Connect with us

INSIGHTS

Allan Savory: Path to a Climate Change Solution

Published

on

Courtesy of Savory Global

Every day the news includes stories about the massive loss of biodiversity occurring globally and of the destruction related to climate change. Most people view these as separate problems, but they are not.

As I will explain below, we – team humanity – can begin to address what is all coming to be blamed on climate change, and we can do so with greater understanding and in harmony and agreement with one another.

Desertification and Biological Communities

Ecologists and many other scientists know that the loss of biological life, and in particular plant life when it leads to soil exposure, results in rapid environmental degradation. When this occurs where rainfall is seasonal and erratic (i.e. most of the world’s land), the land turns to desert. Archeologists even find these deserts covering ancient, abandoned cities in the Fertile Crescent under shifting sands. We call this desertification.

When biological communities lose diversity and soil becomes exposed for long periods—as it does where rainfall and arid periods are seasonal and erratic—desertification occurs. This is because the rain falling on bare soil flows across the surface leading to either flooding or evaporating back into the atmosphere causing droughts.

 

Anyone who understands how insects pollinate plants knows that together, plant life and animal life form biological communities. From the smallest bacteria to the mightiest of trees, whales, or elephants, such biological communities are most stable and productive when comprised of the greatest diversity.

 

When biological communities lose diversity and soil becomes exposed for long periods—as it does where rainfall and arid periods are seasonal and erratic—desertification occurs. This is because the rain falling on bare soil flows across the surface leading to either flooding or evaporating back into the atmosphere causing droughts.

 

Soil, when not exposed, is the greatest store of fresh water after glaciers and icecaps. In fact, soil stores about thirty times more fresh water than all the rivers, lakes, and dams in the world according to the USGS.

 

As I explained in a 2013 TED Talk which has been viewed by millions of people, when one square meter of soil is exposed where I live in the tropics, you only have to walk barefoot to learn that exposed soil is too cold to stand on at dawn and too hot to stand on at noon. In comparison, a similar square meter of soil that is covered with life is generally no problem. That small micro-environment of the soil surface changes enormously without vegetative cover.

 

At this very moment on over half of our Earth’s land, more than 80% of soil between plants is bare. Because of this, the macro-climate is changing.

 

Feedback loops of biodiversity loss, desertification, and climate change

 

Feedback loops occur in nature and, as some ecologists and other scientists understand, this is the situation we find ourselves in. Biodiversity loss leads to desertification contributing to climate change leading to more erratic rainfall and temperatures contributing to increased desertification and so on and so forth. Feedback loops such as these, if not checked, grow exponentially. Where rare weather extreme records used to be reported infrequently in my childhood, they have increased exponentially to the point that they are now almost a weekly occurrence.

 

If not checked, this feedback loop (seen as climate change by most scientists) will ensure the degradation of our human habitat and ever more unpredictable violent weather, likely to result in billions of deaths, violence, and the failure of our city-based civilization. These are not doomsday predictions but rather simple Ecology 101. Understandably, there is a growing demand for the world’s political leaders to act, but how exactly should they?

 

Everyone knows that we cannot solve any problem without addressing its root cause. So, what is the root cause of this feedback loop that results in the acceleration of climate change? 

 

Most of society, including those demanding action and scientists advising world leaders, believe climate change is caused mainly by greenhouse gases from fossil fuels, deforestation, and livestock. The solutions they advocate include replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, planting billions of trees, protecting tropical forests and oceans from over-exploitation, and eating less meat.

 

At COP26, I was invited to talk about how regenerative agriculture might help address these causes and sequester carbon in the soil. I declined to do so, however, because I know so little about agriculture, carbon, or soil, and more knowledgeable speakers than I were already addressing this topic.

 

While I fully support regenerative agriculture and the rapid replacement of fossil fuels, I wanted then as I do now to deal with something that I believe is of greater importance: what I see as the underlying cause of climate change, something that is rarely cited as a cause.

 

So, what is the root cause of the changing climate? 

 

After decades of denial, today most scientists acknowledge that humans are causing climate change.

 

Given that the foundation of science is observation, deduction, and logic, this acknowledgment is momentous because if humans are causing climate change, then the true cause must be management. It is how we manage resources like coal, oil, and the biological life (including livestock) that exists both on land and in the oceans that is the root cause. It is how we are managing Nature (our life-supporting environment) to produce energy, food, and other necessities that make our civilization possible that is the root cause of accelerating biodiversity loss, desertification, and climate change. It is only a matter of time before society digests the implications of this fact.

 

Shortly, there will be no scientist who would argue that human management of natural resources is not the cause of biodiversity loss, desertification, and climate change and continue to blame fossil fuels and livestock.

 

What could we recommend world leaders do about management when we manage millions of things daily? This seems an impossible task. 

 

Society believes that we manage many things, but is that true?

 

It is true that we produce millions of things every day: cars, cell phones, clothes, computers, art, weapons, many forms of food and fibre, medicine, and all the other things that make civilization possible.

 

Participants at successive climate conferences discuss producing electricity less harmfully from nature, like sun, wind, geothermal, and nuclear. Some discuss corporate production of food based on chemistry and smart technology, while others discuss farmers producing food based on the biological sciences.

 

Things that we produce lack emergent properties, meaning they only do what they are designed to do and they are not self-organizing. Thus, they cease to function (or even exist) if we stop producing them, a part breaks, a battery dies, or fuel runs out. We can produce things independent of one another – cell phones or violins, corn, potatoes, meat, wine, computers, or weapons. These things are not managed, but rather we produce, create, or make them.

 

So, the things themselves are not where the cause of the problem lies, despite their domination of discussion at global conferences designed to guide the world’s political leaders.

 

What then do we manage that scientists now acknowledge is the cause of climate change? 

 

As humans, we manage three things:

 

 

    1. ourselves (our own lives, families, organizations, and institutions),
    2. our finances and economies, and it is through these that we manage
    3. nature (our life-supporting environment or habitat) from which we produce everything that makes civilization possible.

 

 

 

 

These three things we do not produce; we manage.

 

Our inability to manage this complexity of society, economy, and nature together is, I believe, the greatest problem facing humanity.

Each of these—human society, economy, and Nature—has emergent properties not predictable through the study of their components. Further, they continue on, although in a changed form, no matter how many millions of people or cultures die, no matter if entire economies collapse, and no matter how many species go extinct. Humans, nature, and economy are inseparable—as seen most obviously through the recent Covid pandemic—and they are defined in systems science as “complex self-organizing” systems.

Our inability to manage this complexity of society, economy, and nature together is, I believe, the greatest problem facing humanity. It has led to the demise of many civilizations in all regions and now poses a global threat to civilization through anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. Managing such complexity, especially at the policy level, is what participants at global conferences on biodiversity, agriculture, energy, economics, etc. need to advise world leaders how to do because we citizens cannot do so.

 

 

Let me explain.

 

 

The Solution Lies in How We Manage Complexity

 

 

Each of us can manage our lives, families, farm, or small business… but only to a point. Because we are managing these within an economy, no matter where you are located, this all is impacted by the environmental destruction being driven by the global financing system. For all species, including Homo sapiens, suitable habitat is the most essential requirement for its survival in Nature, and we are losing ours. As grassroots individuals and families, we cannot act to save humankind from the existential catastrophe we face, although many are trying.

 

 

Beyond the boundaries of our families, generally we manage at an institutional scale through companies, corporations, governments, universities, churches, and other organizations. Most people today cannot make a pair of shoes because they are made by businesses or corporations. Everything today is managed at scale by organizations or institutions, including religions.

 

 

Governments manage through the enforcement of policies, laws, regulations, and in earlier societies, through enforcing customs and taboos.

 

 

Putting the pieces together, management at scale, which is accomplished through organizational / institutional policies, is the cause of biodiversity loss, desertification, and climate change

 

 

How can we advise world leaders to address this when there are so many hundreds of ways of developing policies?

 

 

There are many ways of developing policies, right? 

 

 

Through over sixty-five years of working with thousands of fellow scientists and resource managers, we discovered a key management insight.

 

 

Governments – democratic or dictatorship – develop policies in the same way. They develop policy with both the reason and the context of the policy being to meet a need, desire or to address a problem. The policy is then developed based on advice from highly trained experts, often in integrated scientific teams, interested parties, or by professional lobbyists and their own political persuasions.

 

…reductionist policy development. It is universal and is the cause of climate change that scientists are now unwittingly acknowledging.

Policies, so developed, almost universally lead to unintended consequences because we are ignoring the self-organizing complexity of society, organizations, economy, and Nature in devising the policy to meet our needs, desires, or more commonly address a problem. When I discovered this in 1983, I described it as “reductionist policy development”. It is universal and is the cause of climate change that scientists are now unwittingly acknowledging.

 

 

The alternative is to develop policy to meet our needs, desires, or address problems but in a holistic context, which encompasses social and cultural values, aspirations and behavior, and ties this quality of life and economies to our life-supporting environment (Nature) as it will have to be far into the future to sustain our descendants.

 

 

In doing this, politicians can begin to successfully address the root cause of the problem which is the reductionist manner in which policy is developed universally today. However, it will require real people developing a national holistic context as the context for all policies in any nation.

 

 

A holistic context is a new concept that began its development in the early 1980s with the help of over 2,000 scientists and economists with whom I was collaborating, and progressively it became both simpler and more inclusive. An example would be the “generic” holistic context that I use when visiting a new country or analyzing any policy in any field:

 

We want stable families living peaceful lives in prosperity and physical security while free to pursue our own spiritual or religious beliefs. Adequate nutritious food and clean water. Enjoying good education and health in balanced lives with time for family, friends and community and leisure for cultural and other pursuits. All to be ensured, for many generations to come, on a foundation of regenerating soils and biologically diverse communities on Earth’s land and in her rivers, lakes and oceans. And to have an open and respectful attitude, being tolerant, non-judgmental, and to ensure mutual respect and support in team humanity as we live with ourselves and our environment in harmony.

While I formed this “generic” holistic context I have found people resonate with it despite different cultures, tribes, social status, economic status, or religions in all countries in which I have worked.

 

 

Addressing Climate Change in a Holistic Context

 

 

How, in the confusion and conflict of today, could world leaders be shown how to take meaningful action to address climate change in a holistic context?

 

 

Because this is the basis of my appeal in this blog, let me illustrate with a clear and unarguable example where the policies of well-intended organizations are leading to a loss of biological diversity and desertification contributing to climate change where least expected: our National Parks. This would be a neutral, non-contentious case, seeing as how almost everyone wants the same outcome, which is just the opposite of what we’re seeing there.

 

 

Where I live, I am surrounded by some 30 National Parks in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana, and Namibia. Intended to preserve biodiversity, these are some of our worst examples of biodiversity loss and desertification contributing to climate change. The opposite of what almost every human, scientist, ecologist, and environmental organization desires and intends.

 

 

If we look at these national parks, or those in New Mexico where I lived for forty years observing similar biodiversity loss even in the Aldo Leopold Memorial Forest on the Rio Grande river, as scientists we see the canaries in our mine dying wholesale.

 

 

This we cannot attribute to climate change, fossil fuels, atmospheric carbon, livestock, methane, deforestation, corporate profiteering, greed, corruption, poaching, hunting, excessive populations, lack of education, volcanic action, or, or, or… none of which is the cause of biodiversity loss in these islands of professional management admired by hundreds of thousands of visitors annually.

 

 

This loss of biodiversity is a result of the management by park biologists, ecologists, and staff, dictated by the policies of their governments, environmental organizations, and international agencies. I became aware of this as a young ecologist sixty-five years ago when observing the loss of plant and animal species in wild areas destined to be future national parks, and this led to me becoming an independent scientist so I could devote my life to studying the problem that so alarmed me.

 

 

Earlier, I mentioned that society’s belief that there are many ways of developing policy, as we learned, was a false belief.

 

 

Could there be another false belief that is leading to management destroying biodiversity and human habitat over most of Earth’s land area? 

 

 

Society believes that we have many options for reversing the loss of biodiversity and the scourge of desertification, thus beginning to break the endless feedback loop of biodiversity loss/desertification/climate change/biodiversity/desertification/climate change that will make our planet largely uninhabitable by humans. This we cannot do with all the creativity, money or labour in the world, but only through using “tools.”

 

 

We are a tool-using animal. Today, no human can even drink milk without using technology, unless we go to a cow and use hand and mouth to suck. We cannot even drink water or plant a tree without a tool, and so it is with biodiversity loss in seasonal rainfall environments that lead to desertification over most of our Earth’s land area. We cannot stop this biodiversity loss without the implementation of some tool.

 

 

In the world’s oceans and in the perennially humid terrestrial environments, we do not require a tool since simply leaving things alone allows biodiversity to recover. This we observe by finding the ruins of past cities covered by vegetation and many life forms as nature’s biological life recovered in humid tropical forest environments.

 

…we have no option but to use livestock (and other large herbivores) as tools to restore biodiversity in seasonal rainfall environments.

For brevity, I will simply refer to the 2013 TED Talk mentioned earlier that I gave on reversing desertification viewed by about 9 million people to date and by over 1,000 a day as I write.

In that, I pointed out that we scientists advising politicians have three tools with which to address desertification. We can use fire, we can use technology in all its manifestations, or we can use the concept of resting the environment as a positive action/tool to allow biodiversity to recover as we know it does in environments of perennial humidity. The latter is being advocated as rewilding, conservation, or preserving vast areas of land and oceans to restore biodiversity.

 

 

Two of these tools (fire and resting the environment) lead to desertification in seasonally arid environments, and the third (technology), even in science fiction, cannot prevent it as I described in that TED Talk. As scientists, I stated we have no option but to use livestock (and other large herbivores) as tools to restore biodiversity in seasonal rainfall environments. This we discovered in the mid-1960s and learned how to do as is described in the textbook Holistic Management: A Commonsense Revolution to Restore our Environment.  Island Press 3rd edition.

 

 

I, like you and everyone at conferences about climate, saving biodiversity, or deliberations on agriculture or finance and economy, such as Davos, would like to see a positive outcome that helps world leaders by not saying what they should do, but by having them experience what can be done by developing policy in a way that does address the cause of the problem, and in the end helps us hopefully break the deadly biodiversity to climate change cycle in time to save us from premature self-induced destruction.

 

 

Remember, what is lacking is not knowledge, but the facilitation skill to enable any government, environmental organization, or international institution to use the available scientific knowledge to develop policy addressing the complexity. This facilitation skill can be provided by the Savory Institute, based on over half a century of collaboration with literally thousands of scientists, independent of their employing organizations, who helped develop the Holistic Management framework that makes it possible to address the complexity we must address when developing any policy.

 

 

A Proposal

 

 

I propose that respected scientific bodies such as the UK Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences and others, if desired, convene an internationally observed case in which a government, helped by the world’s largest environmental and wildlife conservation organizations, develop policy to reverse the biodiversity loss in Africa’s National Parks where I live.

The Savory Institute will not develop the policy but will provide the one skill lacking which is facilitation of the process. Such a test case can be observed by all nations and media so that the public and world leaders can see how relatively easy it will be for world leaders to address climate change in this manner.  Addressing the cause, using all available science and knowledge, and with harmony and agreement amongst the people of any nation.

If, as will happen, the policy so developed under international observation, is seen to unite humans while addressing the problem to everyone’s satisfaction, it will be beyond valuing in terms of human life or money.

For thousands of years we did not know how to fly and many men died trying. When the Wright brothers learned to fly the human spirit flew and we were on the moon in seventy years. Now that we know what is causing climate change, I believe the human spirit can once more fly offering future generations hope.

 

Allan Savory

Allan is a lifelong ecologist and the creator and co-founder of Savory Institute. He originated Holistic management, a systems thinking approach to managing resources. His Holistic Management textbook, and Holistic Management Handbook have influenced thousands of ranchers and land stewards across the globe.
Continue Reading

Featured

The Shift Ahead — How Transforming Life Systems Will Redefine Jobs, Education, and Opportunity

Published

on

The Shift Ahead — How Transforming Life Systems Will Redefine Jobs, Education, and Opportunity

video
play-sharp-fill
As climate, technology, and civic systems evolve, so too must our jobs and education. From the way we grow food to the way we govern, power, and communicate—everything is changing.  Mobilized explores how systemic transformation across essential sectors will redefine careers and learning for a healthier, more just world.

What’s Changing?

  • Food Systems: From industrial farming to regenerative, local, and cellular food production.
    New jobs: Agroecologists, food technologists, fermentation specialists.
  • Energy: Transitioning from fossil fuels to decentralized, community-owned renewables.
    New jobs: Microgrid engineers, solar installers, energy justice advocates.
  • Governance: Evolving from top-down structures to participatory, digital civic engagement.
    New jobs: Civic tech designers, transparency officers, deliberative moderators.
  • Public & Planetary Health: Integrating human and ecological well-being.
    New jobs: Climate health planners, environmental epidemiologists.
  • Communications & Information: From centralized media to decentralized, trustworthy platforms.
    New jobs: Cooperative journalists, media ethicists, misinformation analysts.
  • Technology & ICT: Prioritizing ethical, inclusive, open-source innovation.
    New jobs: AI ethicists, accessibility developers, digital inclusion strategists.
  • Finance & Ecological Economics: Shifting from GDP to well-being and regenerative models.
    New jobs: Green accountants, impact investors, community wealth builders.
  • Smarter Cities & Circular Infrastructure: Reimagining urban living through circular design and mobility innovation.
    New jobs: Urban ecologists, circular construction specialists, MaaS planners.
  • Accessibility & Disability Inclusion: Centering universal design in all services.
    New jobs: Inclusive tech developers, neurodiverse UX designers.
  • Personal Democracy Movements: Empowering grassroots participation through tech and transparency.
    New jobs: Civic platform moderators, participatory budgeting coordinators.

What Education Must Evolve to Do

  • Interdisciplinary Learning: Blending environmental science, social justice, and digital literacy.
  • Systems Thinking: Teaching people to understand complexity, feedback loops, and interconnected impacts.
  • Applied Ethics & Collective Stewardship: Embedding empathy, equity, and interdependence across all disciplines.
  • Cooperative & Experiential Learning: Project-based education grounded in real-world, community-led problem solving.
  • Life-Long Learning & Upskilling: Flexible learning formats like micro-credentials, modular certifications, and peer-to-peer mentorship.

Conclusion: Building a Future That Works for Everyone

The future isn’t just about greener jobs—it’s about redesigning the systems we rely on for survival, dignity, and progress. That means aligning what we learn with what the world truly needs: regeneration, justice, and resilience.

Let’s flip the script—on education, employment, and the systems we shape every day. Visit MobilizedNews.com to learn more and join the movement.

Continue Reading

INSIGHTS

A Formula to Keep the Science Flame Burning

Published

on

Why is the Trump Administration trying to kill a small space science institute in New York City? Explanation begins with Galileo’s method of scientific inquiry and ends with the role of special interest money in the United States government.

By James Hansen

Galileo improved the telescope, allowing clearer observations of the planets and the Sun. Galileo differed from his peers, as he was unafraid to challenge authority. He claimed that the world should be understood based on observations, and he spoke directly to the public. He obtained philanthropic support for his observations and openly described the conclusion that Earth was not the center of the solar system – Earth revolved around the Sun.

Implications of Galileo’s approach rattled the establishment. Galileo was opposed not only by the Catholic Church, but by many professors who did not fully understand Galileo’s work and were reluctant to support a heretical viewpoint. At his Inquisition, Galileo recanted his views, to save his life. He could wait for history to vindicate him; the Scientific Revolution was beginning.

Science research and the primacy of observations were well advanced by October 1957 when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the first human-made Earth satellite. The United States responded by forming NASA in 1958 and supporting universities to develop space scientists. I benefitted from that support and, as a 25-year-old post-doc in February 1967, drove with great expectations from Iowa City to New York City, pulling over only once for a few hours of sleep, my destination being the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) on the edge of the Columbia University campus.

GISS attracted scientists from around the world to carry out space science research, as described in The Universe on a Scratch Pad.[1] Patrick Thaddeus built a microwave telescope on the roof of GISS, which he used to discover numerous molecules in space, survey the molecular Milky Way, and help revolutionize understanding of the interstellar medium and star formation. In this citadel of research, I worked with Henk van de Hulst, the world-leading expert on light scattering, and led a team that developed an instrument for the Pioneer mission to Venus to investigate the veil of Venus, which shrouds Earth’s nearest neighbor. We measured the properties of Venus aerosols – fine airborne particles that turned out to be sulfuric acid – more precisely in the 1970s than aerosols on Earth are measured today.

What is the justification for such a small laboratory? Robert Jastrow, the first GISS director, described the “GISS formula” for research in cooperation with nearby universities, including Columbia, New York University, and the City University of New York. The formula put equal emphasis on observations – the foundation of science – and theory. The small added cost of location in an urban setting was justified by the gain from working with top-notch academia, as well as the proximity of national media to help promulgate scientific progress. Indeed, the GISS formula actually limited costs by employing only a small number of government scientists, along with students, post-docs, and university research associates.

The GISS formula has other merits: independent thinking and ability to rapidly change research focus. For example, as changes of Earth’s ozone layer emerged in the 1970s, it became clear that our home planet was more interesting and important than other planets. I began compiling Earth observations, including global temperature, and focused my research group on development of a global model for computer simulation of climate change on Earth.

In 1982, soon after I was appointed to succeed Jastrow as GISS director, I was instructed to move GISS to the main Goddard center, which housed about 10,000 employees in suburban Maryland. The GISS formula would have been lost. Thus, we refused to go, but we survived in New York with reduced government funding. In this setting, we investigated climate change with equal emphasis on (1) paleoclimate, the history of climate change, (2) global climate modeling, and (3) observations of ongoing climate change. Based on this multi-faceted research approach, I could testify to Congress in 1988 with a high degree of confidence that the world had entered a period of global warming driven by human-made changes of Earth’s atmosphere.

In 1989, Congress approved a multi-billion-dollar NASA “Mission to Planet Earth” to study global change. We GISS scientists proposed that the mission include small satellites for crucial climate measurements, especially of atmospheric aerosols and their effect on clouds. Aerosols increase reflection of sunlight to space, thus causing global cooling that partly offsets warming from increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, our proposal was viewed by NASA management as a threat to their larger satellites,[2] rather than a complement.

We persisted in advocacy of small satellites for decades, which resulted in renewed efforts to move GISS to Maryland. Again, GISS survived with further reduction of support, but with our perspective and intellectual integrity intact. Finally, after we had carried out additional research and aircraft measurements, we proposed a small satellite aerosol mission in cooperation with Pete Wordon, director of NASA Ames Research Center. When this proposal was blocked by the director of Goddard Space Flight Center, I retired from NASA.

In 2013, I initiated a broad research program, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, based entirely on public and philanthropic support, with cooperation of Prof. Jeff Sachs and Columbia University. Our research, based on paleoclimate, climate modeling, and modern observations, has produced results that challenge the climate dogma promulgated by the United Nations. The UN climate assessment (by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the UN policy approach (defined by the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement) are each so seriously flawed that they pose a threat to the future of young people and future generations.

The crucial science issue is climate sensitivity, which is a measure of global climate change in response to an imposed climate “forcing” such as a change of atmospheric greenhouse gases or aerosols. The common measure of climate sensitivity is the equilibrium (eventual) global warming in response to doubled atmospheric CO2 (carbon dioxide). IPCC’s best estimate of climate sensitivity (3 degrees Celsius, which is 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) is based mainly on climate models, which have many uncertainties. Clouds are especially difficult to model because even a small cloud change affects Earth’s reflectivity and energy balance. Thus, climate models, by themselves, cannot define climate sensitivity accurately.

Recent paleoclimate studies, especially improved data on global temperature during the last ice age[3] and on longer time scales,[4] show with more than 99 percent confidence that climate sensitivity is greater than IPCC’s best estimate. Another, independent, indication of climate sensitivity is provided by satellite observations of a change in the amount of sunlight reflected by Earth. Earth has become darker during the past 25 years, as reflection of sunlight by clouds diminished. This cloud change provides an empirical measure of cloud feedback, that is, the response of clouds to global warming. This amplifying cloud feedback confirms the high climate sensitivity derived from paleoclimate studies.

Explanation[5] of how IPCC underestimated climate sensitivity involves their reliance on climate models and their assumption that climate forcing by aerosols changed little in 1970-2005, as global temperature rose. However, even though global emissions of sulfur dioxide gas – the main cause of aerosol formation – were nearly constant in 1970-2005, emissions spread globally into more pristine air where emissions cause a larger climate forcing. Thus, aerosols had a cooling effect during 1970-2005. The upshot is that the average of climate models used by IPCC understated aerosol cooling and required a climate sensitivity of only 3 degrees Celsius to match observed warming. With more realistic aerosol cooling, larger climate sensitivity is required.

Thus, all three methods of analysis – paleoclimate, satellite observations, and climate modeling – indicate a climate sensitivity substantially higher than IPCC’s best estimate of 3 degrees Celsius; our best estimate is 4.5 degrees Celsius.[5] The practical impact of this high climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing will be enormous. Aerosol cooling constrained global warming in 1970-2005, but since 2005 aerosols have been on decline globally, especially in China, Europe and the United States and since 2020 aerosols from ships have decreased due to regulations on the sulfur content of ship fuel. The result is acceleration of global warming. The global warming rate in the past two decades is nearly double the rate in 1970-2005.

Confirmation of our analysis is provided by precise monitoring of Earth’s energy imbalance – the difference between absorbed solar radiation and heat radiation emitted to space. Because of the change from increasing aerosols in 1970-2005 to decreasing aerosols, Earth’s energy imbalance – which is the drive for global warming – has doubled since 2005, from 0.6 to 1.2 watts per square meter averaged over Earth’s surface. The latter value is equal to the energy in 800,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day (220 per second), with 90 percent of this excess energy going into the ocean. Because of the massive size of the ocean, warming is gradual but relentless. In the absence of effective policy intervention, regional climate extremes will grow in coming decades, and there will be effects that are practically irreversible, such as rising sea level.

The climate threat is no reason to despair. However, to keep favorable climate we must account for world energy needs. Fossil fuels, the main source of gases that cause global warming, are an amazing energy source: a gallon of gasoline contains energy equal to that in 400 hours of labor by an adult. Fossil fuels have raised living standards in much of the world and provide 80 percent of the world’s energy today. And energy demand is rising. Billions of people still strive to escape poverty. Fossil fuels are convenient and they will remain affordable as long as they are not required to pay their cost to society caused by their effects on human health and climate change.

Economists agree[6] that the main policy needed to phase down fossil fuel emissions is a gradually rising carbon fee.[7] With these funds distributed uniformly to the public, most low- and middle-income people receive more in the carbon dividend than they pay in increased energy prices, thus tending to lock in the policy. Governments also need to support modern nuclear power, which is available 24/7 to complement intermittent renewable energy. However, these policies, despite their low cost, are not well pursued in the United States by either major political party.

Our government’s failure to address climate change effectively and the present administration’s desire to exterminate a small science laboratory in New York City have a common explanation. I describe in Sophie’s Planet[8] interactions with the government that expose a decades-long, confounding, failure to take sensible, inexpensive, actions that would address energy needs and climate change. The problem is traced to special financial interests, especially the fossil fuel industry and the military-industrial complex, in affecting policies.

Corruption was recognized as a threat by our nation’s founders, who provided us tools to fight it. Fossil fuel executives fund both parties to assure that a simple, honest, carbon fee is avoided, and they chortle at environmentalists who believe that subsidizing renewable energies will lead to phase out of fossil fuels. Militarism[9] tends to create permanent enemies and inhibit the global cooperation needed to address climate change. Soft power emanating from a democracy that functions as it is intended would be far more effective. It is possible to fix our democracy, I argue in Sophie’s Planet, whether via a third party that takes no money from special interests or via bi-partisan legislation that constrains special interests, as Senator John McCain once advocated.

However, President Trump’s attempt to close climate laboratories and halt collection of climate data is a new threat that warrants special attention. No executive order can destroy knowledge of the scientific method; in the worst case, institutes using the GISS formula can be reconstructed later. The greater threat is to science data, the essential fuel to keep the science flame burning. Even the Pope did not stop Vatican astronomers from observing the planets and thinking about their motions. Especially important are satellite data[10] for Earth’s radiation balance and ocean measurements by deep-diving Argo floats,[11] with continuous measurements of both data sources required for absolute calibration of Earth’s energy imbalance.[12]

Science itself is under threat today, in a way that I thought was no longer possible. Scientists who see and understand the threat must speak out. The next 5-10 years are crucial for policy decisions to define a course that provides energy to raise global living standards, while allowing climate policies that cool the planet enough to avoid locking in irreversible effects such as shutdown of the ocean’s overturning circulation and large sea level rise.[13] These objectives require knowledge of ongoing climate change and the drives that cause change. We scientists must stand up against the forces of ignorance, fight for the collection of data, and work with young people to help them find a path to a healthy climate that benefits all humanity.
[1] The Universe on a Scratchpad, NASA film of the early 1960s.
[2] Hansen J Battlestar Galactica, Chapter 31 in Sophie’s Planet, 10 draft chapters
[3] Seltzer AM et al. Widespread six degrees Celsius cooling on land during the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature 593, 228-32, 2021
[4] Hansen J, Sato M, Simon L et al. “Global warming in the pipeline,” Oxford Open Clim. Chan. 3(1), 2023, doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008
[5] Hansen JE, Kharecha P, Sato M et al. Global warming has accelerated: are the United Nations and the public well-informed? Environ.: Sci. Pol. Sustain. Devel. 67(1), 6–44, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494
[6] Discussion of the Economists’ Statement is at Hansen J Student leadership on climate solutions, 31 July 2020
[7] Hansen JE The eyes of climate change history are on Biden, Boston Globe, 8 August 2022
[8] Hansen J Sophie’s Planet, preface and several draft chapters of book to be published by Bloomsbury.
[9] Wertheim S. How Many Wars Is America Fighting? The Gravel Institute, last access 6 July 2025
[10] Loeb NG et al. Satellite and ocean data reveal marked increase in Earth’s heating rate, Geophys Res Lett 48 e2021GL093047, 2021
[11] von Schuckmann K et al., Heat stored in the Earth system: where does the energy go? Earth System Science Data 12, 2013-41, 2020
[12] Mauritsen T, Tsushima Y, Meyssignac B et al. Earth’s energy imbalance more than doubled in recent decades. AGU Advances 6, e2024AV001636, 2025
[13] Hansen J, Sato M, Hearty P et al. Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 C global warming is highly dangerous. Atmos Chem Phys 16, 3761-812, 2016

About James Hansen
James Edward Hansen (born March 29, 1941) is an American climatologist. He is an adjunct professor directing the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is best known for his research in climatology, his 1988 Congressional testimony on climate change that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change.  In recent years, he has become a climate activist to mitigate the effects of global warming, on a few occasions leading to his arrest.

Hansen also proposed an alternative approach of global warming, where the 0.7°C global mean temperature increase of the last 100 years can essentially be explained by the effect of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide (such as methane).

Continue Reading

INFO-COMM

The Painful Truth about AI & Robotics

Published

on

By 2045, there will be virtually nothing a human can do that a machine cannot to better for a tiny fraction of the cost. A robot that has a lifetime cost of $10,000, works 22 hours per day, and lasts 5 years would have an hourly marginal cost of just 25 cents. And when robots are building all the robots, they will cost a lot less than $10,000.

The marginal cost of labor will plummet toward zero as adoption of humanoid robots powered by increasingly capable AI explodes across every virtually industry worldwide. Humans simply will not be able to compete.

Join Adam Dorr, RethinkX Director of Research as he relays his latest insight on the inevitable and painful truth of the coming disruption of the human labor engine by AI and humanoid robots…

Visit the RethinkX Website for more groundbreaking insights: https://www.rethinkx.com

 

Continue Reading
Hide picture