go back
climate beliefs 09/27/2024
written on the bus back to cambridge from new york climate week
on solar radiation management / solar geoengineering
- it seems inevitable that this will be deployed, regardless if all nations agree/disagree. with this in mind, we should be doing PUBLIC, fully transparent research on SRM in as controllable settings as we can, so we can begin to understand the implications of its existence in our world
- SRM should never be done by private companies. it should also never be sold. there is absolutely no case that would warrant this. there are many, many scientists in the world that exist today who are researching SRM. if you feel so compelled to spend money on untrained silicon valley wannabe-scientists who deploy with zero accountability & science to back it, you should instead be funding public research that can actually create meaningful outcomes in the long run.
on software/silicon valley’s role in climate
- silicon valley generally thinks of itself as a martyr for any world problem and that software can save the world. have you considered: a lot (if not most) of decarbonization solutions already exist in the form of Stopping The Status Quo? and the most solvable (and pressing!) problems will not be fixed by forward innovation, but rather backpedaling on the many mistakes we have done & changing paths to known alternate solutions? longwinded way of saying we don’t need anymore carbon tracking software lmao. and sometimes we make things more complicated than they need to be.
- although, there is a lot of compelling technological innovation in the form of hardware. some good examples: methaneSAT, energy resilience, alternative energy scaling capabilities… etc. then i pose the question: should climate solutions be gatekept by private startups who are trying to monetize and become unicorns? for a return for their investors? or should these be public, so we can stop the climate crisis as soon as we can? you tell me
- the answer to that rhetorical question is that venture-backed startups are not the ideal vehicle to be solving climate change
on carbon dioxide removal (CDR)
- carbon removal only makes sense if we’re decarbonizing. in the ideal world, CDR is used as a way to remove anthropogenic emissions and/or used as an interim solution for hard-to-abate sectors (aviation as the prime example).
- a moral hazard exists where corporations use CDR “credits” as a way to maintain their current operating practices while being “neutral” on paper. in reality, they should decarbonize as much as possible before even considering CDR. the price of carbon / carbon tax should be high to the point where the logical step of running a high-intensity emission business should be to shut down its operations and look elsewhere for business. oil and gas should be scared and should be looking at different energy streams to replace itself / transition seamlessly. that’s the most extreme take i can think of and i'd bet against it actually happening
- note that i am from calgary, alberta and most of my family is employed in oil and gas. it goes without saying that i care a lot about the livelihoods of people who work in the o&g industry, and think that there exists many parallel forms of (decarbonized) work that their skills translate into
on the voluntary carbon market (VCM)
- ideally should not exist, but it’s not a terrible thing either. shoutout to altruistic corporation dollars. somehow we stand on the backs of them at the moment lol. what a world
- working within these constraints, there is ample opportunity to use these dollars to progress science and prepare for compliance markets
- offsets are only moral as a way to supplement a corporation’s decarbonization ramp up. the end goal & accountability should be transfixed onto real decarbonization changes
on how we decarbonize
- collective effort across industries, la la la. progressively stricter regulations around emissions both in private and public sectors. we’re going to see a lot more policy tightening as get closer to 2030, 2040, 2045 targets. it still feels like the world is a bit too lax, but that feels like expected behaviour as this is the beginning of a transition phase
- will explore this a bit more below but also this topic warrants its own page
on staying optimistic
- i still think it’s doable. we’re going way too slow to avoid tipping points but i always believe in humanity to prevail/find other ways to avoid our collective downfall (whether it be public SRM or not…)
- i think a lot about the hydro-/chlorofluorocarbons ozone-depletion times (which was recent, in the grand scale of time!!!!!!!) and how we listened to science and managed to roll them out before catastrophic-life-ending change
- so the way i frame this in my head (and is my primary motivator) is that we feel immense pressure to solve this problem because our lives are so short - we likely won’t reap the benefits that we’re putting in today. however, today, we reap the benefits of our actions in the 1980s. so i’d like to believe that in 50 years from now, future children will read a paragraph or two in their social studies/science textbooks about how the earth banded together to solve the carbon/greenhouse gas emission problem from 2020-2050. and i’m sure as hell going to ensure i play my part in that!
on bringing kids into the world in the current state of affairs
- good. in fact, great. there is no world without its problems that need to be solved together. raise kind children who care about the collective and humanity will continue to progress. it is silly to me to think of a world without children.
- time and time again, we actively shape the world for the next generation to grow up in. having kids is a deep responsibility of stewarding the earth for them. it's betting on the future of earth. people talk about what they’re building to the point that they forget who they are building for.
- optimism fuels my personal motivations of progression. it’s about having my own kids to live in the world i shape for them. i believe in my own capability (and the world’s ability to change) that i’ll have as many kids as i can to bare the fruit of my labour and public service
on ari’s next steps
- i have a strong conviction in the ability of municipalities and cities to be the leading pioneers of decarbonization. central/fed policy plays the utmost central role in dictating decarbonization dollars, and municipalities are often the ones who are actually deploying said dollars to real programming
- my goal is to be mayor of guelph, ontario. i’m going to run for city councillor in 2030 and for mayor in 2034, which gives XXL and i ample time to raise a family and to get to know the guelph communities deeply. i will not run for either if i do not feel confident in my ability to represent the people of guelph well. i care deeply about the wellbeing of the citizens of guelph, first and foremost, before my decarbonization agenda. i will promote decarbonization in the form of tangible, public benefits that affect households and individuals. and that’s how we progress regardless of politics.
- my favorite mayors are nonpartisan. in canada, i will be too.
