Adapting to Climate Change vs Relying on Future Tech

Rooted in Nature: The Deep Integration of Sustainable Biomass vs. the Technological Divide The emphasis on bioenergy and carbon sequestration through sustainable biomass, particularly using plants with specialized adaptations like Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM), offers a compelling natural solution to climate change. This approach leverages the inherent capabilities of plants, especially those thriving in arid and semi-arid environments, to efficiently fix and store carbon dioxide (CO₂) while minimizing water loss. The CAM process, where plants open their stomata at night to fix CO₂ and close them during the day to conserve water, exemplifies a delicate balance between carbon sequestration and water efficiency. The integration into the natural environment is profound. The CAM mechanism embodies a synergy between carbon capture and water conservation, maximizing the potential of nature’s evolutionary adaptations. By utilizing the capabilities of these plants, we can establish a cycle that not only captures atmospheric CO₂ but also produces bioenergy, biofuels, and biomaterials, contributing to a circular economy that aligns closely with environmental sustainability. In contrast, technologies like solar power generation, direct air carbon capture, and carbon capture and utilization (CCU) from burning fossil fuels, while valuable, do not naturally integrate into the carbon cycle or the environment. These are technological interventions that operate independently of the natural processes that bioenergy harnesses. They require manufacturing, which involves the extraction and consumption of resources, often introducing environmental challenges of their own. For example, utility-scale solar farms occupy vast areas of land, sealing it off from other uses and potentially disrupting local ecosystems. Direct air capture technologies, though innovative, depend on substantial amounts of renewable energy and materials, which diminish their environmental benefits. While these technologies play an important role in the broader strategy to combat climate change, they are resource-intensive and necessitate significant land or material inputs. Their implementation can lead to environmental trade-offs that compromise their intended benefits. In comparison, sustainable biomass solutions, especially those involving CAM plants, seamlessly integrate into natural processes. By employing plants like spineless cacti, which naturally thrive in harsh environments, we can utilize marginal lands that are unsuitable for food production, thus avoiding competition with essential agricultural resources. This contrast underscores the "technological divide" between solutions that are rooted in nature and those that are not. Both approaches are necessary for addressing climate change, but sustainable biomass offers a pathway that is inherently more aligned with nature. 🌵 🌵 #biomass #sustainability #solarpower #directaircapture #dac #carbonsequestration

What if technology isn’t the answer to climate crisis? Economics & climate educator extraordinaire Michael Mezzatesta doesn’t mince words on this episode of Urgent Futures Podcast. There’s a lot of good that technology & innovation can bring, especially looking at sectors like energy, CleanTech, and ClimateTech, but it’s also important to remember that it’s not the only answer, and probably not even the right answer in most cases. Meredith Broussard has actually coined a term for this blind faith that technology is the right or only solution for every problem: technochauvinism. The basic fact is that human civilization, especially wealthier nations in the Global North, use more resources than the Earth can sustain. This is called ecological overshoot (for more on this subject, check out the Urgent Futures conversation with William Rees). We’re essentially taking out massive debt against the future, and leaving future people (ourselves included) fewer and fewer ways to pay back that debt. This is driven by the growth mandate that underlies modern neoliberal economics. In this episode, Michael dissects the narratives and mythologies that extend neoliberal ideas—and why we should instead turn to alternative economic theories and practices that take us ‘beyond growth’—including degrowth, post-growth, doughnut economics, modern monetary theory (MMT), & more. We humans are a clever species, but we need to start applying that cleverness toward reducing overshoot and promoting adaptation—even if that’s through “low-tech” cyborg approaches (also discuss this in my episode on cyborg futures with Laura Forlano, Ph.D. and Danya Glabau). This conversation has only become more relevant post-election—I hope you’ll check it out (links in comments)

🌍 𝐀𝐈 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞: 𝐀 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 🌍 OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, envisions an "Intelligence Age" driven by AI, claiming it will lead to prosperity and solutions for global warming. However, this perspective overlooks the complexities of the climate crisis. In a world increasingly reliant on technology, the assertion that AI can "fix" climate change warrants a critical examination. This #MITReview article sums it up very well: 1. ⚡𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: AI's potential is overstated; it cannot solely solve climate change without significant economic, policy and societal changes. 2. 🔋 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬: The energy consumption of AI technologies is escalating, raising concerns about their environmental impact. 3. 🏭 𝐅𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐥 𝐅𝐮𝐞𝐥 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲: Despite existing clean technologies, fossil fuels still account for 60% of electricity generation in the largest economies, highlighting regulatory failures. 4. 📉 𝐒𝐮𝐧𝐤 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬: A global economy built on fossil fuel infrastructure poses significant challenges to transitioning to cleaner alternatives. 5. 🔄 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲: Effective climate action requires aggressive policy changes, not just technological advancements. Especially technologies in need of regulations themselves. 6. 🌱 𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬: While AI can predict scenarios, contribute to managing power grids and improve efficiency, these efforts are currently incremental and not game-changing. 7. 🏗️ 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐱 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬: Climate change is not just a technical issue; it involves navigating complex social and economic interests to avoid more injustice. To truly tackle climate change, we must blend technological innovation with robust regulatory frameworks and community engagement. Let’s advocate for policies that promote clean energy and address the systemic issues underlying our reliance on fossil fuels. As I learn with my fellows at Terra.do, there is no silver bullet to the problem, and sorry Sam, AI ain't it either. For a deeper dive into this critical discussion, read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gAwFQb2B #AI #ClimateChange #Sustainability #Technology #CleanEnergy #EnvironmentalImpact #AIforClimate

We reduce emissions to reduce long-term damage from climate change. We adapt to reduce near-term damage from climate change. https://lnkd.in/gqXvj2ar New open access paper discussing how emissions mitigation and climate adaptation are complementary approaches to reducing climate damage. Whatever we do with emissions abatement will have very little influence on, for example, southern California fire risk or Florida hurricane risk in the next decades, but better zoning and building codes, etc., could help a lot. In contrast, we are in for huge amounts of climate change later this century and in the centuries to come if we do not abate our emissions now. Adaptation is the most effective approach to reduce climate damage in the near term, but emissions abatement is the most effective approach to avoid huge amounts of (heavily discounted) climate damage over the long term. Lei Duan, Angelo Carlino