Climate Dystopia

If the current state of the world according to climate scientists is anything to go by, this century will be cataclysmic. Since the 1980s, despite their warnings, global greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration have continued to increase. As predicted, amplifying feedback processes are now in play which, without intervention, are likely to alter Earth’s climate rapidly (instantaneously on a geological timescale) to a very different state than the one today’s life-forms and human civilisation evolved to adapt to.

Unfortunately, civilisation’s systems and procedures did not evolve to solve problems this fundamental or this global. Our problem this time is that evolution – survival of the most efficient ways to extract value from Earth’s resources – will no longer work. Our best hope is to agree a credible plan to secure our safety, and actually follow that plan.

This website seeks to identify the main drivers behind mankind’s failure to sustain the resource-abundant, life-giving home we inherited, explaining in broad terms what has gone wrong – and continues to go wrong – and the most powerful, scaleable solutions under consideration.

What can be done now?

If we are to survive we need to elevate the value of science as a way of measuring and predicting reality, and be willing to question our own tribal prejudices and ideologies. For example, the green movement does not recognise that radiation is safe within limits, and that nuclear power has the safest record of mainstream sources of electricity, as measured in deaths per Terrawatt hour. On the other side of the divide a number of very powerful elites do not even recognise the existence of climate change, and have spent $millions denying its existence to the public. They are losing the battle but most people still remain lethargic about taking meaningful action. Even those who do reduce their carbon footprint are countered by 140 million people (two Thailands) adopting high energy consuming, middle-class lifestyles around the world every year. In addition, in the developed world finance ministers have been enacting policies to boost economic growth.

The media appears similarly clueless, rarely mentioning the best ideas and solutions being worked on today by engineers and economists, or the problems hampering them. This video explains how the media consistently falls short in its reporting on climate change:

The purpose of this website is to:

  • Introduce game changers that are rarely mentioned in mainstream media
  • Explain the technology basics in each case
  • Take a tour of the wide range of problems hampering effective action.


Let’s talk about what could actually make the difference needed

An ‘old timer’ from the UK Inland Revenue once pointed out to me that people mostly just talk about what is familiar to them, rather than what is important. He had been in a one-hour meeting back in the 1970s in which there were two items on the agenda: 1. Should they spend £1 million on a big new mainframe computer? 2. Should they renew the contract with the company that cuts the grass outside the office? Fifty-five minutes were spent on one decision, the remaining five on the other. No prizes for guessing which was which.

So, what should we be doing that might actually solve climate change?

Weak solution example: The ‘feel good’ approach

We all want to feel good about ourselves, and some of us achieve that by reducing our carbon footprints – by driving or flying less, avoiding meat and dairy, even just recycling – which helps a bit. However, sadly those actions will only delay catastrophe.

The hard thinking approach

Those who are prepared to confront uncomfortable realities recognise that a full set of viable solutions to climate change does not yet exist.  They understand that solutions get invented, tested, financed, developed and deployed in a process that needs support. Enough people talking and writing respectfully and helpfully about the most plausible – game changing – ideas being proposed today, is what will make the missing difference.

Please comment and contribute your suggestions using the Contact page.

Next: Context