r/Degrowth

The Promises and Perils of Geoengineering

Climate action is moving too slowly, and carbon dioxide levels must be brought under control quickly to avoid widespread climate damage. As the crisis worsens, geoengineering has entered the debate as a possible emergency response. It includes relatively benign methods, such as restoring soils and forests to more radical methods such as fertilising oceans to grow phytoplankton, injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere or even placing giant mirrors in space.

 Geoengineering should not be treated as a miracle cure, nor should every proposal be dismissed automatically. Some ideas may be useful if carefully tested and publicly governed. Others could damage ecosystems, concentrate power or delay the urgent phase-out of fossil fuels. The real solution remains cutting emissions at their source and building economies that fit within planetary limits.

 Geoengineering proposals fall into two broad categories: solar radiation management, or SRM, and carbon dioxide removal, or CDR. SRM aims to reflect a small amount of sunlight away from Earth to reduce warming. Methods range from white roofs and reflective roads to marine cloud brightening and stratospheric aerosol injection. The volcano-inspired aerosol idea could cool the planet quickly, but it would not remove carbon dioxide, stop ocean acidification or fix the systems driving fossil fuel use. It would be like turning down the heat while leaving the fire burning.

 CDR deals more directly with excess carbon dioxide. Direct air capture uses machines to pull carbon dioxide from the air, but it requires large amounts of energy, infrastructure, storage and monitoring. Natural methods, such as restoring forests and soils, can also remove carbon dioxide but it can also improve biodiversity and water retention when done well.

The greatest danger is that geoengineering could go badly wrong. There is no spare Earth for trial runs. SRM could alter rainfall, droughts, monsoons and food production, damage the ozone layer and create regional winners and losers. It also risks termination shock if suddenly stopped. Geoengineering may become a small supporting tool, especially where local, reversible and ecosystem-safe. But it must never replace emissions cuts, ecosystem protection and economic transformation.

For the full article: Medium https://medium.com/@rowlandbenjamin1/the-promises-and-perils-of-geoengineering-d0e2325cee68

In this episode, we follow the money—literally. Who's funding the lab-meat revolution? Who benefits from the push toward synthetic and modified food systems? And what does Bill Gates' massive portfolio of bets on "fake food" tell us about where the food industry is headed?
We examine the corporate networks, venture capital flows, and policy influence behind lab-grown meat, plant-based alternatives, and genetically modified food technologies. We look at who's investing, what they stand to gain, and what it means for food sovereignty, agricultural workers, and your plate.
Topics covered:

Bill Gates' food tech investments and portfolio strategy
Lab-grown meat companies: funding, timeline, and profit models
Synthetic biology and the corporate push for food system transformation
The intersection of tech billionaires, agriculture, and policy
Food sovereignty vs. corporate food control
What this infrastructure means for consumers in practice

SOURCES & FURTHER READING: https://youtu.be/urEy-MdU7Vs?si=uM4RAgljP2hbfMRO, https://youtu.be/7XvHnW\_XT18?si=N7XWoiK2F4Qw\_lcO, https://youtu.be/KZKkS6aFlpw?si=R-1mUiErX4xVEFjW, https://youtu.be/RZqYSkoQ-xg?si=82sdQxmPxHQMF2YM, https://youtu.be/Y0lsLnXX4U8?si=qB\_IgVSVOUv8uvb, https://youtu.be/Gn9z1FgHC-8?si=4LDFDbVf6\_V7tlTX, https://youtu.be/\_ce0IpCi8\_k?si=xY0tFGvAq18Gfz90, https://youtu.be/b9iADoVjZ1w?si=HKBKuMQhUK-X0p8J, https://youtube.com/shorts/mV8KsV-FP4c?si=QLxGsxun-7zoqMTZ,

Pinker's "belief in progress" argument can be straightforwardly refuted with an ecological analysis measuring historical gha (global hectares—Earth's biological footprint capacity).¹ While the Ecological Footprint and gha framework are debated and imperfect, they remain a widely used way to quantify humanity’s draw on regenerative capacity over time. Every period of "progress" since we left the Paleolithic has entailed greater overall regress in the form of a diminished conservation gift for future generations of humans and non-humans—primarily during the industrial age.

Two Kinds of Gifts to the Future

Progress narratives typically treat technological advances as a “gift” to our descendants: vaccines, electricity, digital networks are said to enrich their lives, and environmentalists likewise speak of conserving nature as a gift to future generations. By the same moral logic, hunter‑gatherers’ vast biocapacity surplus is also a gift—an intact, regenerative biosphere they did not consume. The conservation gift ledger simply counts both gifts and shows that industrial progress has traded away a far larger ecological inheritance for a smaller and more fragile technological one.

The Paleolithic Conservation Gift

The numbers expose the betrayal. Hunter-gatherers preserved a +11,997.5 million gha conservation gift—living sustainably on 0.5 gha per person² while bequeathing 2,399.5 gha per person³ out of a total biocapacity of 2,400 gha per person⁴.

Calculation: 2,400 – 0.5 = 2,399.5 gha/person; 2,399.5 × 5 million people = 11,997.5 million gha.⁵

Contemporary Ecological Debt

We have relentlessly liquidated this inheritance, converting it into an –9,588.0 million gha deficit by 2022—a debt predicted to deepen further as ecological overshoot intensifies.

2022 calculation: Sustainable share 1.5 gha – actual consumption 2.7 gha = –1.2 gha/person⁶; –1.2 × 7,990 million = –9,588.0 million gha.⁷

Illustrative 2100 scenario: 1.2 gha – 3.4 gha = –2.2 gha/person⁸; –2.2 × 10,400 million = –22,880.0 million gha.⁹

Footprint Decomposition and Decarbonization Limits

Contemporary overshoot stems from multiple resource demands: carbon emissions comprise approximately 60 percent of the total footprint (equivalent to forest land needed to sequester CO₂), cropland demand approximately 20 percent, grazing land approximately 10 percent, with built-up areas and forest products comprising the remainder.

Even complete decarbonization cannot restore balance. While eliminating the carbon component (approximately 1.6 gha/person) would reduce the average footprint from 2.7 to approximately 1.1 gha/person—theoretically below current biocapacity of approximately 1.5 gha/person—this scenario assumes eliminating all fossil fuels while maintaining current material consumption, no population or economic growth, and that non-carbon ecological pressures (biodiversity collapse, soil depletion, freshwater depletion) remain manageable. None of these assumptions are realistic.¹⁰

Robustness Analysis: Testing Parameter Extremes

Critics might question the precision of these estimates, arguing that uncertainties in biocapacity, footprint data, and population figures could undermine the analysis. However, even under the most generous assumptions favoring technological optimism and conservative ecological accounting, the core argument remains unassailable.

To stress-test the ledger, consider extreme variations across all key variables:

Paleolithic Gift Range: With total planetary biocapacity constrained at approximately 12 billion gha, varying population (1–5 million) and hunter-gatherer footprint (0.2–1.5 gha/person) yields a gift of approximately 12 billion gha annually⁴ (human consumption was negligible).

Contemporary Debt Range: Sustainable share: 1.2–1.8 gha/person, actual footprint: 2.6–3.2 gha/person (±10 percent uncertainty), population: 7.5–12.5 billion (UN high/low variants). Result: Debt ranges from –6.0 × 10⁹ to –2.5 × 10¹⁰ gha.

Even adopting the most favorable assumptions simultaneously—maximum Paleolithic gift (12 billion gha) combined with minimum contemporary debt (6 billion gha)—humanity remains in severe ecological deficit. The smallest possible debt magnitude still equals half of the largest possible historical gift, confirming systematic biocapacity liquidation across all plausible parameter combinations.

Technological Mitigation: Insufficient to Close the Gap

Optimists might invoke technological solutions—yield improvements, renewable energy transitions, afforestation—to argue that innovation can restore ecological balance. However, the scale of required mitigation dwarfs realistic technological potential: Renewable energy reduces carbon footprint but cannot restore biodiversity or soil depletion. Even complete global reforestation of all technically feasible areas would recover less than 5% of the minimum debt, while realistic technological gains (1-2% annual yield improvements) operate at margins insufficient to reverse the fundamental overshoot trajectory.

Even if ecological harms beyond the gha footprint—microplastics and chemical pollution—were solved, our deepening gha overdraft would still ensure that progress is inevitably undone.

The welfare gains described by Pinker are contingent on ecological conditions they steadily erode. Once biocapacity falls below the thresholds needed to maintain food systems, infrastructure, and public health, the very indicators Pinker celebrates—lifespan, security, education—will unwind. Progress without a conservation gift is not stable progress; it is a brief spike purchased by consuming the foundations of future life.

The Ultimate Trajectory

This path leads toward such severe ecological degradation that human population and longevity will decline back to pre-industrial levels (as ecosystem-collapse models have repeatedly demonstrated)¹⁶ —but now without the +11,997.5 million gha conservation gift that hunter-gatherers had preserved.

Food-system collapse and disease resurgence drive mortality upward and life expectancy downward¹⁷. Biodiversity loss and failing infrastructure precipitate epidemics and undermine medical care¹⁸. Crop failures and fisheries collapse reduce access to calories and protein¹⁹. Resource scarcity and economic contraction strip material wealth and employment²⁰. Natural-resource conflicts intensify under acute scarcity²¹. Institutional breakdown ushers in coercive controls—curfews, rationing, martial law—to manage scarcity²². Infrastructure failure and extreme weather erode public order and basic protections²³. School closures and crisis-driven budget diversion hollow out education systems²⁴.

We will have spent our ecological inheritance for a few hundred years worth of temporary gains, leaving our descendants permanently impoverished in a depleted world.

The Moral Dimension

The moral dimension compounds the tragedy. Alongside destroying our own species' future, we have committed ecocide against countless species that have gone extinct or been severely decimated. This represents an absolute moral monstrosity that vastly overshadows any "better angels of our nature" moral improvements during the few centuries of "progress" where humans ate their seed corn for short-term gains.

Conclusion: Progress as Ultimate Regress

Progress reveals itself as the ultimate regress—trading sustainable abundance for temporary population and longevity increases followed by permanent ecological exile. Pinker celebrates what is actually humanity’s greatest betrayal while ignoring its ultimate cost. The conservation gift ledger demonstrates that no reasonable margin of error, technological optimism, or methodological adjustment can restore the fundamental sustainability that our species abandoned in pursuit of industrial “progress.”

References

¹ Global Footprint Network, "National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2022," [https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/](https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/)

² Calculated as biocapacity per person minus hunter-gatherer footprint: total biocapacity 12 billion gha, footprint approximately 0.5 gha/person (UN FAO; Global Footprint Network).

³ UN Food and Agriculture Organization, "Global Agro-Ecological Zones," [http://www.fao.org/3/i1963e/i1963e08.pdf](http://www.fao.org/3/i1963e/i1963e08.pdf)

⁴ Michael Kremer, “Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990,” *Quarterly Journal of Economics* 108, no. 3 (1993): 681–716.

⁵ Supra note 4.

⁶ Global Footprint Network, "National Footprint Accounts Data," [https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/](https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/)

⁷ United Nations, "World Population Prospects 2022," [https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/](https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/)

⁸ Assumes flat total biocapacity, UN medium-variant population, and moderate growth in non-carbon components.

⁹ WWF, "Living Planet Report 2020," [https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/living-planet-report-2020](https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/living-planet-report-2020)

¹⁰ Jackson, *Prosperity without Growth* (2017).

¹¹ Food and Agriculture Organization, "Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020," [http://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/2020/en/](http://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/2020/en/)

¹² USDA Economic Research Service, "Agricultural Productivity in the United States," 2024.

¹³ Nature Communications, "Addressing critiques refines global estimates of reforestation potential," 2025.

¹⁴ IPBES, "Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services," [https://ipbes.net/global-assessment](https://ipbes.net/global-assessment)

¹⁵ All gha values are expressed in contemporary global-hectare equivalents for directional comparison; they do not imply identical historical productivity.

¹⁶ M. Scheffer et al., “Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems,” *Nature* 413 (2001): 591–596; T.M. Lenton et al., “Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system,” *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 105, no. 6 (2008): 1786–1793; D. Meadows, J. Randers, and D. Meadows, *Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update* (Chelsea Green, 2004).

¹⁷ “The Connection Between Food Systems and the Environment,” UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2023), [https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/connection-between-food-systems-and-environment](https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/connection-between-food-systems-and-environment).

¹⁸ R. Salkeld et al., “Human health impacts of ecosystem alteration,” *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 110, no. 47 (2013): 18753–18760, [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1218656110](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1218656110).

¹⁹ “Environmental Impacts of Food Production,” Our World in Data (2022), [https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food](https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food).

²⁰ World Bank, “Global Economic Prospects 2024,” [https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects](https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects).

²¹ John W. Maxwell and Rafael Reuveny, “Resource Scarcity and Conflict in Developing Countries,” *Journal of Peace Research* 37, no. 3 (2000): 301–322, [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022343300037003001](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022343300037003001).

²² Thomas Homer-Dixon, *Environment, Scarcity, and Violence* (Princeton University Press, 1999), [https://press.princeton.edu/books/ebook/9780691005133/environment-scarcity-and-violence](https://press.princeton.edu/books/ebook/9780691005133/environment-scarcity-and-violence).

²³ United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, *Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2022*, [https://www.undrr.org/publication/global-assessment-report-disaster-risk-reduction-2022](https://www.undrr.org/publication/global-assessment-report-disaster-risk-reduction-2022).

²⁴ UNESCO, *Global Education Monitoring Report 2020*, [https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020](https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2020).

Download: https://umea.sac.se/grundbok-om-syndikalism/