Shopping Cart
Your Cart is Empty
Quantity:
Subtotal
Taxes
Shipping
Total
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
CelebrateThank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart

THE CLIMA​​TE DEADLINE ALLIANCE

SIGN UP TO PARTICIPATE IN SAVING YOUR FAMILIES FUTURE

Executive Summary: Komor v. United States  (1:21-cv-01560)

Authors Note: There is a natural tendency (especially with so much deception present in our global culture) to impulsively dismiss information and analysis from non-traditional sources. With this in mind we would like to point out: (1) The analysis herein is unique the material presented is sourced from the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, USGS, and various US and European government agencies and (2) In spite of billions of dollars in dues, grants, donations, and fees spent and decades of “work”, almost all indicators of global warming, ecosystem collapse, and climate disruption are advancing rapidly and beyond the predictions and modeling from governments and major environmental agencies. When you fail obviously and dramatically and continually it’s time for some new voices in the field of climate change, voices that understand the obvious – a lethal level of atmospheric greenhouse gas is not going away just because you don’t add more. Thus, Komor v. United States submits that the below facts and analysis should be considered true and correct and acted on accordingly unless peer-reviewed evidence can be presented disproving key elements of the below facts and analysis. Our catchphrase, “It’s Us or Dust”. Send your 5019(c)3 donations and offer your support for Komor v. United States (1:21-cv-01560) now!


“Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

– Sir Winston Churchill

1) CLIMATE DISRUPTION IS AN EXTINCTION-LEVEL EMERGENCY

From 1850 to 2020, human activity has dumped escalating levels of greenhouse gasses into our thin protective atmosphere so that today we have approximately 950 gigatons of CO2 reflecting solar radiation back onto the planet. Information from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory indicates that anthropogenic, or human-caused, CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel consumption reached 9.9 gigatons carbon per year in 2013. Emissions are continuously rising faster than the observed expansion in natural sinking capacity. The net impact is a continued rise in atmospheric CO₂ accumulation at ~2 ppm/yr. This represents trapped energy roughly equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs each day 365 days a year. Eventually this carbon (and ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons, and methane, and nitrous oxide) would be “recycled” through natural processes – but that “eventually” is thousands of years from now. Meanwhile, in the mid-2030’s, at around 450 ppm dissolved atmospheric carbon (or 10 GtC of ocean-dissolved CO2), geohistorical evidence has clearly shown us that the Earth will (it has every time the atmosphere reached this saturation) cross “tipping levels” and lock into a “new normal”. This new normal will be incompatible with the continued survival of most land and aquatic species now enjoying Earth’s hospitality. The Climate Deadline Alliance we refer to this simply as the “Climate Deadline”. Civilization will not end at this point, but it will become impossible to reverse enough of the ecological changes set in motion to turn back course of change.


In the 1980’s Dr. James Hansen, then Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, urged the U.S. Congress to bring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels down by replacing coal with nuclear energy before 2030 while separately fostering 100 GtC worth of reforestation drawdown. His approach hinged on immediately initiating 1 percent annual emissions cuts starting by 2013, culminating in 90 percent cumulative cuts by 2050. None of this happened and by 2012, Hansen himself published a graph showing that delaying the start of 1 percent annual emissions cuts until 2020 would delay 350 ppm CO₂ restoration (considered a minimum safe level) from 2100 all the way to 2300. Each 7 years of delay in taking action translates into two centuries of delay in restoring at safe level of atmospheric CO2. This was almost a decade ago during which there has been no appreciable progress in terms of atmospheric change. Our vehicles continue to generate 5.6lbs of carbon per gallon, and we have nothing even approaching 1 percent annual emissions reduction. 


Should humans continue warming the atmosphere at the current rate, the Hansen’s model forecasts that emissions will reach a disastrous 17 GtC/yr by 2034. As a result, net atmospheric CO₂ accumulation will reach 450 ppm in 2029, in agreement with IPCC-AR5/RCP8.5 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–5th Assessment Report/ Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) and 500 ppm by 2038.


Now hold on for just a few more figures. In the Journal Nature (April 26, 2021)Dr. Jeff Berardelli elucidated the formula for “Emergency” as: (E) as the product of risk and urgency. Risk (R) is defined by insurers as probability (p) multiplied by damage (D). Urgency (U) is defined in emergency situations as reaction time to an alert (τ) divided by the intervention time left to avoid a bad outcome (T). Thus: E = R × U = p × D × τ / T The situation is an emergency if both risk and urgency are high. If reaction time is longer than the intervention time left (τ / T > 1), we have lost control. With a 450 ppm legacy carbon deadline rushing up on us in the mid-2030’s or sooner and no hope that emissions reductions will stop the freight train of greenhouse gas accumulation Climate Change, that is what we would call an emergency.


2) GLOBAL WARMING AND SUSTAINABILITY ARE TWO SEPARATE PROBLEMS

Climate Change caused by Global Warming and is the emergency not Sustainability. We are well on the way to achieving sustainability and this will be very useful if we make it past the Climate Deadline! The emergency is out-of-control Global Warming that is forcing Climate Change to an extent that Tipping Levels (see below) are being reached leading to large shifts in ecosystem dynamics such that our planet will become fo the most part uninhabitable for our current civilization later in this century.

Put another way, we have two problems facing us: (1) Achieving sustainability here on the ground and (2) the massive amount of greenhouse gas we have already put “up there” in the atmosphere creating Global Warming and Climate Change. So, again, sustainability is great, but first we need to achieve Direct Removal of Exiting Atmospheric Carbon already in the atmosphere. This must now be done rapidly via human intervention. It is impossible (not to mention rude) to expect our planet’s natural systems to repair the artificial damage caused by humans. We learned in kindergarten, if we made a mess we were responsible for the cleanup.

Emissions reductions combined with natural drawdown and increased use of alternative energy would have worked if it had begun decades ago. Now anyone relying on such promises is either lying, delaying, or referring to future sustainability which must be achieved at some point – but only after the immediate problem of global warming has been solved. Even should we reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero, it will have no meaningful impact on preserving our habitat without first manually removing existing atmospheric carbon. Human society currently emits 41 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. The amount is rising unchecked in spite of endless research projects, legions of politicians with complex carbon trading schemes and a flood of highly paid environmental organizations with lofty intentions. Human civilization cannot give these bureaucrats and corporate boards more time. We must combine a significant emissions reduction with the physical removal of at least 20 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year starting in 2025 or sooner. We have to give up our “business as usual” mindset and get on “war footing” regarding climate change.


3) THERE IS A LOT OF DECEPTION AND PREVARICATION AROUND CLIMATE CHANGE

We are sorry to crash the distract-them-with-self-blame party, but putting the onus on the individual consumer is clearly a rouse. From the 1880’s to the initiation of mass production gas-powered vehicles by Henry Ford in the1910’s we were loving our electric cars. In fact, almost all motor vehicles were powered by electricity! Resulting rapid innovation in battery technology even allowed fleets of electric taxis in London and New York. We were thus on our way to a low greenhouse-gas future when it was discovered that the use of petroleum was more profitable and electricity. By the mid-1900’s Global Warming was serious enough to start to worry boardrooms and Congress. Since then, man-made greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase exponentially and accumulate in our atmosphere. NASA reports the amount of heat the Earth traps has roughly doubled since 2005. This is in spite of regular government investigations into climate change, and recommendations for robust actions which never seem to materialize.

To summarize, it is now 50 years past the time when we could repair the damage in our atmosphere simply by not doing more damage. Reforestation, carbon credits, shifting to alternative energy sources and the like will only make us feel better…..like sending “Get Well Soon” cards to Auschwitz. Emissions reductions and sustainability actions are crucial for the future. At present they are a threat, a dangerous, confusing distraction and opiate for our climate anxiety. We will eventually need these tools to survive, but only if we first do our repair work on the already carbon-soaked atmosphere above us and the acidic oceans below.


4) FIFTY YEARS OF INACTION, OMNICIDE, OR GOOD BUISNESS PLANNING

Collectively governments, corporations and “Big Environmentalism” seem to want us to keep focused on “carbon footprints”, “global temperatures” and “emissions reduction numbers” and definitely not on parts per million atmospheric CO2. Why? Well, for one thing, it’s easier to play with the numbers and more profitable to obfuscate and delay taking real action while continuing to make profits. Take for example Brookfield Asset Management’s choice to include “avoided emissions” in their “financial portfolio”. Under this strategy, an investment in wind turbines might be claimed as avoiding an investment in the same amount of energy produced by coal. How green of them! Any analysis of where we stand on climate not based on parts per million atmospheric carbon dioxide opens the door for political and accounting gamesmanship. Only the goal of <450 ppm dissolved atmospheric carbon will keep stakeholders’ efforts purposeful and on-target. No other number is truly relevant.

Most are aware, a similar corporate-political strategy was used with cigarette smoking. In both cases, a campaign of distraction and disinformation allowed half a century to pass. During that time profits piled up while we lost our opportunity for reduction-elimination strategies to naturally resolve the problem. Human, or planetary, lungs had already been damaged to the point where only the application of forceful, affirmative technology could repair the damage.


5) MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF GREEHOUSE GASSES ALREADY IN THE ATMOSPHERE MEAN REDUCTION EFFORTS WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO AVOID THE CLIMATE DEADLINE

Anyone with their research pants on knows it has been 50 years since reduced emissions could put the brakes on global warming. We long-ago ruined our atmosphere to the extent that our focus must now be on actively removing legacy emissions in the atmosphere before sustainability can be achieved. Thus, bartering carbon credits and changing the shoe size on carbon footprints is rather like playing cards on a high-speed train now 1,000 yards from the edge of a precipice. It just doesn’t matter what cards you’re playing. You’re going to sail over that cliff to a fiery doom unless something very different happens quickly. Legacy emissions are, at present, the only real place to put our energies. Everyone with a brain knows it and anyone talking about anything else is delusional or lying to you (or both) no matter what their credentials or title. We must shift our focus from the far-off “existential” metric of degrees-centigrade to the more bracing-but-helpful 450 ppm atmospheric CO2 (and, or 10 GtC in our oceans) and we must do it soon. We are now at 417 ppm and increasing by 2.5 ppm each year. It is too easy for the public to pass off a few degrees centigrade as “a little uncomfortable, but Americans are tough”. Everyone needs to understand that we have approximately 15 years to develop and implement a massive program for manually removing large amounts of carbon, or risk getting locked into escalating cascade failures leading us off an environmental cliff.

Without manually removing existing atmospheric carbon (and other greenhouse gasses) called “legacy emissions”, even should we reduce further greenhouse gas emissions to zero, the extremely long life of these gasses means this will have no meaningful impact on the course of climate disruption. There is too much greenhouse gas already in the atmosphere and it’s not going anywhere.


6) OTHER GREENHOUSE GASSES ARE IMPORTANT BUT WATCH THOSE EXPIRATION DATES

The impact of gases other than carbon dioxide is measured by equating those gases to an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), called carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The equivalence of gases ranges widely. For example, one molecule of methane equals about 30 molecules of carbon dioxide, whereas other chemicals such as fluorinated gases, used primarily as refrigerants, are thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide per molecule. Notably, the equivalence value varies based on the timeframe over which the gas is evaluated (methane has a higher equivalence over 20 years than over 100 years, for example) and as the science of climate change advances.


The total amount of CO2e in the atmosphere includes CO2 as well as all the other gases that contribute to climate change. To have at least a 50/50 chance of limiting warming to two degrees, we must limit concentrations of CO2e to below 450 ppm. Yet in 2015, CO2e concentrations measured 485 ppm, and they have been increasing at a rate of two to four parts per million per year.

Global Warming Potential (GWP) is one of several ways to analyze the long-term impact of the different greenhouse gasses. The 20-year GWP is sometimes used as an alternative to the 100-year GWP. Just like the 100-year GWP is based on the energy absorbed by a gas over 100 years, the 20-year GWP is based on the energy absorbed over 20 years. This 20-year GWP prioritizes gases with shorter lifetimes, because it does not consider impacts that happen more than 20 years after the emissions occur. Because all GWPs are calculated relative to CO2, GWPs based on a shorter timeframe will be larger for gases with lifetimes shorter than that of CO2, and smaller for gases with lifetimes longer than CO2. For example, for CH4, which has a short lifetime, the 100-year GWP of 28–36 is much less than the 20-year GWP of 84–87. For CF4, with a lifetime of 50,000 years, the 100-year GWP of 6630–7350 is larger than the 20-year GWP of 4880–4950.


Another alternate metric is the Global Temperature Potential (GTP). While the GWP is a measure of the heat absorbed over a given time period due to emissions of a gas, the GTP is a measure of the temperature change at the end of that time period (again, relative to CO2).The calculation of the GTP is more complicated than that for the GWP, as it requires modeling how much the climate system responds to increased concentrations of GHGs (the climate sensitivity) and how quickly the system responds (based in part on how the ocean absorbs heat).


7) BUSINESS AS USUAL WILL BE THE END OF US

If we had tried to take a “business as usual” approach to conveniently fitting WWII into our financial planning and delicate social agendas we would all now be carrying copies of Mein Kampf. There is much greater danger from Global Warming than there was from Nazi invasion. Climate Change just looks less threatening because it’s not carrying guns or bombs (except rain bombs of course).

Make no mistake, business as usually is one element of the plan by those with mistletoe brains who still think greed is a laudable philosophy. At the U.N. COP26 Climate Summit the fossil fuel industry had by far the largest delegation – larger than the 8 countries worst hit by rising temperatures combined. Over 100 fossil fuel companies and 30 related trade organizations attended. Corporations, of course, are supposed to make money while the job of government is to reign them in. There are limits though and (as with the tobacco industry) making active plans to withhold information and block progress on repairing their damage is worse than war profiteering.


8) TIPPING POINTS

While some of the consequences of climate change are predictable in the way of a linear analysis — e.g., increasingly extreme weather, sea-level rise, loss of biodiversity — the pace at which these events unfold and their eventual severity hinge on what happens with key linchpins in the climate system, called tipping points. A tipping point is a threshold or point of no return in the climate system that once passed can no longer be reversed. Often it also means a shift from linear to exponential progression. Passing a tipping point does not necessarily mean immediate, drastic consequences, but it does mean those consequences become locked in and unavoidable. Three examples of tipping points we may have already crossed or will soon be crossing: the Amazon rainforest, the West Antarctic ice sheet, and the Gulf Stream system.


9) CASCADING FEEDBACK-LOOPS

All of nature is, of course, interconnected. One system (pollinating bee colonies for instance which have declined by up to 96% and their geographic ranges contracted by 23–87% within the last 20 years) does not function in isolation. Reaching a tipping point in bee ecology may trigger one or even several associated tipping points (a widening breech between plants and pollinators causing insect populations to migrate causing bat populations to migrate triggering a pandemic among humans). This we would refer to as a Cascading Feedback Loops.


We see signs of these feedback-loops all around us as we continue to force our planetary ecosystems further and further toward the completion of anthropoidal feedback loops. Many feedback-loops lead to increased greenhouse-gas levels and global temperature. Research in 2020 indicated that exceeding tipping points in one system can increase the risk of crossing them in others. Such links were found for 45% of possible interactions.


Some examples:

 A slowing and redirection of ocean currents which then affects heat distribution around the planet which then affects multiple ecosystems from forests to crop yields to coral reefs. As the Earth warms, the Gulf Stream is moving north and out of position. That could cause more droughts and heat waves in southern Europe and the eastern US. If greenhouse-gas emissions continue unabated the jet stream will break out of its normal range by 2060. That would wreak havoc on weather in the northern hemisphere.

 Dramatic melting of ice and thawing of permafrost at both poles – including in Greenland where they have lost over 500 billion tons of ice in the past 10 years alone – leading to not only the expected flooding, but a vast and accelerating release of stores of methane from beneath melting permafrost. In turn this has led to leading to Arctic wildfires. In June and July 2020 alone NASA estimated that 205 megatons of CO2 were emitted from wildfires in the polar regions further adding to global warming. In addition, we have seen the emergence of new soil microbes from under the permafrost which have begun to release increasing large amounts of stored carbon from the ground, soil being one of our largest repositories of carbon.

 Reduced or destroyed animal species and habitats such as during the Australian wildfires of 2019 when 80% of some animal’s habitats were destroyed which in turn alter the balance between species which in turn alters the prevalence and intensity of viral and other diseases due to changes in the feeding grounds of bats, insects and other disease carrying vectors. There has, by the way, been a dramatic increase in the prevalence and intensity of viral and other diseases due, in large part, to changes in the feeding grounds of bats, insects and other disease carrying vectors. In Texas, for example, 3.5% of the summer bat are now staying for the winter, compared with 0% in the mid-1950s. The current burden from climate-sensitive diseases such as diarrhea, malaria and malnutrition is already causing >150,000 deaths and approximately 5 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALY) each year.

 Increasingly adverse weather events which have begun to disable alternative as well as traditional energy infrastructure as it did in Texas in winter 2021. during critical weather events leave large populations vulnerable to unmanageable decrees of heat, cold, drought, flooding, wind, and seismic and ocean dangers. Mass migrations of animals, birds, insects, and plants are creating havoc for social systems and leading to an escalation in extinctions. Altered weather patterns also lead to costly infrastructure damage leading to economic and social disruption leading to conflicts and war.

 Already Arctic sea-ice loss is amplifying regional warming, and Arctic warming and Greenland melting are driving an influx of fresh water into the North Atlantic. This has likely contributed to a 15% slowdown since the mid-twentieth century of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a key part of global heat and salt transport by the oceans. Rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet and further slowdown of the AMOC could destabilize the West African monsoon, triggering drought in Africa’s Sahel region. A slowdown in the AMOC could also dry the Amazon, disrupt the East Asian monsoon, and cause heat to build up in the Southern Ocean, which could in turn accelerate Antarctic ice loss.


10) TIPPING POINTS + CASCADING FEEDBACK-LOOPS = SYSTEMS FAILURE

Paleogeologic evidence and computer modeling predicts that somewhere in the mid-2030’s we will have passed enough Tipping Points and triggered enough Cascading Feedback-Loops to reach a “Climate Deadline”. Geohistorically researchers have determined this has occurred without exception at 450 ppm dissolved atmospheric carbon (or 10 GtC of ocean-dissolved CO2, whichever happens first). There is clear evidence that feedback-loops in Earth’s ecosystems, which are already altered, will then lock into a “new normal”. The problem for us is that new normal will be incompatible with the continued survival of most existing land, air, and aquatic species. We might say Mother Earth has a limit to her patience. If we annoy her enough, she will buck us off like a dog shaking off fleas.


11) PALEOGEOLOGIC EVIDENCE IS HARD TO ARGUE WITH – IT’S CARVED IN STONE

Regional tipping occurred repeatedly within and at the end of the last ice age, between 80,000 and 10,000 years ago (the Dansgaard–Oeschger and Heinrich events). This highlights that planetary systems have been unstable across multiple timescales before, under relatively weak forcing caused by minor changes in Earth’s orbit. Now we are strongly forcing the system, with outlandish atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature increasing at rates that are an order of magnitude higher than those during the most recent deglaciation.


Some early results from the latest climate models — run for the IPCC’s sixth assessment report in 2021 — indicate a much larger climate sensitivity (defined as the temperature response to doubling of atmospheric CO2) than in previous models. Many more results are pending, and further investigation is required, but these preliminary results suggest that a global tipping point is approaching. The intervention time left to prevent tipping could already have shrunk towards zero, whereas the reaction time to achieve net zero emissions through emissions reductions is 30 years at best. Thus, in a business as usual model, we might already have lost control of whether a global tipping point is reached.


Kopp et al. (2009), Dutton and Lambeck (2012), and Hansen et al. (2015, 2016) summarized what happened the last time Earth warmed by 1.9°C about 120,000 years ago during the Eemian interglacial warm period preceding the last ice age. Eeemian warming via orbital forcing, cited by Hansen et al. as warming nominally 1.9°C above Earth’s 1870 temperature, essentially matches the twenty-first-century warming caps currently being targeted by IPCC-AR5/RCP2.6 (Stocker et al. 2013) and COP21 (Paris-2015). Eemian-period seas rose gradually at first and then abruptly five to nine meters in several stages—the latter occurring within decades. The resulting high seas lasted thousands of years. Multi-meter Eemian sea rise was attributed to warming-induced abrupt partial mechanical collapses of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland—following earlier extended periods of slower melting. Hansen et al. (2016, 3761) emphasized that “ice mass loss [in response to warming] from the most vulnerable ice, sufficient to raise sea level several meters, is better approximated as exponential than by a more linear response.” This suggests Eemian paleoclimatic history may provide a better predictor of late twenty first-century warming impact, relating to potential sudden mechanical collapse of vulnerable ice sheets and abrupt several-meter rise in sea levels, as opposed to the gradual linear melt rate that IPCC now extrapolates to project only one foot of sea rise by 2100. melting rates and corresponding observations of gradual sea rise are deceptively small, but early warnings of impending nonlinear (abrupt) late twenty-first- or early twenty-second-century ice sheet collapses in Greenland, West Antarctica, and parts of East Antarctica have already been reported (Rasmussen 2014; Rignot 2014; Rignot et al. 2014). These abrupt mechanical collapses would yield multi-meter sea rise paralleling the paleoclimatic Eemian warm period events.


The world’s remaining emissions budget for a 50:50 chance of staying within 1.5 °C of warming is only about 500 gigatons (Gt) of CO2. Permafrost emissions could take an estimated 20% (100 Gt CO2) off this budget, and that’s without including methane from deep permafrost or undersea hydrates. If forests are close to tipping points, Amazon dieback could release another 90 Gt CO2 and boreal forests a further 110 Gt CO2. With global total CO2 emissions still at more than 40 Gt per year, the remaining budget could be all but erased already. As well as undermining our life-support system, biosphere tipping points can trigger abrupt carbon release back to the atmosphere. This can amplify climate change and reduce remaining emission budgets. Evidence is mounting that these events could be more likely than was thought, have high impacts, and are interconnected across different biophysical systems, potentially committing the world to long-term irreversible changes.


12) THE PRICE TAG FOR INACTION WILL JUST KEEP GETTING HIGHER

In the 1980s the U.S. suffered an average of 2.9 weather or climate disasters per year, at a cost of $17.8 billion, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the 2000s the averages had grown to 6.2 disasters and $51.9 billion in spending per year. The 2010s brought averages up to 11.9 events and $81.1 billion, with NOAA dubbing it “a landmark decade of U.S. billion-dollar climate and weather disasters.’’ In 2020 the U.S. government spent about $2.3 billion fighting wildfires, roughly 10 times what it spent in 1985, an increase tied to the hotter, drier conditions of global warming has created in the western U.S. That money comes from taxes. So, too, does funding for the National Flood Insurance Program, which has piled up $20.5 billion in debt. The program now pays about $1 million in interest per day, according to a recent federal report, and won’t be able to repay its existing debts in the next decade as warmer oceans bring more flooding. At a certain point we simply won’t be able to pay for continued climate change mitigation. When the suit is successful, the financial cost of Komor v. United States will be high, but not higher than the cost of continued attempts at mitigating of climate disruption. Indeed, within the next two decades these mitigatory costs will become so extreme that it will no longer be possible to meet them. Currently developed countries are pledged to provide $100 billion in aid annually to developing countries just for climate-related mitigation. We must take a proactive stance of atmospheric carbon removal now.


13) WE NEED TO BE PROACTIVE NOT REACTIVE

U.K.’s Royal Society and the Washington-based Bipartisan Policy Center, both of which recommended further exploring Stratospheric Sulfur Injections. Now the IPCC itself suggests that while we must continue to implement solar and wind technology as quickly as possible, doing so won’t avoid major climate catastrophes. CO₂ levels are already too high, and scaling up renewable energy will just slow the rate of increase; it won’t bring CO₂ levels down. For these reasons, the IPCC recommends some form of fiscally and ecologically sound climate-engineering; carbon capture, solar reflection, or both. This, in combination with wind and solar power, as well as climate-engineered greenhouse gas reduction efforts, would be our only hope.


None but the most stalwart want to reduce their profits and pleasures for a nebulous goal of a “sustainable future”. For decades governments and NGOs have attempted to reactively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Almost no one is buying into the program. Talk around COP26 has shifted from “this is our last chance” to “sure we’ll cut emissions by 50% sometime soon”. On the other hand, a proactive mobilization for removing carbon from the atmosphere will engage new enthusiasm and energy. A program for Direct Removal of Existing Atmospheric Carbon (like the goal of landing on the Moon in the 1960’s) will activate and channel human energy and enthusiasm. Americans like to build things and work toward goals. Sadly, we don’t like to clean up our messes.

Much to their credit, the Biden Administration has been the most vocally climate-friendly, but their time in office is limited to 4 or 8 years. We cannot assume that any future U.S. Administration prior to the mid-2030’s will have the intention or resources to make the leap to Direct Removal of Existing Atmospheric Carbon. It is likely now or never.


14) STAYING BELOW 450 PPM ATMOSPHERIC CARBON IS THE CRUCIAL MEASURE OF PROGRESS

We must shift our focus from the far-off “existential” metric of degrees-centigrade to the more bracing-but-helpful 450 ppm atmospheric CO2 (and, or 10 GtC in our oceans) pointing out that we are now at 417 ppm and increasing by 2.5 ppm each year. It is too easy for the public to pass off a few degrees centigrade as “a little uncomfortable, but Americans are tough”. Everyone needs to understand that we have approximately 15 years to develop and implement a massive program for manually removing large amounts of carbon. Global temperature goals encourage manipulation and obfuscation. For the present, we must forget about carbon footprints and emissions reduction numbers. Only the goal of staying under 450 ppm dissolved atmospheric carbon will keep stakeholders’ efforts useful and on-target.


15) CARBON MUST BE MANUALLY REMOVED FROM THE ATMOSPHERE

It is irrational to believe an artificially caused glut of greenhouse gasses can be removed by nature unaided. We must manually remove them employing Direct Removal of Existing Atmospheric Carbon (DREAC) which is part of a group of technologies known as Negative Emissions Technologies. Note that we are not talking here about carbon capture at the site of emissions (e.g., placing filtering equipment on factory stacks). Second, we must gather together the best available technology for efficient carbon removal. Thankfully, the Negative Emissions Technologies of Direct Removal of Existing Atmospheric Carbon (DREAC) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM) are well-developed and carry very minimal risk, especially when compared to the horrifying certainty of crossing the 2030’s climate deadline. Three companies have already opened pilot plants: Global Thermostat (United States), Carbon Engineering (Canada) and Climeworks (Switzerland). Dr. David Keith from Harvard has teamed with Occidental Petroleum to profitably scale up DAR ground stations. His brainchild, Carbon Engineering employs a process that uses solar power to cause absorbed CO2 to react with hydrogen to produce a biofuel that can replace fossil fuel.


An active Negative Emissions program can play out far differently on the international stage than the past 50 years of never-ending, snails-pace, debates over reductions and carbon credits. The United States can take an entirely fresh and proactive approach. We can do what we do so well – innovate and build – initiating the deployment of large-scale Direct Air Carbon Removal facilities at home and elsewhere, leveraging our allies and the United Nations in the process. This vastly different, proactive stance will free us from the quicksand of endless discussion and jockeying for position while giving China a whole new technology race.


16) CURRENT ATMOSPHERIC CARBON REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY ONLY REQURES UPSCALING

DREAC is already underway on a small scale pioneered by ClimeWorks in Europe and Carbon Engineering (teamed with Occidental Petroleum) in North America. The technology only needs to be upscaled. The US Government must begin these efforts and then push other nations through the UN to follow suit. By 2025 DAC facilities must be up and running and capable of capturing a net 10 GtC/yr of CO2 per year or we will not clear the 450 ppm climate deadline.


17) DIRECT REMOVAL OF EXISTING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON IS NOT CARBON CAPTURE

Carbon Capture is basically a fancy filter which allows fossil fuel emitting plants to continue to operate with greatly reduced impact on our atmospheric envelope.


Direct Removal of Existing Atmospheric Carbon is our only viable path out of the self-created climate emergency. We have the technology to directly remove carbon from the air. This technology needs to be greatly upscaled and it can be for less than the cost of business as usually (our current path). Decades ago we squandered the option for emissions reductions to make enough of a difference to stop us from blowing past crucial tipping points and triggering a cascade of feedback-loops resulting in the planet shifting to a “new normal” inconsistent with human survival in any comfortable or natural sense.


18) CARBON REMOVAL WILL BE POSITIVE FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

This proactive effort is projected to create jobs and strengthen our economy and cooperation between nation states similar to what was experienced in the wake of World War II.


19) CARBON REMOVAL WILL BE PSYCHOSOCIALLY PALATABLE AND THUS VASTLY EASIER TO ACHIEVE

Taking away something from people without rebellion is historically very difficult if not impossible. Reducing emissions has and will continue to encounter great resistance costing time and resources we no longer have. Building a network of Direct Removal of Existing Atmospheric Carbon (D.R.E.A.C.) infrastructure will be easily embraced as a constructive and profitable project which creates jobs, strengthens economies, and unites disparate groups. People don’t work to clean up what they feel is a hopeless mess.


20) CARBON REMOVAL WILL PAVE THE WAY FOR EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND SUSTAINABILITY

There is an innate human instinct to value and protect places and things others clearly value and protect. We must first clean up the open sewers that used to be our atmosphere. This, in turn, will create the hope needed for a successful sustainability campaign.

There is an American instinct to create and build, and a resistance to give up freedoms. We cannot rescue our ecosystem through passive emissions reductions that are both resented by everyone and too little too late. We must engage in a positive, proactive effort through the building of a large-scale carbon removal infrastructure. If sufficiently motivated humans can build a massive network of fossil fuel exploration and extraction apparatus including deep-sea platforms reaching thousands of feet to the sea floor, we can certainly develop and deploy an effective carbon removal system (perhaps using those very same platforms)! This is the only way to protect Constitutional rights to life and liberty.


21) CONDITIONS WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE MORE OPTIMAL TO BEGIN DREAC

The cost of carbon removal is increasing with each year as is the cost of mitigating the damage from not conducting that removal process. Also, as mentioned, we cannot assume that any future Administration prior to the mid-2030’s will have the intention or resources to make the leap to Direct Removal of Existing Atmospheric Carbon. After 450 ppm has been passed our course will be set for us.


22) WE ARE DOING PRETTY GOOD ON SUSTAINABILITY

As mentioned, progress toward sustainability (our second problem after the climate emergency) is going along pretty well. The problem is many are mistaking sustainability for global warming. We must first reduce the level of greenhouse gasses already in the atmosphere and then, and only then, can sustainability flourish. At present people are trying to force sustainability to do something it is not designed to do – clean up the mess in our atmosphere. The following are some aspects of and approaches to sustainability. If your on information overload you can skip this point. Plenty of people are working on sustainability and that is not what Komor v. United States is about. Our concern here is Direct Removal of Existing Atmospheric Carbon which appears to be the only safe way of staying below the 450 ppm Climate Deadline coming up in the mid-2030’s (or sooner).


POPULATION BALANCE AND FAIR CONSUMPTION

Although climate models vary, they generally agree that in order to stay below the two-degrees Celsius target, to the world must reduce total cumulative emissions by 25% to 55% below business as usual levels by 2050. This analysis relies on modeling completed in 2013 as part of the Low Climate Impact Scenarios and the Implications of Required Tight Emissions Control Strategies (LIMITS) exercise. In particular, it relies on modeling done by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Joint Global Change Research Institute using the Global Change Assessment Model, evaluating emissions between 2010 and 2050. The LIMITS study results suggest that for a 50% shot at staying under two degrees of warming, the world must reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by at least 41% between 2010 and 2050. All species must regulate their population to match their available resources or ecosystems must collapse. There is no magic formula, or Papal Decree, that can release us from this basic reality of life. On this planet humans have already overshot their numbers and, in addition, have created vast imbalances in levels of resource consumption. Governments must work together through the United Nations to rebalance population with resources using the tools of attrition, improved healthcare (to assure reliability in live births and survival to maturation) and increased availability of social security for the elderly.


LAND MANAGEMENT

In tropical forest nations where a large share of emissions come from land use, land use change, and forestry, policymakers should aim to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. A handful of options exist to achieve these goals, including legally protecting forests through the creation of designated protected areas, payments to landowners for providing ecosystem services, and payments to landowners to remove forested land from timber production.


THE POWER SECTOR

The power sector is responsible for 25% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions today, with emissions of about 12 billion tons of CO2. Emissions are expected to grow to nearly 18.9 billion tons by 2050, comprising roughly 30% of annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2050. Without additional policies, the power sector will be responsible for 28% of cumulative emissions through 2050.

The growth in emissions is caused largely by growing amounts of coal and natural gas used for power generation. For example, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that global electricity generation from coal will grow from 8,100 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2010 to 11,100 TWh in 2050, while global electricity generation from natural gas will grow from 4.6 TWh in 2010 to 11.1 TWh in 2050.

Scientists are working on ways to sustainably produce hydrogen, most of which is currently derived from natural gas, to feed zero-emission fuel cells for transportation and electricity. Other efforts are aimed at building better batteries to store renewable energy; engineering a smarter electric grid; and capturing carbon dioxide from power plants and other sources with the goal of storing it underground or turning it into valuable products such as gasoline. Some people argue that nuclear power—despite concerns over safety, water use, and toxic waste—should also be part of the solution, because nuclear plants don’t contribute any direct air pollution while operating. But planting trees, restoring seagrasses, and boosting the use of agricultural cover crops could help clean up significant amounts of carbon dioxide. Restoring forests already chopped down in Brazil, for example, could draw about 1.5 billion metric tons of CO2 out of the air, and a recent study published by the National Academies of Science estimates the world’s forests and farms could store 2.5 gigatons. (Those are relatively modest numbers given historic carbon emissions of 2.2 trillion metric tons.)

Reducing emissions from the power sector involves using lower- or zero-carbon technologies to produce power and reduce the demand for electricity. The best policies for increasing the share of carbon-free power generation are renewable portfolio standards and feed-in tariffs. Complementary power sector policies that encourage utilities to pursue cleaner options and to reduce the demand for electricity are also important, and other policies that seek to reduce demand by improving the efficiency of energy-consuming products (e.g., appliances) are tackled in other sections within the appropriate sector.

The power sector has an important role to play in helping decarbonize the economy. Together, the policies discussed in this section can contribute at least 21% of the reductions needed to meet the two-degree target.

Electricity sector emissions can also be lowered by reducing the carbon intensity of electricity generation. Using fossil-free technologies such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear to generate electricity can avoid the emissions (and also the air quality problems) that come from burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.


THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR

The transportation sector contributes 15% of annual global emissions, dominated by petroleum consumption in cars, buses, and trucks. To reduce emissions, policymakers must reduce vehicle petroleum use through efficiency standards and vehicle and fuel fees, increase the number of alternative fuel vehicles (such as electric vehicles), and provide alternatives to owning and driving vehicles through better urban design. These policies can contribute at least 7% of the cumulative emissions reductions needed to reach the two-degree target.


The transportation sector is responsible for more than 15% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, with the most recent data showing CO2 emissions of about 7.5 billion tons in 2014. Emissions are expected to grow to more than 9 billion tons by 2050. Without additional policies, the transportation sector will be responsible for 14% of cumulative emissions through 2050.

The growth in emissions is largely due to increasing car ownership and freight transport. For example, passenger travel demand is expected to more than double between 2010 and 2050, and freight transport is expected to increase by nearly 60% over the same period. Without additional policy, the vast majority of this demand will be met with petroleum fuels, causing emissions to grow.

Reducing emissions from the transportation sector requires improving the efficiency of vehicles produced and the average efficiency of vehicles sold, increasing the share of electric vehicles sold, and providing alternatives to owning and driving a vehicle through smart urban planning.


Decarbonizing the transportation sector is an important element of any climate strategy, with significant co-benefits such as reduced particulate pollution and lost time due to traffic. Together, the transportation sector policies discussed here can contribute at least 7% of the reductions needed to meet the two-degree target.


THE BUILDINGS SECTOR

Demand for electricity is driven by buildings and industry, and increasing their efficiency is a large-scale, cost-effective strategy. Efficiency is typically the most cost-effective way of reducing emissions, with initial investments paying dividends for years via reduced fuel costs. Buildings are responsible for 8% of annual global emissions, and this is expected to significantly grow by 2050. Most people are not aware that the cement industry accounts for around 5 percent of global CO₂ emissions. Concrete is amazingly ubiquitous. It is the second most consumed substance by weight on Earth, after water. Cement production is growing by 2.5 percent annually, and is expected to rise from 2.55 billion tons in 2006 to 3.7-4.4 billion tons by 2050. Cement manufacturing is energy and emissions intensive because of the extreme heat required to produce it. Producing a ton of cement requires 4.7 million BTU (British thermal units) of energy, equivalent to about 400 pounds of coal, and it generates nearly its own weight in CO₂.

Reducing these emissions requires improving the efficiency of building equipment such as air conditioning and heating equipment, improving the thermal efficiency of buildings, and improving the efficiency of appliances used in buildings. The most effective policies to accomplish this goal are building codes and appliance standards, which can contribute at least 5% of the cumulative emissions reductions needed to reach the two-degree target.


The buildings sector is responsible for 8% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions today, with emissions of about 4 billion tons of CO2. Emissions are expected to grow to between 5 and 6 gigatons by 2050, and without additional policies the building sector will be responsible for 8% of cumulative emissions through 2050. Buildings and appliances are also significant drivers for electricity demand. For example, buildings are responsible for 54% of global electricity demand, and that share is expected to grow to nearly 60% by 2050. When electricity emissions attributable to the building sector are included, its share of today’s global greenhouse gas emissions increases to 20% and grows to 26% by 2050. The growth in emissions is due largely to a growing building stock filled with more energy-consuming technologies.


Reducing emissions from the building sector requires improving the efficiency of building equipment, such as air conditioning and heating equipment, the thermal efficiency of buildings, and the efficiency of appliances used in buildings. Decarbonizing the building sector and reducing demand for electricity are an essential part of lowering our overall carbon emissions. Building codes and appliance standards can achieve at least 5% of the reductions required by 2050 and an even higher share in later years, because higher efficiency standards take years to reach full effect.


THE INDUSTRY SECTOR

The industry sector, including agriculture and waste, is responsible for 38% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions today, with CO2e emissions of about 19 billion tons. Emissions are expected to grow to more than 42 billion tons by 2050. Without additional policies, the industry sector will be responsible for 49% of cumulative emissions through 2050. The industry sector is also a significant driver of electricity demand. For example, the industry sector is responsible for roughly 44% of global electricity demand, although that share is expected to fall to about 36% by 2050.


Industry sector emissions can be broken into two categories: emissions from fossil fuel combustion for energy use and process emissions. Process emissions are emissions released in industrial processes such as cement clinker manufacture and metallurgical coal coking. Additionally, we categorize non-energy emissions in agriculture and waste as process emissions. The share of industrial emissions from processes is significant. At least 10 billion tons of CO2e per year are from industrial processes: about 5.2 billion tons of CO2e per year from agriculture, 1.5 billion tons from waste, and 3.2 billion tons from more traditional manufacturing-related processes.

Reducing emissions from the industry sector therefore requires both improving the efficiency of industrial production, thus lowering demand for energy, and eliminating emissions from industrial processes. Heavily decarbonizing the industry sector is essential to hitting our climate targets. Improvements in industrial energy efficiency can achieve 16% of the necessary reductions by 2050, and reducing process emissions can achieve at least 10% of the necessary reductions.


CROSS-SECTOR POLICIES

In addition to sector-specific policies, cross-sector policies are crucial to decarbonizing the economy. Indeed, one of the most important policies for decarbonization, carbon pricing, typically operates across multiple sectors, helping deliver large emission reductions. Similarly, support for research and development (R&D), which is critical to lowering the long-run costs of decarbonization, typically targets technological breakthroughs in different parts of the economy.

These policies are essential for decarbonizing the economy and doing so cost- effectively. Although the effect of carbon pricing is directly related to the price or emission cap used, in our analysis we find that strong carbon pricing set at the social cost of carbon can achieve 26% of the emission reductions necessary by 2050 to hit the two-degree target.

Cross-sector policies play a crucial complementary role in decarbonizing the global economy. One of the most important decarbonization policies, carbon pricing, typically operates across multiple sectors to help deliver large emission reductions. Similarly, research and development support is critical to lowering long-term decarbonization costs and typically targets technological advancement in different parts of the economy, helping reduce costs and increase savings from other policies.


23) COP26 – WHERE WE STAND NOW

Over 100 countries representing more than 85% of the world’s forests committed to halting and reversing deforestation and land degradation by 2030. Leaders representing more than 85% of the world’s forests — even including Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro — pledged to halt and reverse deforestation and land degradation by 2030.


105 world leaders signed onto the Global Methane Pledge, a U.S. and EU joint initiative to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030. More than 100 countries, including the U.S., have now signed the Global Methane Pledge, which aims to slash emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas by 2030, and which on its own could reduce warming by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2050.

The U.S., U.K., France, Germany and EU said they would dedicate $8.5 billion to help South Africa decarbonize its coal-heavy energy system.


The U.K. said that at least 23 new countries joined a commitment to phase out and not build or invest in new coal power over the next few decades, bringing the number of signatory countries up to 190.

25 countries have joined an effort that aims to end public financing of overseas oil, gas and coal projects by the end of 2022. Signatories include the U.S., U.K., Denmark, Canada, Italy and the European Investment Bank.

India pledged to cut its carbon emissions to net zero by 2070 and increase its share of renewable energy output from 450 gigawatts (GW) per year to 500GW.


The U.K., U.S. and several other countries, along with the Bezos Earth Fund and the EU pledged more than $1.5 billion to protect forests, peatlands and other critical carbon stores in the Congo Basin Plan, the UN said.


Amazon founder Jeff Bezos committed $2 billion to “restoring natural habitats and transforming food systems.”


The Rockefeller Foundation, the IKEA Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund launched the Global Energy Alliance for People and the Planet to tackle access to renewable energy across Africa, Asia and Latin America during the next decade. The alliance will also include governments and world governing bodies such as the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, Italy, the U.K. and Denmark.


The U.S. in September, for example, pledged to double its public climate finance commitment to $11.4 billion annually.

China, whose leader is not attending COP26, announced an end to building coal-fired power plants abroad. It did not offer any new pledges at COP26.


The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, a group of private-sector investors, launched in April with $5 trillion committed to “achieving net zero emissions by 2050 at the latest.” That number has already ballooned to $130 trillion — enough for the private sector to be able to play its part in getting the world to net zero, per the alliance.


24) NOTHING ELSE MATTERS IN THE LONG-RUN

It seems strange and surreal to see people passionately pursuing careers and causes, planning families, vying

for job promotions and rooting for sports teams while the continuation of our civilization hangs in the balance. It is as if Hitler were already taking up residence in Buckingham Palace and U-boats were off American shores and we were deciding what to watch on Netflix tonight. If life feels “a little off” it’s not just the pandemic, it’s the very fabric of nature tearing apart due to global warming. The data and conclusions herein are drawn from tier one peer reviewed journal articles, many by researchers themselves contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). If you are unsure about any of the scientific basis for the statements in this document, check the information in this document against the research findings from NOAA, NASA, the IPCC, and other reputable sources. We don’t think you will, and if you don’t and want a future for your kids let’s get going!


25) WE MUST ERR ON THE SIDE OF SAFETY

Some are skeptical about global tipping, cascade failures and a 2030’s deadline in spite of the evidence. Given its huge impact and irreversible nature to err on the side of danger is not a responsible choice. If a global tipping point, or Climate Deadline, cannot be ruled out, then this is a threat to all civilization. No amount of economic cost–benefit analysis is going to help us. The evidence from tipping points alone suggests that we are in a state of planetary emergency: both the risk and urgency of the situation are acute.


26) SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT (SRM)

We should mention here that, should DREAC not be initiated in time to avert the 2035 Climate Deadline an alternative would be Solar Radiation Management. SRM would utilize stratospheric sulfuric acid aerosol injection (or an alumina aerosol variation) to scatter more sunlight back into outer space. One of the best-known SRM proposals is spearheaded by David Keith and his collaborator James Anderson, both of Harvard University. According to Keith’s calculations, if operations were begun in 2020, it would take 25,000 metric tons of sulfuric acid to cut global warming in half after one year. Once under way, the injection of sulfuric acid would proceed continuously. SRM is a relatively straight-forward and inexpensive atmospheric repair which could be very fast-acting. However, much more research is needed to determine whether injecting sulfur into the stratosphere would have dangerous consequences, such as disrupting precipitation patterns or further eating away the ozone layer that protects us from damaging ultraviolet radiation. While sulfates would likely offset warming, it’s not clear exactly how they would counteract some of the other effects of greenhouse gases, particularly changes in precipitation patterns. Finally, when sulfur injection ends, the underlying climate changes it was masking would return – requiring ever increasing expense. Hopefully, however, by then the rate of change affecting ecosystems and humans would have been slowed and managed.


27) CONCLUSION

It is due to this urgency that the Climate Deadline Alliance has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court Denver (1:21-CV-01560-PAB-KLM) pressing the government to begin the process of Direct Removal of Excess Atmospheric Carbon without delay. We cannot afford to err on the side of omnicide. We have the technology for Direct Removal Of Existing Atmospheric Carbon. Komor v. United States while arguing for the protection of Constitutional Rights to life, liberty and property can push government toward mobilizing this negative emission technology in a proactive, job-creating, economically enhancing drive to lead the way in creating sufficient air carbon removal capacity and skirt the 450 ppm climate deadline in the mid-2030’s. If you have been feeling like the situation is hopeless this great news right!? We have a way out, we just need the wisdom and fortitude to walk the path.

————————————————

ABOUT DR CHRISTIAN R. KOMOR

The Chief Litigant in Komor v. United States, Dr. Christian R. Komor began a 30-year career in healthcare and public service after graduating Magna Cum Laude from Wright State University in 1989. Dr. Komor is the author of numerous books translated into multiple languages including “The Power of Being” (1992), “Driving Ourselves Sane” (2012) and “Climate Deadline 2035” (2017). The release of Dr. Komor’s first book, “The Power of Being” (1992) provided a forewarning of, and solutions for, the crisis of escalating consumerism and excess which now threatens our global way of life in the form of climate change.

As a sought-after national speaker and lecturer Dr. Komor has been the focus of dozens of articles, and television and radio interviews.

Chris’ efforts on behalf of the environment began in the 1970’s with a guest editorial on cement production and carbon emissions. In 2016-2017 Dr. Komor trained with Al Gore’s “Climate Reality” team which then led to work with a group of senior scientists and engineers in Colorado working for the past dozen years on ocean-based Negative Emissions Technologies. In late 2017 he published the first edition of “Climate Deadline 2035” a harbinger of what the United Nations has since called the “climate emergency”. In January 2018 Dr. Komor announced his run for Arizona Governor in order to gain public awareness for the need to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere and the mid-2030’s deadline for doing so.

In early 2019 Dr. Komor became the Chief Litigant in a US District Court lawsuit on climate which eventually became part of the unsuccessful Children’s Climate Lawsuit. In her Dissenting Opinion on 6:15-cv-01517-AA Judge Staton stated that “in these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response – yet presses ahead toward calamity. It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.”

In late 2019 Chris founded the Climate Deadline Alliance (CDA) a 501(c)3 educational organization. The Climate Deadline Alliance advises on climate policy – predicts next-step scenarios and disseminating next-level solutions.

In early 2020 Dr. Komor’s “Omnicide Brief” was accepted by the International Criminal Court and is currently under review there.

In June 2021 Dr. Komor filed a second District Court Complaint 1:21-cv-01560-GPG Komor vs. USA demanding the United States utilize the Defense Production Act in infrastructure budgeting to scale up the Direct Removal of Existing Atmospheric Carbon (D.R.E.A.C.) efforts of ClimeWorks (Zurich) and Carbon Engineering (Canada).

You can reach Dr. Komor and CDA at www.climatedeadline.com or www.climatedeadline2035.com and by telephone at 800-884-0824, or email at [email protected]

TWO problems facing us: (1) Achieving sustainability and (2) The massive amount of greenhouse gas we have already put “up there” in the atmosphere creating Global Warming and Climate Change. Luckily we know how to remove carbon http://climaeworks.com Please help!


REFERENCES

  1. AGECC, 2010: Energy for a Sustainable Future. United Nations Secretary General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate (AGECC), New York, NY, USA, 24 pp. Arctic Council, 2013: Glossary of terms. In: Arctic Resilience Interim Report 2013. Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm, Sweden, p.viii.
  2. Allison, Ian, Nathan Bindoff, Robert Bindschadler, Peter Cox, Nathalie de Noblet Du-Coudre, Matthew England, Jane Francis, Nicolas Gruber, Alan Haywood, David Karoly, Georg Kaser, Corinne Le Quéré, Tim Lenton, Michael Mann, Ben McNeil, Andy Pitman, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Rignot, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Stephen Schneider, Steven Sherwood, Richard Somerville, Konrad Steffen, Eric Steig, Martin Visbeck, and Andrew Weaver. 2009. The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science. Sydney: The University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC). http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com.
  3. Brinton, Samuel, and Josh Freed. 2015. “When Nuclear Ends: How Nuclear Retirements Might Undermine Clean Power Plan Progress.” Third Way: Fresh Thinking.
  4. Cao, Long, and Ken Caldeira. 2008. “Atmospheric CO₂ Stabilization and Ocean Acidification.” Geophysical Research Letters 35: L19609. doi.10.1029/2008GL035072
  5. CAT, “Climate Action Tracker.” 2015. Accessed December 12. climateactiontracker.org. Dutton, Andrea, and Kurt Lambeck. 2012. “Ice Volume and Sea Level during the Last Interglacial.” Science 337 (6091): 216–19. doi:10.1126/science.1205749.
  6. “Climate Action Tracker.” 2015. Accessed December 12. climateactiontracker.org.
  7. Dutton, Andrea, and Kurt Lambeck. 2012. “Ice Volume and Sea Level during the Last Interglacial.” Science 337 (6091): 216–19. doi:10.1126/science.1205749.
  8. Etheridge, David M., Lloyd P. Steele, Ray L. Langenfelds, Roger J. Francey, Jean Marc Barnola, and Vincent I. Morgan. 1996. “Law-dome Ice Core Data (Antarctica) —1000 year CO₂ data (CO₂ —20 year smoothed, ppm).” www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore /antarctica/law/law_data.html
  9. Etheridge, David M., Lloyd P. Steele, Ray L. Langenfelds, Roger J. Francey, Jean Marc Barnola, and Vincent I. Morgan. 1996. “Law-Dome Ice Core Data (Antarctica) – 1000 year CO₂ data (CO₂ – 20 year smoothed, ppm).” NOAA report (1996). NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), Asheville, NC. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_data.html
  10. ExxonMobil. 2018. “A Middle-Class Boom Around the World.” Energy Factor, Weekly Newsletter, Perspective Blog, William Colton 1/23/2018.
  11. Fry, Robert, Madeline Ison, Sambhudas Chaudhuri, Kenneth Klabunde, Gregory Fry, Michael Routh, Steven Fry, and Barry Wroobel. 2016-A2. “EARTH 2075 – CO₂ II. Targeting a Return to 280 ppm.” International Journal of Climate Science: Impacts and Responses: accepted.
  12. Fry, Robert, Madeline Ison, Sambhudas Chaudhuri, Kenneth Klabunde, Gregory Fry, Barry Wroobel, and Michael Routh. 2016. “Earth 2075—CO₂ I: A Simple Forecasting Model.” The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses 8 (1): 1–10.
  13. Fry, Robert, Madeline Ison, Sambhudas Chaudhuri, Steven Fry, Kenneth Klabunde, Michael Routh, Gregory Fry, Barry Wroobel, Steven Hughes, Jeramy Hughes, and Grant Gower. 2016B. “Earth 2075—CO₂ II. Targeting 0°C Global Warming, Ocean pH8.2, and an Early Return to 280 ppm.” The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses 9 (1): 19–39. ISSN 1835-7156 (print). doi:10.18848/1835-7156/CGP (journal)
  14. Goodell, Jeff. The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities, and the Remaking of the Civilized World. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2018.
  15. Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer, and James C. Zachos. 2008. “Target Atmospheric CO₂ : Where Should Humanity Aim?” The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 2: 217–31.
  16. Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Paul Hearty, Reto Ruedy, Maxwell Kelley, Valerie Masson-Delmotto, Gary Russell, George Tselioudis, Junji Cao, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Evgeniya Kandiano, Karina von Schuckmann, Pushker Kharecha, Allegra N. Legrande, Michael Bauer, and Kwak-Wai Lo. 2015. “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous.”
  17. Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Paul Hearty, Reto Ruedy, Maxwell Kelley, Valerie Masson-Delmotto, Gary Russell, George Tselioudis, Junji Cao, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Blair Tormey, Bailey, Evgeniya Kandiano, Karina von Schuckmann, Pushker Kharecha, Allegra N. Legrande, Michael Bauer, and Kwak-Wai Lo. 2016. “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, and Superstorms: Evidence from Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming Is Dangerous.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 16: 3761–812. doi:10.5194/acp-16-3761-2016.
  18. Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson-Delmotto, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Shi-Ling Hsu, Camille Parmesan, Johan Rockstrom, Eelco J. Rohling, Jeffrey Sachs, Pete Smith, Conrad Steffen, Lise Van Susteren, Karina von Schuckmann, and James C. Zachos. 2013. “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations, and Nature.” PLoS-ONE 8 (12): e81648. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0081648.
  19. Hansen, James. 2009. Storms of My Grandchildren. New York: Bloomsbury.
  20. Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer, and James C. Zachos. 2008. “Target Atmospheric CO₂ : Where Should Humanity Aim?” The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 2: 217–31.
  21. Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Paul Hearty, Reto Ruedy, Maxwell Kelley, Valerie Masson-Delmotto, Gary Russell, George Tselioudis, Junji Cao, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Evgeniya Kandiano, Karina von Schuckmann, Pushker Kharecha, Allegra N. Legrande, Michael Bauer, and Kwak-Wai Lo. 2015. “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous.” Accessed March 20, 2016. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2015/20150704_IceMelt.pdf.
  22. Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Paul Hearty, Reto Ruedy, Maxwell Kelley, Valerie Masson-Delmotto, Gary Russell, George Tselioudis, Junji Cao, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Blair Tormey, Bailey Donovan, Evgeniya Kandiano, Karina von Schuckmann, Pushker Kharecha, Allegra N. Legrande, Michael Bauer, and Kwak-Wai Lo. 2016. “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming Is Dangerous.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 16: 3761–812. doi:10.5194/acp-16-3761-2016.35
  23. Hansen, James, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Valerie Masson Delmotto, David J. Beerling, Paul J. Hearty, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Shi-Ling Hsu, Camille Parmesan, Johan Rockstrom, Eelco J., Jeffrey Sachs, Pete Smith, Conrad Steffen, Lise Van Susteren, Karina von Schuckmann, and James C. Zachos. 2013. “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations, and Nature.” PLoS-ONE 8 (12): e81648.doi:10.1371/journal. pone. 0081648.
  24. Hansen, James. 2009. Storms of My Grandchildren. New York: Bloomsbury.
  25. Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer, and James C. Zachos. 2008. “Target Atmospheric CO₂: Where Should Humanity Aim?” The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 2: 217–31.
  26. Hawken, Paul, ed. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. New York: Penguin Books, 2018.
  27. Hegerl, G. C., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, G. Casassa, M. P. Hoerling, R. S. Kovats, C. Parmesan, D. W. Pierce and P. A. Stott, 2010: Good practice guidance paper on detection and attribution related to anthropogenic climate change. In: Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Detection and Attribution of Anthropogenic Climate Change [Stocker T. F. , C. B. Field, D. Qin, V. Barros, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, P. M. Midgley and K. L. Ebi (eds.)]. IPCC WorkingGroup I Technical Support Unit, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 8 pp. Heywood, V. H. (ed.), 1995: The Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1152 pp.
  28. Hone, David. Putting the Genie Back: Solving the Climate and Energy Dilemma. United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Ltd, 2018.
  29. Houghton, John. 2009. Global Warming – 3rd Edition, 33–41, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  30. IPCC, 1992: Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to The IPCC Scientific Assessment [Houghton, J. T., B. A. Callander and S. K. Varney (eds.)]. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 116 pp.
  31. IPCC, 1996: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J. T., L. G. Meira, A. Callander, N. Harris Kattenberg and K. Maskell (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 572 pp.
  32. IPCC, 2000a: Emissions Scenarios. Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Nakićenović, N. and R. Swart (eds.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 599 pp.
  33. IPCC, 2000b: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R. T., I. R. Noble, B. Bolin, N. H. Ravindranath, D. J. Verardo and D. J. Dokken (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 377pp.
  34. IPCC, 2001a: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J. T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noquer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell and C. A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881 pp.
  35. IPCC, 2001b: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [McCarthy, J., O. Canziani, N. Leary, D. Dokken and K. White (eds.)],Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1032 pp.
  36. IPCC, 2003: Definitions and Methodological Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Human-Induced Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types [Penman, J., M. Gytarsky,T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, D. Kruger, R. Pipatti, L.Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe and F. Wagner (eds.)]. The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan, 32 pp.
  37. IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.
  38. IPCC, 2011: Workshop Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Workshop on Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Biology and Ecosystems Field, C. B., V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, K. J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, M. D. Mastrandrea, M. Tignor and K. L. Ebi (eds.)]. IPCC Working Group II Technical Support Unit, Carnegie Institution, Stanford, CA, USA, 164 pp.
  39. IPCC, 2012a: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C. B., V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. K. Allen, M. Tignor and P. M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.
  40. IPCC, 2012b: Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Geoengineering [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, C. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, Q. Dahe, J. Minx, K. J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. Schlömer, G. Hansen and M. Mastrandrea (eds.)]. IPCC Working Group II Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany, 99pp.
  41. IPCC, 2013a: Annex III: Glossary [Planton, S. (ed.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T. F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1447–1466, doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.031.
  42. IPCC, 2013b: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T. F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P. M. Midgley (eds.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp., doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.
  43. IPCC, 2014a: Annex II: Glossary [Agard, J., E. L. F. Schipper, J. Birkmann, M. Campos, C. Dubeux, Y. Nojiri, L. Olsson, B. Osman-Elasha, M. Pelling, M. J. Prather, M. G. Rivera-Ferre, O. C. Ruppel, A. Sallenger, K. R. Smith, A. L. St. Clair, K. J. Mach, M. D., Mastrandrea and T. E. Bilir (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V. R., C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, T. E. Bilir, M., Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea and L. L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1757–1776.
  44. Keeling, Ralph F., Stephen J. Walker, Steven C. Piper, and Alane F. Bollenbacher. 2013. “Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations (ppm) Derived from In Situ Air Measurements at Mauna Loa, Observatory, Hawaii: Latitude 19.5°N Longitude 155.6° Elevation 3397m.” Scripps CO₂ Program Report, DATA, Atmospheric CO₂ , Mauna Loa In Situ, CO₂ Data, Monthly CO₂. Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), University of California, La Jolla, CA USA 92093-0244.
  45. Keith, David. A Case for Climate Engineering. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2013
  46. Kopp, Robert E., Frederik J. Simons, Jerry X. Mitrovica, Adam C. Maloof, and Michael Oppenheimer. 2009. “Probabilistic Assessment of Sea Level during the Last Interglacial Stage.” Nature 462 (7275):863–7. doi:10.1038/nature08686
  47. Kutani, Ichiro. 2009. “India’s Energy Situation and Trends in New/Renewable Energy Conservation Policies (Part 1).” Strategy and Industry Research Unit, The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan. eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/2854.pdf.
  48. Le Quéré, Corinne, Robert J. Andres, Thomas Boden, Thomas Conway, Richard A. Houghton, Joanna I. House, Gregg Marland, Glen P. Peters, Guido R. van der Werf, Anders Ahlström, Robbie M. Andrew, Laurent Bopp, Joseph G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Scott C. Doney, Clare Enright, Pierre Friedlingstein, Christopher Huntingford, Atul K. Jain, Charlotte Jourdain, Etsushi Kato, Ralph Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Samuel Levis, Peter Levy, Michael Lomas, Ben Poulter, Michael Raupach, Jorg Schwinger, Stephen Sitch, Benjamin D. Stocker, Nicolas Viovy, Sonke Zaehle, and Ning Zeng. 2013. The Global Carbon Budget 1959–2011 (report): 1. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
  49. Le Quéré, Corinne, Robert J. Andres, Thomas Boden, Thomas Conway, Richard A. Houghton, Joanna I. House, Gregg Marland, Glen P. Peters, Guido R. van der Werf, Anders Ahlström, Robbie M. Andrew, Laurent Bopp, Joseph G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Scott C. Doney, Clare Enright, Pierre Friedlingstein, Christopher Huntingford, Atul K. Jain, Charlotte Jourdain, Etsushi Kato, Ralph Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Samuel Levis, Peter Levy, Michael Lomas, Ben Poulter, Michael Raupach, Jorg Schwinger, Stephen Sitch, Benjamin D. Stocker, Nicolas Viovy, Sonke Zaehle, and Ning Zeng. 2013. The Global Carbon Budget 1959–2011 (Report): 1. Oak Ridge: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) and Oak Ridge National Laborator (ORNL). cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/Meth _reg. html.
  50. Lovelock, James. 2006. The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back – And How We Can Still Save Humanity. Santa Barbara: Allen Lane, 2006.
  51. Manning, M. R., M. Petit, D. Easterling, J. Murphy, A. Patwardhan, H.H. Rogner, R. Swart and G. Yohe (eds.), 2004: IPCC Workshop on Describing Scientific Uncertainties in Climate Change to Support Analysis of Risk of Options. Workshop Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, 138 pp.
  52. Mastrandrea, M. D., C. B. Field, T. F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K. L. Ebi, D. J. Frame, H., Held, E. Kriegler, K. J. Mach, P. R. Matschoss, G.K. Plattner, G. W. Yohe and F. W. Zwiers, 2010: Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 4 pp.
  53. Matthews, H. Damon, and Ken Caldeira. 2008. “Stabilizing Climate Requires Near Zero Emissions.” Geophysical Research Letters 35 (4): 1–5. doi:10.1029/2007GLO32388. McGee, Michael. 2013. “Acceleration of Atmospheric CO₂.” Accessed April 17, 2013. CO₂ now.org/Current-CO₂ /CO₂ Trend/acceleration-of atmospheric-CO₂ .html.
  54. MEA, 2005: Appendix D: Glossary. In: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current States and Trends. Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group, Vol.1 [Hassan, R., R. Scholes, and N. Ash (eds.)]. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 893- 900.
  55. McGee, Michael. 2013. “Acceleration of Atmospheric CO₂.” CO₂ now.org: 1, Victoria, British Columbia. Accessed April 17, 2015.
  56. Morton, Oliver. The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015.
  57. Moss, R. and S. Schneider, 2000: Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations the Lead Authors for More Consistent Assessment and Reporting. In: IPCC Supporting Material:Guidance Papers on Cross Cutting Issues in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC [Pachauri, R., T. Taniguchi and K. Tanaka (eds.)]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 33–51.
  58. Moss, R., M. Babiker, S. Brinkman, E. Calvo, T. Carter, J. Edmonds, I. Elgizouli, S. Emori, L. Erda, K. Hibbard, R. Jones, M. Kainuma, J. Kelleher, J. F. Lamarque, M. Manning, B. Matthews, J. Meehl, L. Meyer, J. Mitchell, N. Nakicenovic, B. O’Neill, R. Pichs, K. Riahi, S. Rose, P. Runci, R. Stouffer, D. van Vuuren, J. Weyant, T. Wilbanks, J. P. van Ypersele and M. Zurek, 2008: Towards new scenarios for analysis of emissions, climate change, impacts and response strategies. IPCC Expert Meeting Report, 19-21 September, 2007, Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 132 pp.
  59. Moss, R., J. A., Edmonds, K. A. Hibbard, M. R. Manning, S. K. Rose, D. P. van Vuuren, T. R. Carter, S. Emori, M. Kainuma, T. Kram, G. A. Meehl, J. F. B. Mitchell, N. Nakicenovic, K. Riahi, S. J. Smith, R. J. Stouffer, A. M. Thomson, J. P. Weyant and T. J. Wilbanks, 2010: The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463, 747–756.
  60. Pacala, Stephen, and Robert Socolow. 2004. “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next Half-century with Technologies Available Today.” Science 305 (5686): 968–72.
  61. Rasmussen, Carol. 2014. “West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable.” Jet Propulsion Laboratory, May 12. www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news. php?release=2014-148
  62. Rignot, Eric. 2014. “NASA-UCI Study Indicates Loss of West Antarctic Glaciers Appears Unstoppable.” NASA, May 12.
  63. Rignot, Eric, Jeremie Mouginot, Mathieu Morlighem, Helene Seroussi, and Bernd Scheuchl. 2014. “Widespread, Rapid Grounding Line Retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith, and Kohler Glaciers, West Antarctica, from 1992 to 2011.” Geophysical Research Letters 41 (10): 3502–09: doi:10.1002/2014GL060140.
  64. Solomon, Susan, Qin Dahe, Martin Manning, Melinda Marquis, Kristen Averyt, Melinda M. B. Tignor, Henry, LeRoy Miller, Jr., and Zhenlin Chen. 2007. “Climate Change 2007—The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” In IPCC 2007 Report, 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  65. Stocker, Thomas F., Qin Dahe, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Melinda M.B. Tignor, Simon K. Allen, Judith Boschung, Alexander Nauels, Yu Xia, Vincent Bex, and Pauline M. Midgley. 2013. “Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” In IPCC 2013 Report, 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  66. UNFCCC, 2013: Reporting and accounting of LULUCF activities under the Kyoto Protocol. United Nations Framework Convention on Climatic Change (UNFCCC), Bonn, Germany. Available at: http://unfccc.int/methods/lulucf/items/4129.php UNISDR, 2009: 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 30 pp.
  67. Van Vuuren, D. P., J. Edmonds, M. Kainuma, K. Riahi, A. Thomson, K. Hibbard, G. C. Hurtt, T. Kram, V. Krey, J. F. Lamarque, T Masui, M. Meinshausen, N. Nakicenovic, S.J. Smith and S.K. Rose, 2011: The Representative Concentration Pathways: an overview. Climatic Change, 109, pp. 5–31.
  68. White, Donald G., Mitchell, Walter S., eds. Geoengineering: Technology and Governance Assessments of Climate Engineering. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2012.
  69. ———. 2014. The Global Carbon Budget: Carbon Budget 2014: An Annual Update of the Global Carbon Budget and Trends: Presentation: Powerpoint and Figures on Budget 14: 1. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed March 20, 2015.
  70. ———. 2015. The Global Carbon Budget: Carbon Budget 2015: An Annual Update of the Global Carbon Budget and Trends Presentation: PowerPoint and Figures on Budget 15: 1. Oak Ridge: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Accessed April 17, 2016. .www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget







Climate - Electric Cars


From the 1880’s to the initiation of mass production of gas-powered vehicles by Henry Ford in the1910’s most all motor vehicles were powered by electricity. Rapid innovation in battery technology even allowed fleets of electric taxis in London and New York. Electric vehicles had a number of advantages over their early-1900s competitors. They did not have the vibration, smell, and noise associated with gasoline cars. They also did not require gear changes. They were also preferred because they did not require a manual effort to start, as did gasoline cars which featured a hand crank to start the engine. By 1912, many homes were wired for electricity for recharging. Also, an exchangeable battery service was put into practice by General Electric between 1910 and 1924 covering more than 6 million miles of the United States. By the turn of the century there were still twice as many electric cars as gasoline powered with a total of 33,842 electric cars registered in the United States alone.

Sales of electric cars peaked in the early 1910s with over 300 listed manufacturers. By the 1920s worldwide discoveries of large petroleum reserves led to the wide availability of affordable gasoline, making gas-powered cars cheaper to operate over the longer distances accessible by improved road systems. Mass production of gas-powered vehicles initiated by Henry Ford brought their price down. The desire for profits by manufacturers eventually drowned out technological innovation and consumer demand. Since then, the internal combustion engine has contributed significantly to greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere and the extinction of increasing numbers of land, air, and aquatic species.

CLIMATE CHANGE – IRREVERSIBLE AT 450 PPM ATMOSPHERIC CARBON. SUPPORT THE US DISTRICT COURT LAWSUIT CV-01560-PAB-KLM

Sir David King

In case you thought we made this up notice there are NO climate lawsuits active in the United States focused on THE solution- Direct Atmosphere Carbon Removal. In fact, there ARE NO climate-related lawsuits in the US. We REALLY ARE your only hope.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE GLOBAL TRENDS

Climeworks in Iceland and Carbon Engineering in Canada are doing DIRECT ATMOSPHERIC CARBON CAPTURE! Please support these organizations in their efforts to help with Climate Change through Direct Carbon Capture.

Videos



CLIMATE DEADLINE 2035

"It's Us or Dust"


Direct Atmospheric Carbon Removal PETITION



Watch “I Am Greta” on Hulu, the story of teenage climate activist

Greta Thunberg.

Free Hulu trial available for new subscribers.



EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY ARE NOT ENOUGH TO ARREST CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE THE MID-2030’S. ONLY THE NEGATIVE EMISSIONS TECHNOLOGIES ARE POWERFUL ENOUGH - BUT WE MUST MOVE SWIFTLY AND ON A MASSIVE SCALE BEFORE WE HIT THE CLIMATE DEADLINE 2035


“The suffering we are experiencing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic is yet another manifestation of Climate Change (acting through alterations in human-animal disease vectors). Climate scientists have awaited a “Climate Pearl Harbor” which will awaken the public and politicians to the urgency and magnitude of our global warming plight….and here it is! But will we awaken and have the wisdom to direct our frustration with this deadly virus into the correct action? The path forward is an extremely narrow one and rapidly closing. We must bypass the temptation to rest in futuristic hopes of mitigation, carbon reduction and sustainability and instead mobilize the Negative Emissions Technologies (NET) of Direct Air Carbon Capture (DAC) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM) to deal first with existing legacy emissions. Only then can we be sustainable. Starting in 2025 we must capture a net 10 GtC/yr (10 billion metric tons) average CO2 per year if we hope to skirt the twin points of no return in the mid-2030’s – 450 parts per million atmospheric carbon and 310 GtC of ocean-dissolved CO2. (Inarguable geologic records demonstrate the former will trigger the Earth to shift to a new normal inconsistent with human survival. The latter will cause phytoplankton to stop producing 80% of the world’s oxygen.) Existing legacy carbon is not going away because we stop adding more – not for up to thousands of years. It must by actively removed. What can you, or your organization do to restore your children’s future-now-forfeit – use any avenues open to you - including joining the Climate Deadline Alliance (and the “Omnicide Complaint” now being reviewed by the International Criminal Court), pushing awareness of the necessity for a cooperative global effort to remove carbon from the atmosphere in your social groups, joining and advocating for NET in environmental organizations, supporting any ballot initiatives or candidates who are working for DAC/SRM, and contacting individuals with high visibility, connections, access and resources who can take action toward a global DAC/SRM effort. As in World War II everyone must be part of this effort. Do not delay, we need all hands on deck and time is short.”


- Dr. Christian R. Komor


SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE!

Ending greenhouse gas emissions may not stop global warming: study

by Marlowe Hood


Even if humanity stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, Earth will warm for centuries to come and oceans will rise by metres, according to a controversial modelling study published Thursday.

Natural drivers of global warming—more heat-trapping clouds, thawing permafrost, and shrinking sea ice—already set in motion by carbon pollution will take on their own momentum, researchers from Norway reported in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.

“According to our models, humanity is beyond the point-of-no-return when it comes to halting the melting of permafrost using greenhouse gas cuts as the single tool,” lead author Jorgen Randers, a professor emeritus of climate strategy at the BI Norwegian Business School, told AFP.

“If we want to stop this melting process we must do something in addition—for example, suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it underground, and make Earth’s surface brighter.”

Using a stripped-down climate model, Randers and colleague Ulrich Goluke projected changes out to the year 2500 under two scenarios: the instant cessation of emissions, and the gradual reduction of planet warming gases to zero by 2100.

In an imaginary world where carbon pollution stops with a flip of the switch, the planet warms over the next 50 years to about 2.3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—roughly half-a-degree above the target set in the 2015 Paris Agreement—and cools slightly after that.

Earth’s surface today is 1.2C hotter than it was in the mid-19th century, when temperatures began to rise.

But starting in 2150, the model has the planet beginning to gradually warm again, with average temperatures climbing another degree over the following 350 years, and sea levels going up by at least three metres.

Under the second scenario, Earth heats up to levels that would tear at the fabric of civilization far more quickly, but ends up at roughly the same point by 2500.

‘Tipping points’

The core finding—contested by leading climate scientists—is that several thresholds, or “tipping points”, in Earth’s climate system have already been crossed, triggering a self-perpetuating process of warming, as has happened millions of years in the past.

One of these drivers is the rapid retreat of sea ice in the Arctic.

Since the late 20th century, millions of square kilometres of snow and ice—which reflects about 80 percent of the Sun’s radiative force back into space—have been replaced in summer by open ocean, which absorbs the same percentage instead.

Another source is the thawing of permafrost, which holds twice as much carbon as there is in the atmosphere. The third is increasing amounts of water vapor, which also has a warming effect.

Reactions from half-a-dozen leading climate scientists to the study—which the authors acknowledge is schematic—varied sharply, with some saying the findings merit follow-up research, and others rejecting it out of hand.

“The model used here is … not shown to be a credible representation of the real climate system,” said Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the University of Exeter.

“In fact, it is directly contradicted by more established and extensively evaluated climate models.”

Mark Maslin, a professor of climatology at University College London, also pointed to shortcomings in the model, known as ESCIMO, describing the study as a “thought experiment.”

“What the study does draw attention to is that reducing global carbon emissions to zero by 2050″—a goal championed by the UN and embraced by a growing number of countries—”is just the start of our actions to deal with climate change.”

Even the more sophisticated models used in the projections of the UN’s scientific advisory body, the IPCC, show that the Paris climate pact temperature goals cannot be reached unless massive amounts of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere.

One way to do that is planting billions of trees. Experimental technologies have shown that sucking CO2 out of the air can be done mechanically, but so far not at the scale required.



EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY ARE NOT ENOUGH TO ARREST CLIMATE CHANGE BEFORE THE MID-2030’S. ONLY THE NEGATIVE EMISSIONS TECHNOLOGIES ARE POWERFUL ENOUGH – BUT WE MUST MOVE SWIFTLY AND ON A MASSIVE SCALE


“The suffering we are experiencing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic is yet another manifestation of Climate Change (acting through alterations in human-animal disease vectors). Climate scientists have awaited a “Climate Pearl Harbor” which will awaken the public and politicians to the urgency and magnitude of our global warming plight….and here it is! But will we awaken and have the wisdom to direct our frustration with this deadly virus into the correct action? The path forward is an extremely narrow one and rapidly closing. We must bypass the temptation to rest in futuristic hopes of mitigation, carbon reduction and sustainability and instead mobilize the Negative Emissions Technologies (NET) of Direct Atmospheric Removal of Excess-Carbon (DARE) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM) to deal first with existing legacy emissions. Only then can we be sustainable. Starting in 2025 we must capture a net 10 GtC/yr (10 billion metric tons) average CO2 per year if we hope to skirt the twin points of no return in the mid-2030’s – 450 parts per million atmospheric carbon and 310 GtC of ocean-dissolved CO2. (Inarguable geologic records demonstrate the former will trigger the Earth to shift to a new normal inconsistent with human survival. The latter will cause phytoplankton to stop producing 80% of the world’s oxygen.) Existing legacy carbon is not going away because we stop adding more – not for up to thousands of years. It must by actively removed. What can you, or your organization do to restore your children’s future-now-forfeit – use any avenues open to you – including joining the Climate Deadline Alliance (and the “omnicide Complaint” now at the International Criminal Court) – to push awareness of the necessity for a cooperative global effort to remove carbon from the atmosphere so that those who have the visibility, connections, access and resources will take action toward a global DARE/SRM effort. As in World War II everyone must be part of this effort. Do not delay, we need all hands on deck and time is short.” 

 – Dr. Christian R. Komor

SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW


CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

www.climatedeadline2035.com

[email protected]


 

READ - CLIMATE DEADLINE 2035

JOIN - OUR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY COMPLAINT

- Dr. Christian R. Komor


SUSTAINABILITY WON'T SUSTAIN US!  NOT YET!

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently validated the underlying basis for my campaign for Arizona Governor in 2018. Unless we reduce atmospheric carbon below 350 parts per million by the mid-2030s the Earth will shift to a “new normal” and climate disruption will transition from linear to a exponential and unstoppable condition referred to as Irreversible Exponentially Synergistic Anthropotoxic Environmental Cascade (IESAEC).

Already ocean currents are slowing, methane stores are being released from disappearing polar ice, disease vectors are altering, species die off is escalating, weather patterns are altering, novel carbon releasing soil microbes are emerging, and a breach is occurring between plants and pollinators. In the 1960s making a full transition to solar, wind and recycling would have been enough to avert the “tipping levels” we will reach in the mid-2030’s at 450ppm atmospheric carbon.

Sustainability may again be relevant several decades from now. In 2019, however, it is too late for sustainability to save us and too early for sustainability to sustain us. Our only option is to remove gigatons of carbon already in the atmosphere and do so in the next 15 years. After training with Al Gore, I was fortunate to work with a group of senior scientists developing a method using EHUX algae (which formed the White Cliffs of Dover) to remove carbon from the atmosphere and oceans. Emiliania huxleyi were designed by nature to remove carbon and can naturally achieve 350ppm safely and efficiently when assisted with liquid nitrogen from carbon capture at fossil fuel burning plants and human effort. Algae Assisted Carbon Capture & Reflection is the only existing method for bringing atmospheric carbon levels down to a safe level by the mid-2030’s. 



WE'VE HAD OUR "CLIMATE PEARL HARBOR" - NOW IT'S TIME FOR ACTION

As I finished my run for Arizona Governor in late 2018 on a climate change platform, once again major fires were threatening the nearby state of California. So far, the death toll as a result of a single fire in Northern California, the Camp Fire, now stands at 83, most of the victims burned alive – burned alive. According to the Butte County Sheriff's Department, 563 people remain unaccounted for. The Camp Fire has burned more than 153,000 acres and has destroyed more than 13,000 residences, as well as 514 commercial structures and more than 4,000 other buildings. Asking for help fire officials are stressing the connection between Climate Change and increasingly deadly and extensive fires. Over 137 deadly wildfires burned more than 1,830,00 acres in the Western United States during the 2017 fire season alone. Flooding along the Missouri river initiated preparations to shut down power plants, including the Cooper Nuclear Plant, forced 1,200 people to evacuate. A 30-knot wind storm, probably the first in Nepal, hit Bara and Parsa districts killing 28 and injuring over 500 people. Mozambique, Malawi, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, South Africa Tropical Cyclone Idai left entire cities demolished, close to 1,000 dead and more on the way from disease and starvation.


Farther north in neighboring Canada, early this week Valérie Théorêt and her 10-month-old daughter, Adele Roesholt, were found by her husband mauled to death by a grizzly bear – their bodies ripped apart. Wildlife experts report that bears are staying out later than usual because of warm winter conditions. Erratic climate disruption is driving the older bears to attack humans out of desperation due to hunger.  


There are several important Constitutional lawsuits already in process asking the United States Government to reduce carbon emissions. These suits, even if successful, will not be sufficient to avoid the climate deadline we are facing in the mid-2030’s. In March 2019 my colleagues and I file The Climate Lawsuit - a federal suit asking the United States Government to beta-test, operationalize and manage the EHUX algae-based carbon removal program called Ocean Assisted Carbon Capture. This legal action will not be successful without a massive rise in public awareness of the immediacy and finality of the climate change danger we face - and the possibility that exists for rescuing our culture.


(1) It is important for all of us to understand climate change both on the intellectual and personal level. Intellectually the scope of climate change is massive and increasingly fills the news. It includes most elements of our planetary ecology, political and economic and agricultural forces, and many scientific disciplines. This we can read about. On a personal level we must look to our experiences – have you experienced increasingly intense or frequent fires, floods, storms, dust storms? Are you noticing less animals, birds and insects where you live? Have climate-related costs gone up – are you paying more for your water for instance? In Arizona where I live two summers ago planes were unable to take off from the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport due to intense heat. Especially for children we must find ways to build awareness that climate change is not just a far-off mathematical problem, but something very real happening to us more and more intensely and frequently.

(2) It's very important to talk with people about climate change. We no longer need to be worried about being laughed at or dismissed. Be aware that people will be reacting to climate change in different ways. Some will be in shock or denial. Some will be angry perhaps at the government or large-scale carbon polluters.

(3) Try and have a positive attitude – yes really! What we want to focus on is not how large and how serious the situation is – although those things are certainly true. The crucial thing to focus on is the very, very short time span (10-20 years) we have to master the problem. It’s like being bitten by a rabid animal. It’s not really a big problem if you get it in gear and take action get to a doctor and get vaccinated. But if you sit around wasting time your minor inconvenience is going to turn into something deadly. So global warming is really a time problem and our focus needs to be on getting moving.

(4) As individuals we can’t do much with recycling and driving hybrid cars. Those things will be great for later after we have solved the current crisis but they are actually causing a lot of people to not get moving and do what we need to do now which is push hard and fast for government and industry to mobilize. Since there is already too much carbon (and other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere and put in motion Ocean Assisted Carbon Capture (or some even better plan if there is one). Think about the large and rapid mobilization as the United States finally woke up to the danger or World War II. This is the situation we find ourselves in.

(5) So the kids who are walking out of schools and protesting are the ones who are most on the mark today - not the folks making sure their local restaurant is using paper straws and not plastic or riding their bikes to work. We need people blogging and posting on the Internet and getting their club or church to demonstrate in front of city hall and writing their representatives and marching at the headquarters of those companies most responsible for carbon pollution.

And then there is our Climate Lawsuit asking the United States Government to start work on a program like Algae Assisted Carbon Capture & Reflection that will remove carbon from the atmosphere.

(6) Start putting The Climate Lawsuit out there in your social circles and on social media today!

(7) Federal lawsuits are hugely expensive and The Climate Lawsuit will be no exception! Give a talk on what you have learned and collect donations for our legal fund! There is a link for making donations at www.theclimatelawsuit.com

(8) Our mission is to spread the word and to do that we need contacts. If you have contacts, please pass them on. We need students, teachers, researchers, philanthropists, investors, entrepreneurs, business people, farmers,

policymakers, engaged citizens, media representatives, celebrities, fossil fuel companies. If you have a church or civic group get us invited to talk.

(9) We need all kinds of other donations for material resources – plane flights to meet with and convince key organizations to get involved; access to a SPAR oil rig platform to perform “proof of concept” tests; funds to purchase seed and nutrients; access to marketing/advertising services.

(10) If you hear a news report (e.g. on flooding somewhere) possibly linked to climate change do some research. If it sounds like there is a legitimate link call the upstream news source and ask them to include mention of The Climate Lawsuit as part of their report. Write a story or letter to the editor yourself! If you need more facts just contact us!

(11) Talk about it! Tell your friends and colleague what you have learned here. We DO NOT have time to be shy or hold back. Imagine your living in the time of WWII – you would talk about it!

(12) Ask a friend in the motion picture industry to start running “shorts” or ads before the main feature outlining The Climate Lawsuit (we can get you all the materials your need!)

13) Promote the book “ClimateDeadline2035” which supports The Climate Lawsuit. Write a review of the book online or in print.

(14) Lobby for funding for Algae Climate Repair. Your Congressperson will ask what that is. This is on opening for you to tell them. Don’t forget the State level where most of the positive action is happening now. Remember politicians like doubt because it can be used to hide behind and not take action. We are certain about the need for and effectiveness of Ocean Assisted Carbon Capture. Politicians want re-election. Make sure they know you won’t vote for them if they do not cooperate.

(15) Join organizations like: Climate Action Council, National Wildlife Foundation, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment America, Sierra Club and, or visit some organizations online. (If you are in one of these organizations press your leadership to make OACC&R a priority.

PREPOSTEROUS?

 I ask you to picture this and tell me if you think it’s a crazy idea. We put a huge, and I mean 22,000 tons HUGE metal platform (let’s call it something cool and historic like a “SPAR”) way out in the Gulf of Mexico. Not in the shallow part either! We put it where the water is an average depth of say 8,000 feet! To make things more interesting let’s build the SPAR 8,200 miles away in Finland so we will have to drag it over to the Gulf of Mexico with a couple of giant barges. Then, once everything is hooked up, we make it suck 200 million cubic feet of gas and 100,000 barrels of flammable oil every single day 24/7 through a 27-mile network of pipelines on the ocean floor. Of course, that oil can explode and catch fire and devastate everything for 4 or 5 thousand square miles and 75% of that will be unrecoverable (trust me it’s happened before) so we will also put a couple of helipads on the thing so there will room for two Sikorsky S-92 escape helicopters that can carry 19 passengers each. Let’s see, with a workforce of 172 people the helicopters will have to make about ten 80 mile trips to get everyone safely to land if something goes wrong. So, what do you think is this an awesome idea or what? Let’s get started!


I’m not making fun of human ingenuity here. The point I am addressing is that somehow, for some strange reason (could there be a profit motive perhaps?) there is a myth floating around that repairing our damaged atmosphere through direct removal of carbon is not only an impossible idea, but a bad idea. So, my point is we need to have a little context when it comes to imagining atmospheric repair. Does anyone recall a discussion that went like, “Can we build and deploy giant and highly dangerous oil platforms?” Nope, there were profits to be made and corporations just did it. Now we are taking about the survival of humanity and the idea of using SPAR-type platforms to raise EHUX sea algae to remove carbon from the atmosphere sounds somehow like a crazy pipe-dream? How is that? Does that make any sense? No, of course it doesn’t. In fact, it sounds absolutely insane not to try – especially since we already have the technology and the down side is negligible. Carbon eating EHUX algae live a week tops. If something goes wrong, we just let the current crop die out and that’s the end of the project. No massive explosions, dead employees, or irreparable contamination of the ecosystem.


The truth is we have been “geoengineering” for the sake of greed alone for decades with no one questioning the wisdom of doing so – until we found out the result was going to be the extinction of our own species within this century. So the next time you even think about, or hear anyone even faintly whisper anything about active climate repair being unrealistic, or dangerous, or too expensive quash those delusions fast and hard. That’s all they are and very, very dangerous ones at that!

Connect With Us

Address

428 Childers Street

PMB 24256

Pensacola, FL 32534

Contact

P:  800-884-0824

E: [email protected]



Social Media Connections