to where electricity is needed. We also should be leading an international effort to develop geoengineering solutions to the problem because we will never reduce carbon emissions in time to stave off disaster.
The ethical problem is the failure to adopt thermodynamic methods to cool the world by reflecting sunlight. This is the moral imperative of our world, to prevent and limit climate collapse. Carbon is morally and thermodynamically secondary to albedo. Immediate reversal of the darkening of the world, with the planet now 3% less reflective than in 2000, must displace all carbon action as the priority climate crisis. Loss of clouds may be the worst tipping point. Carbon is not relevant to reversing the loss of clouds, ice, snow and aerosols, which can only be slowed by rebrightening the planet. Failure to see this is morally odious.
How do we cool the world?
The most efficient world cooling method is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, mimicking the natural addition of sulphur to the high atmosphere by volcanoes. But because SAI is intrinsically global in scope, it requires intergovernmental agreement that will need extensive discussion and research before it can be deployed at scale. Estimated cost per degree of cooling with SAI is $18 billion per year, about 0.1% of the estimated investment needed to achieve the same heat removal with emission reduction. Many other cooling methods are proposed, such as marine cloud brightening, marine nanobubbles, ocean iron fertilization, iron salt aerosol, space mirrors, cirrus cloud thinning, ocean thermal energy conversion, marine permaculture and more. All these deserve investment and research. However, because these methods would destroy the business model for renewable energy by undermining its case for public subsidy on climate grounds, there are massive campaigns of disinformation designed to ensure we do nothing to cool the planet. If these delusional campaigns retain their influence there is high likelihood of the collapse of civilization due to climate disruption.
I was with you until the conspiracy theory about green energy influence. Yes, all corporations have some influence in society, but surely the exponentially larger *fossil fuel* industry would totally minimize that whatever influence is held by a burgeoning green energy sector?
It is not a conspiracy theory, simply an exploration of why there is such strong opposition to research into sunlight reflection. The renewable energy industry has influence beyond its financial scope due to the argument that its agenda is primarily moral.
See Quico's article https://www.onepercentbrighter.com/p/deconstructing-solars-green-halo to understand the distinction between conspiracy theory and rent seeking.