Nature works by continuously repeating to build-up and break-down, or break-down and build-up again and again – no matter, which end we start to look at, it always works both ways! Except human creation, often striving to evolve in one direction only. Or aren’t many modern achievements reminding the allegory to the tower of Babel? Of course we experience circulatory evolutions but will only be satisfied if following an upward spiral not ending to grow through the sky into outer space at best. Physiologically this may be vested as every animate being’s learning forms new synapsis changing the protein structure in the brain, making a physical tangibly “different” appearance out of the “educated” being – not directly reversible if not forced by a damaging event like drug consumption, accidents or illnesses, falling under the category of catastrophes – like the Tower of Babel collapse.
For the last 25 years we have been experiencing annual Earth summits, evidencing awareness of ongoing changes to our habitat that may be reversible by catastrophes only. But still we run into deniers every day. Understandably people want clear evidence before making sacrifices from their comforts and freedoms and certainty that such contributions can make a difference, at least if everybody did it. In contrary most discussions about Climate Change are misused to fuel business models for most ineffective incremental often even counterproductive provisions enforced and often even supported by subsidies by eco-populist politics. As any populism relies on stoking fears it may reach even the majority of people predisposed to fears but not enough game changers who normally oppose against it. Modern brain research contemplates 60% of people to be frightened from any kind of change and only 15% capable of peering major changes. Remaining 25% may be enticed in either direction, depending on their education and living situation. So unfortunately the concept of green-washing economy works for the majority – but not for anthroposphere above and beyond our basis for nutrition.
Arable land and harvest residues are used for energy production burning recoverable Carbon into CO2 and plant nutrients and fertilizers are replenished via chemicals produced at significant Carbon Footprints from processing energy and fossil feedstock, soil biology is largely extinguished alongside targeted vermin by pesticides and herbicides deteriorating soil ligated Carbon 100 times faster than it can be restored. But Green economists continue promoting bio-energy and transcontinental biomass trading relocating natural nutrients to other continents just only for cremation under slagging of ashes adding to cement industries’ product outputs! Looking at the principles of Carbon Efficiency nothing but Hydrogen should get burned if there were no other means to provide appropriate heat. Certainly not necessary for comfort neither hygiene nor any synthesis or recycling processes. And in propulsion Hydrogen, even if produced from fossil would allow bisection of Carbon emissions and may be zeroed out to the extent produced via new methods of excess electricity or photosensitive electrolysis. But that would require real game changes.
Climate Change induced sea-level rising threatens coastal settlements housing about 10% of the world’s population within 15 meters above sea level. 14mln years ago, at CO2 concentrations similar to what’s now seen to be the 2°C Carbon Budget limit temperature levels were about 2°C higher than today at 25 meter higher sea-levels. A mobile society will of course have the possibility to move higher up but the land losses and migration pressure would certainly put further stress on securing food supplies. Of course husbandry nowadays consuming 40% of harvests for adding less than 10% to our nutrition could be severely ceased. Carbon Recycling however might require less sacrifices by humanity than challenging its adaptive capacity!