Climate Stabilization through a Bio-Inspired, Nature-Based Approach

/\ We still have time, barely /\

Even if today’s weather is beautiful (and if it is, why are you staring at a screen when you could be outside!?), how we face and grapple with the “climate crisis” reveals true character. By now, most of us are taking direct action and committed to doing whatever it takes.

But for too many foot-draggers, deniers and irresponsive status quo-conforming business people, climate change still seems a far-off “some day, maybe it will affect me” sort of problem. Or perhaps you are amongst the dwindling minority that doesn’t believe there is a “problem” at all (planning a move to Mars when things get really bad?). We humans tend to rely on what’s most familiar, … which can become problematic at times of change like, well, this. Patterns and habits require a certain “escape velocity” … the hammer/nail syndrome during the time of COVID just meant hammers became scarce.

What’s the difference between a healthy/sustainable groove and being trapped in an unfortunate rut? Depth perception.

Still, there are nonetheless quite compelling reasons to build a better, healthier more sustainable world (using better ‘hammers’ that won’t create a bigger mess than we already have). Technological “quick fixes” such as geoengineering are long discredited as unwise by scientists, morally corrupt (isn’t messing with nature what got us into this predicament?) and simply not necessary (example at more). We have had enough existential threats lately, how about if we take at least one of them off the list of “things to be frightened of”? The 2023 film Oppenheimer paints the picture of “knowing better” than to assume we are in a deadly conflict where lives are threatened if we don’t act.

Stopping a war without starting an era of assured mutual destruction does not provide decent quality of life for either side. Let’s realign our allegiances on something more positive, while acknowledging healthy limits and what we are leaving behind. Isn’t it time to move forward?

Whose “Side” are you on?

We must agree to phase out fossil fuels and immediately end the exploration, production, and sale of new coal, oil, and gas. This is the start of a new commitment to let go of what’s worked in the past, learn from it, and focus on the road ahead.

This is not as hard to do as the fervent proponents of new oil and gas exploration and production make it out to be. We already have enough existing oil and gas to make up the gaps from the exponential growth of carbon-free energy. This means it is feasible to follow the guidelines of the International Energy Agency that “no new oil and gas fields [be] approved for development.” It also means supporting international agreements to phase out the use of fossil fuels. 

The IEA’s authority matters here because it is the forum for the world’s energy ministers and data driven, with clear analytics and substantiated facts. You could argue this is their opinion, but it is unarguable that their opinion is well informed by fact and reason. IEA head Fatih Birol points out that as we scale up new renewables production, “the current existing oil and gas fields and coal mines are more than enough to meet the demand growth.”

Climate-related injury, death, and destruction are now everywhere. The World Health Organization says climate is the single biggest “health threat” facing humanity and has called for a legally binding plan to phase out fossil fuel exploration and production. We can all make informed choices in our own “backyards” that affect change, perhaps influence others, and head in the right direction by taking account of how we invest our own resources, and what we focus on.

Are you stuck in an unfortunate habit of following what your brain’s chemicals tell you is “right” because it is most familiar, or are you stepping into new territory, seeking out relationships and new habits that are more life affirming, guided by what you now know? You can’t “unring” the bell of climate crises awareness … not an alarm signal to take desperate action (motivation is helpful but panic is not), such as supporting those risky moves that could make the climate situation worst, but more of a measured response that puts you more in the driver’s seat of carbon-negative strategies that are viable and reliable. Nature already figured out the blueprint for drawing down carbon into soil and plants, with some long-term investments already showing that amplifying virtuous cycles of clean water, energy, building materials and sustainable food systems will work. It is a matter of will and scale. And capital resources, with more than ever earmarked to achieve these outcomes.

Impact Capital Comes of Age

Impact Investing now encompasses a diverse swath of social and environmental issues worldwide. As asset managers, Californians (not uniquely, of course) have been talking about the need for such change since the 1970s. Talk is cheap. But some have taken action in accordance with values and beliefs since day one. Now the UN and many impact-oriented investors have come together to put the need for change in this decade together with available capital across “all sectors of society” to mobilize change on three levels, global action (such as the SDGs), local action, and people action, including by youth, civil society, the media, the private sector and other stakeholders. The purpose is to “generate an unstoppable movement pushing for the required transformations.” Here, here. ( more )

There’s also a growing list of pragmatic impact investors, aiming at various for-profit (triple-bottom-line) and non-profit (philanthropic) investments for what society and the planet need without regard to making it a self-sustaining business. This latter category got tagged “impact” a few years ago, as ESG / CSEGR Investing (glossary) by companies and foundations and charities have started their own version of “me, too” — many reflecting the program-related and purpose-driven investing that are the roots of all socially-responsible and environmentally-beneficial investing, as Socially-Responsible Investing (SRI) of decades ago morphed into “Sustainable, Responsible, Impact” investing of the 2000s. Per several consulting assignments we’ve had lately, the cutting edge is finding ways to pay for fundamentally unprofitable infrastructure (e.g., a sea wall to protect a community from weird weather and other impending disasters) without just tapping government grants or philanthropic money. Yes, there are ways to make that work, to bridge the seeming divide between those who see profits are part of the problem (actually, the problem is greed and wealth inequality, FYI) with those that see for-profit projects as key to reaching the necessary scale to enact climate change mitigation. Going forward, we call investments for either or both of these imperatives the wise use of “impact capital” for “impact projects”.

Policy Awakens

In addition to the US Inflation Reduction Act’s modest (but appreciated) provisions for renewables, the European Union may have the better approach, although still not perfect, with its newly announced Carbon Removal Policy Framework. A step in the right direction, but still a number of issues to make it practical, with important definitions and a roadmap missing. Editorial that lays this bare: The EU’s Carbon Removal Certification Framework: political leadership or voluntary hurdle? – EURACTIV.com

A roadmap for certifiable carbon removal projects would help clarify the guidance this CRCF seeks to offer, so that other markets can decide if they will lead or follow this model.

Changelings Unite!

It isn’t like there’s a proscribed set of behaviors we’re supposed to uphold, and yet, radical change must happen. But what does this mean? What type of change, along what dimension(s) of behavior, will “get the job done”? We must figure out what part of this we can address? A great transition is already underway, leaving behind the legacy of extractive capitalism to the well-admired framework of a circular and sustainable economy, using the triple bottom line as the proving ground.

Why radical? Won’t incremental change be fast enough? Suddenly, at some point during the pandemic, the [LED] lightbulb went on for hubs of influence globally, not just the scientific community (by itself, apparently, solid science has not been enough to light a fire under the butts of global leaders), but then thousands and thousands of investors, corporations, zillionaires, and ordinary Main Street working stiffs like, uh, Bill Gates, got woke? Yep, that is sometimes how well-guarded non-secrets get heard. Not at all, for quite a while, until there’s “suddenly” a roar of piling-on that takes place. A tipping point, in other words.

Is this a good thing? Mostly. But do see Bill McKibben’s NY Times reply to the other Bill’s February 2021 book release here. More on that dueling Bills, below.

“It is far too late and things are far too bad for pessimism.”
– Dee Hock, CEO emeritus of VISA

Through In3’s Impact Investment Strategy, together, we do our part fixing a broken economy, redirecting underused talent into better-paying jobs, caring for humanity’s basic needs (access to food, water, energy, healthcare, sanitation, housing, mobility), extracting value from so-called waste, and yes, turning unsustainable practices in food production, packaging, power generation, and countless other “waste intensive” industries that often delivers substantial financial gains (profits) as well.

We’re a “boutique” private investment firm, not a megalithic institution, but what we do consistently, sustainably and profitably, really multiplies. Tapping market forces is key to scale, and scale is key to Climate Stabilization. Adding incremental value is not going to cut it. We need bold but well-planned (themselves sustainable) moves to meet the moment. And we also must be certain we’re scaling what is “ecological” in systems thinking terms. Some major players, like World Bank Group’s IFC, pay little attention to the wider ecology, such as with natural gas fracking or large-scale hydroelectric power, where redirecting waterways can wreak havoc, displacing people and blocking fish spawning routes. Both of these ecological downsides are entirely avoidable.

For more on this ecological view, check out Paul Hawken’s latest work, Regeneration; buy it from a local bookseller if you want to be true to these embodied principles, even though (nobody’s perfect) the book itself was likely printed in China. The upside is that it is remarkably inexpensive, offering a rich tapestry of color photographs succinctly spanning action, policy guidelines and transformation that together can “end the climate crisis in one generation”.

Net Zero or Net Negative?

In December 2020, the lead author of the Sixth Assessment Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body that reflects widespread scientific consensus, made a remarkable observation: “It is our best understanding that, if we bring carbon dioxide [emissions] down to net zero, the warming will level off. The climate will stabilize within a decade or two. There will be very little or no additional warming. Our best estimate is zero.” [Joeri Regelj, The next 10 years are critical, August 2018, Grantham Institute of London]. Up until this point it had been assumed that if we were able to stop our carbon emissions, the momentum of warming would keep going for at least 100 years. That was apparently mistaken. That means that warming would begin to recede after we achieve net zero carbon emissions. This points to a much more achievable goal, one of stabilizing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) concentrations, rather than the assumed necessity of reducing them to, say pre-1990 levels. In either case, net zero by 2030 is plenty ambitious. How will we get there from here?

Even with the private sector mobilized and now building full-scale “impact projects” as fast as you can say “infrastructure, stupid”, we still have some seriously heavy lifting to do. For one thing, we have to change the way our food is produced because the current mainstream practices (characterized by GMOs, overfertilization with cheap synthetic NPK in hopes that some of the nutrients will “stick”, overdrawing aquifers) are decidedly unsustainable, causing the global loss of topsoil ever since the introduction of so-called “modern” ag. This same problem can be transformed into part of the solution, but apparently Bill Gates and his advisors did not receive that memo, and prefer to develop risky “new, new tech” in a habitual and forlorn attempt to save us from ourselves.

We’re certainly not against technology per se, when it is “clean” (cleantech aims to offset and reduce environmental footprints like carbon emissions through either greater efficiency, using sustainable resources like sunlight or wind, or both) when implemented ethically, responsible, holistically, in line with physics laws and nature’s rules, using the precautionary principle to guide decision-making. We’re against using bad science and false evidence appearing real (F.E.A.R.) that, if left unchecked, could easily drive us over a cliff. We’re already heading toward said cliff, so we need to think and act differently, reconsider our role, and the limits to our authority (dare I suggest humility, as foreign to most Americans as deep green sustainability) so that we don’t make a bigger mess in the process. It doesn’t matter if the “bigger mess” is unintended; normally, such experimentation on us human guinea pigs, essentially gambling with our future, is of sufficient scale to matter. But if Bill Gates and others remain misguided, the scale of future mistakes will multiply at an unacceptable rate. Further, we need to row in the same direction.

We already have reasonably safe solutions at hand, with their implementation in progress, and definitely need to quicken the pace of deployment, so why am I speaking up now? Too much is at stake. We simply do not have the luxury of overreliance on some future “great white hope” as a technological cure.

To focus and unite our efforts, getting more of us rowing in the same direction, so as to go the distance without false starts or wasting time, we can eliminate those avenues that do not hold potential for meaningful change. Top of the list: geoengineering. Close second: bioengineering of food and unsustainable food production systems. We simply don’t need them; they must be phased out, and thankfully already are. Clinging to the past, doing the same thing over and over while hoping for a better result, not acting on what we know, amounts to a classic definition of insanity. Hoping and waiting is so 2010! Overreliance on technological fixes may be good for the self-interested owners of said technology, at least for a while (milking the cash cows), but then there’s a trail of problems left in their wake. Isn’t that exactly what we are dealing with right now? The groove of profit-taking using unsustainable technology turned into a rut, much harder to escape, perhaps, than the behavior that got us there in the first place. Bad habits are hard to break.

But if we wait for the 2.0 release of the technology that’s meant to fix the current flaws, we will have a very long wait (into oblivion). It is a systems design problem, not a bug that needs fixing. How has “waiting for the savior” or “waiting for our enslaver” (patriarchal corporate godhead) to become “woke” worked out for users of MS Windows, or organic farmers trying to avoid GMOs/Roundup, waiting and hoping that the perpetual “next release” will fix these and many other systems problems? It just doesn’t work like that. If we put the authority outside ourselves with solutions too far removed from nature, and natural cycles, we relinquish power and autonomy and money to the problem and just perpetuate more of the same problem. We remain dependent upon government or an enlightened corporate interest to solve this for us. Such technology is unreliable (unpredictable is an understatement) and it is misguided to expect a different result in this regard from doing the “same thing over and over.” We need an entirely new OS, one that draws from the power and wisdom of biology and natural cycles, was not “invented” in a lab, and is probably unpatentable.

In sharp contrast to Microsoft Windows and GMOs, nature and biology are as reliable as the seasons and the sun rising and setting and living things thriving or dying due to their environment, the microbiome, access to resources, freedom from pollutants and natural disasters like CO2 escaping from rocks that were never meant to be a dumping ground for our earlier mistakes. Sorry, Bill, you missed the mark, misinterpreting the science on “How We Grow Things” (Chapter 6 of his new book). You are no doubt quite intelligent, but bias and thought habits (what’s familiar isn’t always what’s true) tend to filter out new information when it doesn’t agree with preconceived ideas. You need to fire your advisors and find your own way through the jungle of confusion you have manifested. Your intentions are probably good, but actions speak louder.

We can debate the details, but nature will win out. We may or may not be around to appreciate this fact. The time to act boldly, and allow for proper refutation of wrong-headed facts, is at hand.

Biology is messy, but predictably so. We can be inspired by it, but try to harness its awesome, inherent power, like trying to ride some ginormous “monster” wave, and … well, better be a very good swimmer or not take your own self-preservation too seriously.

Everybody can have their own opinion, but (as the saying goes) not their own facts. Trees and forests, for example, aren’t just “pretty things” as Mr. Gates would have us believe, but elegant ‘machines’ or complete systems that sequester massive carbon, both above and below the ground, provide no waste, play well with others, provide for their families.

Aside from being an overused metaphor, trees and their various roles provide an essential part of the solution set, including afforestation and reforestation along with keeping existing forests (what remain of them) intact, agroforestry, silvopasture, cultivating bamboo and bamboo-related value chains, and “closed loop” handing of waste woody biomass. The same technologies can be used to pyrolyze other biomass (plant or animal origin), plastics, rubber, and other calorie- or nutrient-containing materials instead of letting them accumulate in the biosphere. This is now well-proven and quite a competitive space.

Nature, the Original Equal Opportunity Employer

Nature chews up and spits out the rich and powerful, or penniless, … without discrimination. There’s little point in trying to harness her awesome power, when cooperation with nature, aligning with principles, laws (gravity isn’t just a good idea), will set you free with few of the downside risks, shown over our brief history as failed experiments. Why try to dominate and own a perfectly amenable partner? Habit, I guess.

Taking calculated risks is fine, and the old adage “nothing ventured, nothing gained” applies with a major exception, when fundamental designs (like collecting renewable energy from the sun and wind, converting abundant waste, or rebuilding topsoil as a massive carbon sink) are already proven and working, thus there’s no need to tinker and reinvent alternatives. The risk/reward profile spells out future disasters that are easily avoided. What’s next, an experimental bat virus without strict safety procedures? Oh, right.

Point and case: the requirements for certain genetically modified organisms (especially open-pollenated, “Roundup-ready” GMO crops that use glyphosate on effectively dead soil) bring more environmental harm than the good of increased food crop yields. The unintended consequences have to be factored in, from the loss of soil carbon (and the loss of the soil’s capacity to support healthy plants that don’t require the spraying of toxic chemicals in the first place) then the inherent downstream risk of runoff of synthetic fertilizers, overwatering, oceanic dead zones, and the effects of “monster” food experiments unleashed on unsuspecting populations. Is more of that ecological collapse an acceptable bet for our future? For an update on Mr. Gate’s activities, see this surprisingly insightful video (Russell Brand on “Bill Gates Buying Up U.S. Farmland – WHAT’S HIS PLAN?”). 

Just as unreliable and dangerous: Gates’ hoped-for “safe” nuclear power, or injecting CO2 into concrete or asphalt (we’ve already covered enough of the planet with materials that prevent water from passing back into the soil and recharging aquifers), with effective water resource management already critically important to bouncing back from climate change. Let’s head in the opposite direction by cleaning up polluted waterways, eliminating toxic compounds at the source (don’t make stuff we can’t rid of as it will end up in landfills or the oceans), so we can all play pivotal roles in restoring and regenerating our home. We don’t want more desertification, we want food forests instead!

Shout out to John Rulac’s article Making America’s Rivers Blue Again: Connecting the Dots Between Regenerative Ag & Healthy Waterways

The reason some of the Sustainable Development Goals are considered “wicked” problems — almost unsolvable without something radically innovative — is that there are often unintended consequences, or even remote systemic effects, to taking the seemingly “right” action. The idea is to clean up the mess without making a bigger mess in the process.

Not to squelch anyone’s creative impulses to invent a better mousetrap for CO2, Bill Gates or otherwise (sincere efforts by Breakthrough Energy Fund and many others), but as McKibben pointed out back in 2017, “the technology exists to combat climate change”, and he asks therefore, “What will it take to get our leaders to act?” This is the challenge of our lifetimes. This is our moment. We can do this. Indeed, we must. Let’s creatively solve this together so that we can win it while there’s still time.

How? Bolder and more aggressive plans of action are essential. 2050 targets are meaningless if that plan includes doing very little or “almost nothing” to make a real difference until 2030 or 2040. This is why the call for transparency and accountability has increased, soon with regulatory frameworks to hold accountable those who can and will have the greatest impacts. But even more important, on the social side: working together toward drawing down the carbon already present, which is not so much a matter of technology (as Bill Gates and others might have you believe) but a low-tech or no-tech blueprint we already have, sometimes now called “natural” climate change solutions or “nature-based” or “bio-inspired” approaches, where practical. Soil itself serves humanity as a fantastic, reliable, life-giving carbon sink. We need not be “in charge” of a technology that enables us to build a machine to conquer climate change.

Fast-growing plants fix carbon and maintain or regenerate healthy soils (as opposed to the way modern agriculture “treats the soil like dirt” — as just a growing medium with synthetic fertilizers and plants addicted to pesticides/herbicides/fungicides because they’re not healthy enough to stand on their own without them). This is also an underappreciated fact of science — water cycles and living plants have a symbiotic relationship with the soil, and contain and sequester more carbon that desertified bare soil.

Bill Gates 2021 interview about his investments in climate change mitigation on 60 Minutes: “How the world can avoid a climate disaster”

His new book came out Feb 16, 2021. True to what he knows, he over-relies on science and technology, but at least he and many other billionaires are now passionate about taking action, not giving up. He recognizes that there is hard work to be done. Energy poverty in developing countries through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation work was eye-opening and made them impact investors and realize the importance of achieving Net Zero (net negative, anyone?).

BBC reading of the first 14 minutes of book here … but the chapter on growing things is particular off base. Bill has been listening to the wrong scientists — fringe researchers that apparently tell him what he wants to hear.

If you have a breakthrough innovation for climate change, consider funding via Breakthrough Energy (of course there are many other capital providers that may be more practical). We can help you prepare. We want to keep this crew busy so Bill doesn’t write and promote another wrong-headed book. Excuse me a moment … I’ll be right back … I have to reboot my Windows PC … again. :>)

Where was I? Oh, right.

Is such “breakthrough” technology actually necessary? Gates and his uber-wealthy compatriots have already invested in innovative solutions to some of the world’s toughest problems – global poverty, disease, and the coronavirus pandemic, so far, nearly $2 billion. Does he want to control the food supply? I do not know what motivates those decisions, but it is inarguable that he and other uber-rich folks have too much power with too little accountability for their actions. That’s another matter entirely. But would someone please send him some grass-fed burgers with their CO2 profile so he can stop complaining about flatulent cows? more

Postponing the essential actions is no longer an option

Yes, timing is everything, as they say. Collaboration takes patience and skill. We only make it harder with further delays. What are the conversations (including and especially those with whom you disagree) that can get you down the road furthest, the fastest? There’s no point trying to convince mules, but … most of the time, the “bark is worse than the bite” syndrome applies. What new partnerships or relationships offer you the richest potential rewards? I guess we’d all better write Bill Gates a letter. We need to invite some dialogue here. Who wants to help us send a memo that would get the conversation going?

We need all hands on deck, now more than ever. See transcript of February 2021 interview of In3 founder Daniel Robin online at Companies for Zero Waste.

Also not to be missed: Greta Thunberg, HH the Dalai Lama, and IPCC* scientists discuss urgency for natural climate solutions; now’s the time to develop, implement and scale, clean, sustainable, circular solutions; here’s how…more on this recent webcast

2021 Mind & Life Conversation on the Crisis of Climate Feedback Loops

Parting thoughts: Sailing the Seven C’s of Collaborative Business Relationships

Related articles and a presentation to elaborate on these points:

• Regeneration Starts at Home
• Mitigating Climate Change — going beyond low carbon and zero carbon (emissions reduction) to carbon negative
• Recorded Jan 9th 2021 “livestream” of climate change rockstars HH The Dalai Lama, Greta Thunberg and key scientists (the team that authored the Nobel Prize-winning UN’s IPCC* reports and earlier warnings) here.

* IPCC = United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body for assessing the available science related to climate change.