Please use this thread to discuss the above referenced chapter of How the World Really Works: The Science Behind How We Got Here and Where We're Going by Vaclav Smil.

The title of this chapter is a bit misleading, as Smil aims to do his usual numbers roundup but aims it only partially at environmental threats. The first portion is about oxygen and mainly aims to debunk some assertions that our oxygen supply is threatened, most notably a tweet by Emanuel Macron suggesting that burning the Amazon would threaten our oxygen supply. I found myself arguing with Smil (in my mind) about his distortions of the other side, even though his point is correct.

When he gets to food and water, he gives an overview with some interesting points, but does not get to the issues involved in maintaining water adequacy. His big point is that we need to manage it better, which is surely true, including by managing the fertilizer runoff that creates harmful eutrophication. He cites an interesting study in China that found (through actual demonstration) that yields could be increased by more than 10 percent while reducing runoff by a similar amount, simply by exercising greater care and effort. I find this quite credible, but wonder where the incentives will come from.

There follows a good discussion of supplies of potassium and phosphorus, concluding that there is no substantial crisis coming, despite sporadic claims to the contrary.

No word about incredibly fast drawdown of aquifers, especially in South Asia, and a lot of abstract discussion about what Africa will need to sustain its rapidly growing population, with little sense of the pervasive dryness that limits its ability to meet these needs.

His discussion of global warming was cavalier to the point of angering me. Most of it focused on "who discovered global warming," to make the point that we have known for a long time, with the secondary focus being on the fact that we need some GHG's to keep the earth from freezing. Eventually he gets to discussing the effects and threats, beginning with the non-story that we will still have enough oxygen to breathe. This is followed by assurance that rising demand (due to rising incomes and population) threatens fresh water supplies by much more than global warming does. Unless you have wondered about comparative supplies of blue, green and grey water, the discussion is not very illuminating.

Eat less meat, but other than that, we will have to make do and get more efficient in order to keep feeding the planet. That is his conclusion. Beyond a few allusions to hysteria in predictions, and a single paragraph in which he acknowledges temperature rise and coastal inundation, most of his discussion is useless.

In the final section he addresses climate policy and prognosis. He correctly observes that we are leaving immense benefit on the table by ignoring the financial benefit of insulation and other conservation, benefits that are already available with no subsidies or other policy changes if people would respond. He takes an additional swipe at SUVs, well-deserved in my view, He concludes that we probably cannot avoid passing the mark of 1.5 degrees Celsius that delimits the amount we can absorb without catastrophic effects.

He wastes considerable ink on the uncertainties of prediction, with snide comparisons to Covid and our failures to respond to the threat with preparedness, and, almost in so many words, concludes that no predictions of global warming effects should be taken seriously because the problem of decarbonization is difficult and the uncertainties too substantial. After all, as he observes, greening has increased the net amount of vegetation, serving as a carbon sink.

I am not looking forward to his final chapter on the future.

Harry Marks wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:40 pm The title of this chapter is a bit misleading, as Smil aims to do his usual numbers roundup but aims it only partially at environmental threats. The first portion is about oxygen and mainly aims to debunk some assertions that our oxygen supply is threatened, most notably a tweet by Emanuel Macron suggesting that burning the Amazon would threaten our oxygen supply. I found myself arguing with Smil (in my mind) about his distortions of the other side, even though his point is correct.

Yes, his background knowledge on understanding the environment is a bit limited. The Macron tweet illustrates the gulf between popular thinking and science. There is extensive work on environmental threats that he does not mention.

Harry Marks wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:40 pm
When he gets to food and water, he gives an overview with some interesting points, but does not get to the issues involved in maintaining water adequacy. His big point is that we need to manage it better, which is surely true, including by managing the fertilizer runoff that creates harmful eutrophication. He cites an interesting study in China that found (through actual demonstration) that yields could be increased by more than 10 percent while reducing runoff by a similar amount, simply by exercising greater care and effort. I find this quite credible, but wonder where the incentives will come from.

I think incentives to clean rivers will come from industrial recycling of nutrients. My view is that run of river farms designed as photobioreactors with fast growing water plants could convert all the excess nutrient in rivers into valuable commercial products, notably biochar.

Harry Marks wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:40 pm
There follows a good discussion of supplies of potassium and phosphorus, concluding that there is no substantial crisis coming, despite sporadic claims to the contrary.

My view is that we will soon work out how to mine all abundant elements from sea water, probably via algae refineries. The ocean has a billion cubic kilometres of water with vast quantities of these common elements. Potassium and phosphorus will enter the aqueous stream from hydrothermal liquefaction of algae, making them available as fertilizer in quantities much bigger than current use.

Harry Marks wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:40 pm
No word about incredibly fast drawdown of aquifers, especially in South Asia, and a lot of abstract discussion about what Africa will need to sustain its rapidly growing population, with little sense of the pervasive dryness that limits its ability to meet these needs.

Yes, I felt Smil lacked sufficient alarm about the cascading crises afflicting our poor planet. I will have a newspaper article published about some of these crises next Sunday.

Harry Marks wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:40 pm
His discussion of global warming was cavalier to the point of angering me. Most of it focused on "who discovered global warming," to make the point that we have known for a long time, with the secondary focus being on the fact that we need some GHG's to keep the earth from freezing. Eventually he gets to discussing the effects and threats, beginning with the non-story that we will still have enough oxygen to breathe. This is followed by assurance that rising demand (due to rising incomes and population) threatens fresh water supplies by much more than global warming does. Unless you have wondered about comparative supplies of blue, green and grey water, the discussion is not very illuminating.

Good summary Harry. The amount of GHGs we need to restore Holocene stability involves removal/conversion of the several trillion tonnes of CO2 we have inflicted upon our atmosphere. Getting rid of that vast slug of CO2 in the air will take decades, while it serves like a rumbling volcano of potential climate eruptions. The main option to manage the risk is albedo enhancement.

Harry Marks wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:40 pm
Eat less meat, but other than that, we will have to make do and get more efficient in order to keep feeding the planet. That is his conclusion. Beyond a few allusions to hysteria in predictions, and a single paragraph in which he acknowledges temperature rise and coastal inundation, most of his discussion is useless.

Eating less meat is a secondary concern in the context of climate change. It is a worthy personal activity, but makes no difference to tipping points.

Harry Marks wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:40 pm
In the final section he addresses climate policy and prognosis. He correctly observes that we are leaving immense benefit on the table by ignoring the financial benefit of insulation and other conservation, benefits that are already available with no subsidies or other policy changes if people would respond. He takes an additional swipe at SUVs, well-deserved in my view, He concludes that we probably cannot avoid passing the mark of 1.5 degrees Celsius that delimits the amount we can absorb without catastrophic effects.

The only way to prevent warming is to brighten the planet. This is a basic conclusion I have reached from observation of the difficulty in stopping dangerous change armed only with regulation of carbon as a method. Albedo is a far more tractable, available, cheap, safe, fast, acceptable and effective lever to stabilise the climate than carbon.

Harry Marks wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:40 pm
He wastes considerable ink on the uncertainties of prediction, with snide comparisons to Covid and our failures to respond to the threat with preparedness, and, almost in so many words, concludes that no predictions of global warming effects should be taken seriously because the problem of decarbonization is difficult and the uncertainties too substantial. After all, as he observes, greening has increased the net amount of vegetation, serving as a carbon sink.

I felt Smil was rather tired and uninformed in these arguments. Predictions of global warming effects should be taken very seriously, including sea level rise, biodiversity loss, extreme weather, tipping points and systemic imbalances. It is entirely possible that these effects could grow much faster than predicted in scientific models. The precautionary security principle demands that these risks be investigated and mitigated.

Harry Marks wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:40 pm
I am not looking forward to his final chapter on the future.

I am looking forward to what you have to say about it Harry. Thanks for the précis.