The document argues that focusing on "saving the planet" from climate change is a flawed approach, as the Earth will continue with or without humanity. Instead, the focus should be on saving ourselves by staying within certain greenhouse gas emission limits to avoid catastrophic impacts to our life support systems. The author proposes implementing a global cap on fossil fuel production as the most effective way to control and reduce emissions over time, which could help drive innovation in clean energy and adaptation solutions. Overall the focus should be on addressing current challenges from climate impacts and adapting locally, rather than waiting for international agreements.

1. The
Climate
Challenge:
Saving
Ourselves
RM
1.12.14
There
is
no
recorded
time
in
human
history
where
there
has
not
been
some
type
of
religious
or
secular
apocalyptic
vision…..the
world
is
always
just
about
to
end
due
to
some
imminent
disaster.
In
recent
times
this
has
manifested
in
a
new
form
of
utopianism,
where
we
are
starting
to
see
new
movements
proclaiming
some
promised
land,
second
coming
or
techno-­‐utopia.
Who
knows,
they
may
be
right
but
history
shows
an
inexorable
but
snails
pace
march
forward
towards
a
better
world.
As
humans,
we
are
on
a
quest
for
both
survival
and
self-­‐
improvement.
This
is
built
into
our
DNA
but
is
always
a
work
in
progress.
But
our
fascination
with
saving
the
planet,
as
part
of
this
process,
is,
I
believe
a
deeply
flawed
distraction.
Of
course
we
need
a
healthy
and
functioning
ecosystem,
in
order
to
survive
and
progress
but
the
earth
does
not
need
saving,
we
do.
The
earth
has
been
around
for
billions
of
years
and
will
likely
be
around
for
billions
more.
It
has
survived
constant
climatic
changes
and
seen
life
forms,
such
as
the
dinosaurs,
come
and
go.
Humanity,
as
we
know
it,
will
be
no
different.
The
earth,
I’m
sorry
to
inform
you,
has
no
interest
in
whether
we
are
here
or
not.
It
is
governed
by
complex
and
interactive
systems,
which
will
keep
going,
in
some
form
or
other,
regardless
of
famine,
wars,
asteroid
strikes
or
major
climate
change.
It’s
time
to
drop
this
narrative
and
get
on
with
saving
ourselves.
Now
we’ve
got
that
out
of
the
way,
what’s
the
problem?
Simply
put,
we
have
broadly
defined
some
ecosystem
limits
that
we
need
to
live
within,
in
order
to
support
our
current
life
forms
and
styles.
This
is
arguable
at
the
small
scale
but
from
a
global
perspective,
there
is
some
number
of
GHG
emissions
that
we
need
to
stay
within
in
order
to
avoid
a
catastrophic
breakdown
in
our
life
support
systems.
350ppm
or
450ppm…there’s
a
number,
somewhere,
that
will
likely
fluctuate
as
new
information
comes
into
the
global
climate
model.
As
long
as
we
have
a
number,
we
can
work
to
stay
within
it.
Currently,
we
try
to
apply
a
patchwork
of
binding
and
non-­‐binding
cap
and
trade
type
models,
hoping
that
magically
people
will
stop
consuming
as
they
are
now
and
that
countries
will
somehow
limit
their
own
emissions
without
specifying
how
they
might
do
that.
What
I
am
proposing,
and
did
so
firstly
in
a
2008
paper,
is
that
we
limit
production
of
fossil
fuels
rather
than
consumption
of
them.
In
this
way,
we
know
exactly
how
much
is
coming
out
of
the
ground
and
therefore
how
much
could
possibly
be
emitted.
We
can
then
control
the
global
emissions
profile
very
efficiently
at
the
macro
level
and
not
worry
about
what
individual
countries
end
up
emitting.
In
other
words,
we
create
a
tap
mechanism,
which
we
can
use
to
control
the
path
of
emission
reductions,
thus
knowing
we
can
achieve
any
target
we
set.
But,
how
do
we
get
an
agreement
on
production?
We
see
the
shenanigans
around
OPEC
and
their
inability
to
agree
supply
targets.
Nevertheless,
there
is
precedent
for
this
with
the
1987
Montreal
Protocol,
where
producers
came
together
and
agreed
to
phase
out
ozone
depleting
chemicals.
The
key
advantage
there
was

2. that
there
was
a
small
group
of
producers
and
so
agreement
wasn’t
too
hard
to
come
by.
It
may
seem
far-­‐fetched
to
think
fossil
fuel
producers
could
come
to
any
kind
of
agreement
but
when
we
look
at
the
data,
there
may
be
hope.
As
we
can
see
the
key
group
here
is
G20,
which
is
fast
becoming
the
key
group
for
global
cooperation.
It’s
also
worth
looking
at
the
three
key
producers
who
are
the
US,
China
and
Russia.
They
are
all
permanent
members
of
the
UN
Security
Council
and
with
climate
change
becoming
more
of
a
global
security
issue.
Ultimately,
this
suggests
that
the
key
to
any
serious
attempt
to
control
global
fossil
fuel
production
lies
with
the
global
leadership
group,
especially
the
Us,
China
and
Russia.
Without
them,
no
sustainable
solution
is
likely
to
be
found.
If
there
can
be
an
agreement
on
global
production,
then
that
will
allow
the
market
to
re-­‐price
emissions
and
start
to
send
the
appropriate
price
signals
to
the
consumer.
With
a
limited
quantity
of
inputs
available,
behaviour
will
change
rapidly.
It’s
important
to
note
that
this
is
no
different
to
how
the
monetary
system
works.
We
have
had
a
25
year
inflation
targeting
program,
which
has
supposedly
kept
prices
stable
but
in
fact
has
allowed
for
enormous
asset
and
credit
bubbles
to
emerge.
It
is
no
surprise
that
money
supply
growth
and
global
emissions
are
highly
correlated.
They
are
both
a
result
of
unrestrained
consumption.
We
saw
recently
here
in
NZ
what
happened
when
the
RB
limited
the
quantity
of
credit
for
homebuyers
with
the
loan
to
value
restrictions.
Prices
in
many
regions
dropped.
Supply
has
a
big
impact
on
both
demand
and
on
prices.
The
sooner
we
get
clear
ecosystem
based
price
signals
into
the
global
fossil
fuel
market,
the
sooner
consumers
can
see
the
true
cost
of
their
activities.
Like
the
money
supply,
a
lack
of
quantity
control
does
not
impede
consumption.
And
anyone
who
thinks
price
doesn’t
matter.
It’s
the
must
effective
way
to
bring
about
change,
even
where
demand
is
relatively
inelastic.
We
will
also
start
to
see
price
signals
being
sent
by
the
insurance
market
as
the
risk
profile
around
climate
changes.
So
where
does
a
global
cap
on
fossil
fuel
production
leave
us?
I
think
there
are
3
opportunities
to
come
out
of
that.
One
is
the
opportunity
for
climate
equity
to
take
shape.
I
see
this
potentially
happening
through
domestic
tradable
quotas
and
tradable
energy
quotas,
where
people
receive
a
an
energy
quota
and
can
trade
that
with
others.
Changes
in
the
price
signal
will
allow
for
the
full
force
of
creativity
and
innovation
to
be
applied.
Currently,
we
rely
on
subsidies
to
make
alternative
energy
products
really
work.
Once
we
have
a
more
transparent
pricing
system,
entrepreneurs
and
investors
will
be
more
likely
to
enter
the
market
and
really
drive
innovation.
And
finally,
and
probably
most
importantly,
we
must
adapt
to
the
coming
changes.
There
is
no
point
waiting
to
see
what
global
agreements
manifest.
There
is
no
point
wailing
about
saving
the
planet.
What
we
have
right
in
front
of

3. us
now
are
some
major
challenges
around
flooding,
coastal
erosion,
and
severe
wind
damage.
We
should
stop
worrying
about
our
emissions.
They
are
insignificant.
It’s
clear
that
any
global
agreement
will
have
to
come
from
the
major
political
players.
We
need
to
focus
on
our
own
problems
and
hopefully
drive
some
innovation
through
adaptation
solutions
we
create.
The
Netherlands
has
a
200
year
Climate
Strategy.
They
are
addressing
their
challenges
head
on.
They
are
not
wringing
their
hands
about
saving
the
planet,
as
they
are
too
busy
trying
to
save
themselves.
And
so
should
we.