While I agree with the author regarding many points I do not concur that the 'risk' of climate impact 'alarmism' means we should abandon the goal of limiting temperature rise to below 2°C. This opinion is also mirrored by the central banking community who are ultimately going to have to bankroll either the cost of mitigation or the cost of climate impacts on an unsuspecting global economy themselves. Their conclusion regarding what should occur seems very obvious to me; but is plainly disputed by the author:
• These risks are well documented by central banks in their four-point risk scale; and as defined by the two primary forms of risk: transition risk and material or physical risk. The options made available within the central bank climate scenarios report (via the in-depth 'scenarios' portal presented online [https://www.ngfs.net/ngfs-scenarios-portal/]) fully contradict the opinion of the author: an immediate, 'orderly' transition is far less expensive than a disorderly transition made at a later point in time, which would be unavoidable due to funding constraints as climate impacts will necessitate rapid implementation, as fully modeled.
• Our leadership do not support the view that climate risk is 'mild'; eg the EU Commission's view of this risk, as well as many others is that the risk is indeed 'existential'; including leadership in the US, for example Senator Warren estimating a $23tr/yr cost to the global economy by 2050 (the global economy is worth about $86-104tr/yr at present). Policy measures introduced by the EU and US further emphasise the clear response that is starting to be witnessed.
• As the climate science now shows, 2.7°C of warming would put over 1 billion people beyond the 'livable' or 'survivable' climate zone; thus creating migration/food security risks. This could initiate cascading humanitarian problems such the increased potential for widespread violence or global war, as well as the complete loss of animal and plant life over such a vast area. (https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1661032613404876801?s=19)
• The leading source of Schalke Cloete's references seems to be the IPCC reports. However, it is now well known that these reports are extremely conservative, being signed off and revised multiple times to ensure no significant risks are presented and therefore no significant action is necessary for the many national governments dependent on oil or other fossil energy revenue. For example, Saudi Aramco officials are some of the lead authors of the IPCC reports.
• Schalke serially underestimates various specific risks such as SLR, which has been found to be over 2m by 2100 rather than 1m as he states. This is a common theme within his writing, despite the incontrovertible fact that recent events have proven that previous predications regarding climate impacts have almost always been underestimated, rather than the opposite as Schalke wishes us to believe. (Eg arctic sea-ice extent: https://www.wired.com/story/antarctic-sea-ice-is-at-record-lows-is-it-an-alarming-shift/)
• Schalke earmarks stratospheric aerosol injection and direct air capture as 'cheap insurance' against the potential for unanticipated levels of warming, or severe climate impacts. Neither of these potential 'fixes' are proven at scale commercially or in any way cheap to implement. This is verging on cynicism.
• As one of the world's most accurate climate scientists, James Hansen has recently presented in a recent paper (co-written with a sizable team) that there is at least 10°C if warming in the pipeline, even if we got to zero immediately. He is essentially stating that positive feedbacks are for the most part already underway, and that not only is the watered-down IPCC data wrong (which almost anyone can see, at this stage), but it is dangerously misleading. It is obvious that carbon dioxide removal is going to be of primary importance, not just getting to zero. Certainly, believing that 2.5°C is somehow any kind of safe option (patently contrary to the headline Paris Agreement statement of 'well below 2°C' and all that that implies) is wholly incorrect.
• The idea that humanity will either attempt or be able to save a country from severe climate impacts has already been debunked: Pakistan is the world's fifth most populous country & has already been fully bankrupted by climate change. There has been very little funding made available, and the issue has now largely been forgotten about.
• Read my book: https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Zero-Carbon-Playbook-Transition/dp/B08WP765WX. This is a complex, multi-faceted and non-biased (either ideologically or otherwise) strategy that I believe will be realised, in order that net zero eventuates around 2050
• My new book looks in even further detail at the basic path necessary to achieve net zero, as well as a specific focus on some of the barriers in the way of achieving this goal, among other themes associated. Some of the main proponents blocking progress today are shareholders, lobbyists and financiers - all of whom I will be examining in great detail within the book.
Having read the authors work on EnergyPost and elsewhere, I do agree that the most practical path to net zero is via renewables + fossil-based hydrogen; either via pyrolysis or via new reforming processes such as GSR or the low cost, commercially available LCH process (95% capture rate) developed by Johnson Matthey, or similar.
The energy transition requires us to not flinch from the initial costs that will be presented, but to look at the rewards of achieving our stated goals within the window of opportunity we have available.
