I don't mean to be presumptuous, but since I recently wrote a piece after talking with a World Bank consultant, I'm pretty sure you're referring to me, and to my article, even though you've mischaracterized it a great deal. I would imagine you'd want things clarified for your readers.
I did not speak with a World Bank "executive." He was not a banker. I spoke with someone who works on climate policy and finance ideas for a think-tank wing of the World Bank. So that's either bad reporting or very misleading.
We also did not speak for ten minutes. We'd had a 90 minute zoom and exchanged many emails. I was not "convinced" of anything, per se, I was reporting.
His ideas had nothing to do with enriching corporations. At no point was there any sense that one of these ideas was going to be a big money maker. Instead, he used terms like "final payor." Finding people willing to pay for this stuff is nearly impossible, and that's part of the point.
Because, here in the 11th hour, we are facing catastrophic consequences if we do nothing. We are extremely close to passing key tipping points, particularly a phase-transition boundary with the Arctic and West Antarctic ice sheets. When they go, the exponential sea level rise could happen fast and wipe out whole countries (e.g Thailand).
One possible emergency stopgap measure is "marine cloud brightening." This has nothing to do with powder. "Aerosols" refers to a suspension of fine particles. Aerosols can be pollutants, such as coal dust, yes, but they can also be sea spray. At no point did my contact suggest anything about using powders. Again, it seems you're being deliberately misleading to make your case.
We also discussed creating a market for carbon dioxide removal, affordable low carbon energy, gigafactory complexes, and things like geothermal deepwell super critical steam generation. None of these things are perfect solutions (though that last one in particular would have Einstein twirling his mustache in gleeful anticipation, if you asked me), but to dismiss them all in such a one-sided, misleading way, to point out only flaws and not advantages, is to engage in the nirvana fallacy, among other things.
The underlying sentiment from my conversation with this person was about doing what we can right now to stop the absolute worst from occurring. It didn't exclude long range "paradigm shifts" like gradually transitioning to a more low carbon society. And I happen to agree that we would do well to be a far less acquisitive, dense-energy-hungry hydrocarbon society, and wish there was more reciprocity with the earth, and I know that regenerative agriculture has some good ideas. But I don't agree with your messaging.
We should just not pursue profit but devote ourselves to God? Good grief, man. That's going to keep London, New York, and Sidney from winding up underwater? That's going to prevent millions from dying in heatwaves, or starving to death?
Your article is misleading, purely dishonest / poorly reported in places, and offers nothing practical. Capitalizing the word Nature while you quote a couple of smart people, tear down the ideas of an expert while mischaracterizing them, and offering no real solutions -- that's easy to do. But it will do nothing to reduce the suffering of millions. Try again.
TJ
