What do you think?
Rate this book
Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race
The Paris Accords, widely accepted as the key to solving today’s climate crisis, set a goal of zero net carbon emissions by 2050. But that’s not good enough. The only way to guarantee a livable future is climate restoration, which can reduce greenhouse gases to historic levels. Scientist and entrepreneur Peter Fiekowsky explains the technology and maps a practical path that will let humankind survive and thrive.
As Fiekowsky explains in Climate Restoration, this will require removing a trillion tons of excess CO2 from the atmosphere. The good news is that this task, while enormous and technically challenging, is eminently feasible. Scientists and engineers have developed four major technologies for greenhouse gas removal and Ocean iron fertilization; synthetic limestone manufacture; seaweed permaculture; and methane oxidation.
Fiekowsky shows that these technologies are safe and practical—and, even more remarkable, that they require little if any government funding, since they can be financed largely through existing markets. For these reasons, they have enormous promise as vehicles for achieving climate restoration.
With the global climate crisis continuing to spiral out of control, the time for tough conversations about what it will really take to create a healthy future for humanity is here. Climate Restoration will inspire those conversations and, ultimately, the actions we must take to ensure a livable planet for generations to come.
“Effective and galvanizing . . . An invigorating, thought-provoking plan to address climate change.”— Kirkus Reviews
“With inviting clarity and an engaging optimism, Fiekowsky considers four promising solutions [for climate restoration], presenting the possibilities with persuasive power. He simplifies the science for easy comprehension, and makes the case with such hopeful vigor that the book becomes something a dead-serious, no-illusions look at climate change that doesn’t stir despair.”— Publishers Weekly BookLife
"Peter Fiekowsky has written the consummate book for our time. It is a must-read for anyone who cares about life, the Earth, and future generations. His science is impeccable, and his capacity to see what’s missing and provide it is sheer brilliance. This book lays out the path forward with clarity, honesty, and integrity — the tide-turning, revelatory message we have been waiting for.”—Lynne Twist, author of The Soul of Money and co-founder of the Pachamama Alliance
“A good way to become educated about climate restoration . . . is to get hold of the book written by Fiekowsky and Douglis. . . . It is a book that will inspire readers to join the battle and become part of the solution to clean up a climate mess of our own doing.”—Hersh Shefrin, Forbes
“Peter Fiekowsky is offering a bold warning to the world. I hope his important message becomes part of the mainstream conversation about the crisis of climate change.”—Muhammad Yunus, co-recipient of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize
“Peter Fiekowsky is the textbook definition of a visionary. While others have pursued the critical goal of reducing carbon emissions, Fiekowsky has inspired thinking and action on carbon removal, an often ignored yet critical tool in achieving our ultimate goal, climate restoration.
As Fiekowsky explains in Climate Restoration, this will require removing a trillion tons of excess CO2 from the atmosphere. The good news is that this task, while enormous and technically challenging, is eminently feasible. Scientists and engineers have developed four major technologies for greenhouse gas removal and Ocean iron fertilization; synthetic limestone manufacture; seaweed permaculture; and methane oxidation.
Fiekowsky shows that these technologies are safe and practical—and, even more remarkable, that they require little if any government funding, since they can be financed largely through existing markets. For these reasons, they have enormous promise as vehicles for achieving climate restoration.
With the global climate crisis continuing to spiral out of control, the time for tough conversations about what it will really take to create a healthy future for humanity is here. Climate Restoration will inspire those conversations and, ultimately, the actions we must take to ensure a livable planet for generations to come.
“Effective and galvanizing . . . An invigorating, thought-provoking plan to address climate change.”— Kirkus Reviews
“With inviting clarity and an engaging optimism, Fiekowsky considers four promising solutions [for climate restoration], presenting the possibilities with persuasive power. He simplifies the science for easy comprehension, and makes the case with such hopeful vigor that the book becomes something a dead-serious, no-illusions look at climate change that doesn’t stir despair.”— Publishers Weekly BookLife
"Peter Fiekowsky has written the consummate book for our time. It is a must-read for anyone who cares about life, the Earth, and future generations. His science is impeccable, and his capacity to see what’s missing and provide it is sheer brilliance. This book lays out the path forward with clarity, honesty, and integrity — the tide-turning, revelatory message we have been waiting for.”—Lynne Twist, author of The Soul of Money and co-founder of the Pachamama Alliance
“A good way to become educated about climate restoration . . . is to get hold of the book written by Fiekowsky and Douglis. . . . It is a book that will inspire readers to join the battle and become part of the solution to clean up a climate mess of our own doing.”—Hersh Shefrin, Forbes
“Peter Fiekowsky is offering a bold warning to the world. I hope his important message becomes part of the mainstream conversation about the crisis of climate change.”—Muhammad Yunus, co-recipient of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize
“Peter Fiekowsky is the textbook definition of a visionary. While others have pursued the critical goal of reducing carbon emissions, Fiekowsky has inspired thinking and action on carbon removal, an often ignored yet critical tool in achieving our ultimate goal, climate restoration.
- GenresScienceEnvironment
241 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 22, 2022
34 people are currently reading
121 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
June 8, 2022
We need to meet the emissions elimination goals set by the Paris Climate Accords, but the “inconvenient truth” of those accords is we already have too much carbon in our atmosphere to halt the serious effects of climate change. Slowing down emissions isn’t enough. Until recently the notion we might be able to restore our climate to pre-industrial levels appeared impossible. But that has changed. Scientists and industrial leaders are working on affordable, scalable methods for taking CO2 and Methane out of the air in enormous quantities. Peter Fiekowsky’s new book Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race, written with Carole Douglis, is the clearest presentation I’ve seen of the difficulty we’re facing along with the most likely solutions for full climate restoration. Refreshingly, this book presents climate change as a problem that can be solved. It’s an important work for every citizen to read. This is an issue we all need to be intelligent about.
Fiekowsky explains four climate restoration technologies in clear and simple terms:
• Synthetic limestone manufacture: mimics the chemistry oysters, mussels, and corals use to store carbon. This new limestone can be used for roadbeds and concrete.
• Seaweed permaculture: renews the seaweed forests of the ocean, a major resource for capturing vast amounts of carbon.
• Iron fertilization to restore the oceans: uses iron dust to increase populations of microalgae and accelerate photosynthesis.
• Enhanced Atmospheric Methane Oxidation: a method for decreasing the occurrence of future methane bursts as insurance against a possible extinction event.
Fiekowsky’s book also encourages the already existing trend toward smaller families as a path toward more sustainable global population levels. It concludes with a list of action items every citizen, scientist, and investor can take to make climate restoration a reality. Highly recommended.
- Steve Rasnic Tem, winner of the World Fantasy, British Fantasy, and Bram Stoker Awards
Fiekowsky explains four climate restoration technologies in clear and simple terms:
• Synthetic limestone manufacture: mimics the chemistry oysters, mussels, and corals use to store carbon. This new limestone can be used for roadbeds and concrete.
• Seaweed permaculture: renews the seaweed forests of the ocean, a major resource for capturing vast amounts of carbon.
• Iron fertilization to restore the oceans: uses iron dust to increase populations of microalgae and accelerate photosynthesis.
• Enhanced Atmospheric Methane Oxidation: a method for decreasing the occurrence of future methane bursts as insurance against a possible extinction event.
Fiekowsky’s book also encourages the already existing trend toward smaller families as a path toward more sustainable global population levels. It concludes with a list of action items every citizen, scientist, and investor can take to make climate restoration a reality. Highly recommended.
- Steve Rasnic Tem, winner of the World Fantasy, British Fantasy, and Bram Stoker Awards
July 8, 2024
Fiekowsky starts by arguing two points that I didn’t think of as in contention:
1. The Paris climate targets are woefully inadequate, and net zero atmospheric carbon growth is nowhere near enough. In a world with carbon levels already passing 320 ppm (parts per million), we need to actually reverse global heating to get our atmosphere back to conditions that we know can sustain life (pp. 8-9, 22-25, and elsewhere, with a particularly grim look at what life would be like meeting the Paris targets on p. 8).
2. We have the capacity to solve the problem by implementing technologies that are relatively permanent (workable for at least 100 years), able to scale up rapidly (removing at least 25 gigatons of carbon per year), and able to attract investors to finance them (p. 33).
He obviously travels in a different world than I do, a world of high-level scholars and big investors who need to be convinced of these two axioms. I have never heard a single climate scientist claim that the Paris goals would be enough, that an average temperature rise of even just 2 degrees Celsius would not spawn massive changes around the world. And for at least a couple of decades, I’ve been convinced of humans’ ability to solve the problem. He apparently has found it difficult to convince colleagues and influencers of this, and strikes a tone I find unnecessarily defensive.
But the things I’ve always thought of as our most positive steps toward mitigating catastrophic climate change—such as afforestation (massive tree planting), complete and rapid conversion to true clean energy, and shifting our industrial/agricultural/construction processes—are, in Fiekowsky’s world view, less important than some big technological developments I wasn’t familiar with.
He identifies four industrial revolutions that meet the three criteria listed in the second point, above, plus a social trend that has long been part of the mix—and he says these, combined, could easily reduce atmospheric carbon to less than 300 ppm, with only minimal lifestyle changes. These five big innovations are:
1. Synthetic limestone that will allow carbon-negative construction (Chapter 3, pp. 83-97)
2. Seaweed and marine permaculture underwater forests (Chapter 4, pp. 98-114)
3. Iron fertilization of the oceans (Chapter 5, pp. 115-141)
4. Oxidizing methane to convert it into longer-lived but less harmful CO2 (Chapter 6, pp. 115-141)
5. Reducing the human impact on climate by reducing the size of the human population (Chapter 7, pp. 162-181; something environmentalists have been advocating since at least 1968, when Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s landmark The Population Bomb was published)
These solutions, each described in great detail in its own chapter, including the benefits, challenges, revenue streams, and investor appeal, do involve geoengineering—something I’ve been skeptical about in the more commonly discussed variations of, e.g., destroying existing weather patterns and replacing them with wild untried schemes. But the particular interventions—unlike any other geoengineering project I’ve ever heard of—are also biomimicry. Fiekowsky studied how nature has stoped previous global heat waves and then recalibrated again when it got too cold. Then he found scientists and entrepreneurs who have figured out how to replicate those eons-old models that were not engineered by humans but by oceans and continents.
While I’m not a scientist, I have done extensive reading on climate, and as far as I can tell, both the science and the business analyses are sound. His big challenge is convincing the world of his two initial points. Read the book yourself and see if you think he’s on the right track. I do.
1. The Paris climate targets are woefully inadequate, and net zero atmospheric carbon growth is nowhere near enough. In a world with carbon levels already passing 320 ppm (parts per million), we need to actually reverse global heating to get our atmosphere back to conditions that we know can sustain life (pp. 8-9, 22-25, and elsewhere, with a particularly grim look at what life would be like meeting the Paris targets on p. 8).
2. We have the capacity to solve the problem by implementing technologies that are relatively permanent (workable for at least 100 years), able to scale up rapidly (removing at least 25 gigatons of carbon per year), and able to attract investors to finance them (p. 33).
He obviously travels in a different world than I do, a world of high-level scholars and big investors who need to be convinced of these two axioms. I have never heard a single climate scientist claim that the Paris goals would be enough, that an average temperature rise of even just 2 degrees Celsius would not spawn massive changes around the world. And for at least a couple of decades, I’ve been convinced of humans’ ability to solve the problem. He apparently has found it difficult to convince colleagues and influencers of this, and strikes a tone I find unnecessarily defensive.
But the things I’ve always thought of as our most positive steps toward mitigating catastrophic climate change—such as afforestation (massive tree planting), complete and rapid conversion to true clean energy, and shifting our industrial/agricultural/construction processes—are, in Fiekowsky’s world view, less important than some big technological developments I wasn’t familiar with.
He identifies four industrial revolutions that meet the three criteria listed in the second point, above, plus a social trend that has long been part of the mix—and he says these, combined, could easily reduce atmospheric carbon to less than 300 ppm, with only minimal lifestyle changes. These five big innovations are:
1. Synthetic limestone that will allow carbon-negative construction (Chapter 3, pp. 83-97)
2. Seaweed and marine permaculture underwater forests (Chapter 4, pp. 98-114)
3. Iron fertilization of the oceans (Chapter 5, pp. 115-141)
4. Oxidizing methane to convert it into longer-lived but less harmful CO2 (Chapter 6, pp. 115-141)
5. Reducing the human impact on climate by reducing the size of the human population (Chapter 7, pp. 162-181; something environmentalists have been advocating since at least 1968, when Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s landmark The Population Bomb was published)
These solutions, each described in great detail in its own chapter, including the benefits, challenges, revenue streams, and investor appeal, do involve geoengineering—something I’ve been skeptical about in the more commonly discussed variations of, e.g., destroying existing weather patterns and replacing them with wild untried schemes. But the particular interventions—unlike any other geoengineering project I’ve ever heard of—are also biomimicry. Fiekowsky studied how nature has stoped previous global heat waves and then recalibrated again when it got too cold. Then he found scientists and entrepreneurs who have figured out how to replicate those eons-old models that were not engineered by humans but by oceans and continents.
While I’m not a scientist, I have done extensive reading on climate, and as far as I can tell, both the science and the business analyses are sound. His big challenge is convincing the world of his two initial points. Read the book yourself and see if you think he’s on the right track. I do.
March 2, 2024
Loved the shot of hopium - and my subsequent digging into some of the scientific literature confirmed that this has legs. A fantastic little book that reminds us how dynamic earth systems are, and how, with a bit of cleverness, we can harness some of its processes to deal with the consequences of our heedless lust for carbon fuels.
The only negative is that Fiekowsky does not discuss land-based carbon drawdown solutions, but they too are significant.
The only negative is that Fiekowsky does not discuss land-based carbon drawdown solutions, but they too are significant.
July 12, 2023
An important book that gave me a few hours of precious optimistic hope. The theory is lovely. I'm always a little less than enamored with authors who are in love with themselves, and this guy surely is . . . and rightfully, I have to add. He's done good things. It just tweaks me, because the really good, perceptive, persuasive authors don't do that. But that's beside the point. The guy's on to something big, and I am wholly in favor.
Halfway through the book and in fairly good possession of the ideas -- the one about synthetic limestone, for a builder who uses cement generously, is brilliant -- I had lunch with my long-time pal and sanity checker Charles, who let me blather on for awhile, and when I ran down a little he said, 'Look around you. We're in one of the likely greenest pockets in the US, and what do you see a steady stream of going up and down Main Street? What you say is all very well in the theoretical, physical sense, but do you honestly believe that this juggernaut is going to turn around by 2030? Those people with their hands on the controls, the .5%: all they care about is making more money by continuing to do what they continue to do.'
While I saw more than a few EVs and hybrids drive by, it was mostly pick-em-ups from around here and big SUVs from down below, punctuated occasionally by a logging truck full of what we call 'pencils' - skinny 2nd and 3rd growth Redwoods.
I went home with my head spinning, read a little more, then today, sunny and comfortable, went to lunch with Rochelle at the Mendocino Cafe, where I saw a pair of female GenZ-ers demand that the waiter light the propane heater, one of those jobs with the flame inside the glass cylinder that absolutely belch waste heat and unconsumed methane into the atmosphere.
I have no doubt that we as a species *could* pull out of the death spiral. I am, however, quite sure that we haven't the will. We're too caught up in the drama of Ukraine, Trump, our 'smart' phones, re-establishing 'normal' after Covid (and whatever inevitably comes next), and too much under the thumb of uncaring wealth to make the necessary moves. Deer in the headlights.
I was interested to see that the authors were dismissive of hydrogen and carbon capture except in the context of localized manufacturing where there's an oversupply of electricity.
I apologize for being so pessimistic. I think the greatest disappointment is to be shown, as in this book, that we *could* salvage humanity, that doing so is practically in our hands, but also seeing that in the 35 years I have been working the restoration and resilience side of the street, except for my own life and my immediate family's, nowhere near the necessary 'hundred monkeys', not even my urban relatives, have taken up the work. Instead, there has been an acceleration of abuse, and the will to survive seems to be gone. It's especially painful looking at the segment of the population I feel the most Aloha for, teenagers, knowing what's in store for them. For old geeks like me . . . well, we have been alive through the most interesting, comfortable time for our entire species, and I'll probably be bowing out well before the shit really starts hitting the fan enough to affect me.
So I stopped reading this book . . . but you should read it.
Halfway through the book and in fairly good possession of the ideas -- the one about synthetic limestone, for a builder who uses cement generously, is brilliant -- I had lunch with my long-time pal and sanity checker Charles, who let me blather on for awhile, and when I ran down a little he said, 'Look around you. We're in one of the likely greenest pockets in the US, and what do you see a steady stream of going up and down Main Street? What you say is all very well in the theoretical, physical sense, but do you honestly believe that this juggernaut is going to turn around by 2030? Those people with their hands on the controls, the .5%: all they care about is making more money by continuing to do what they continue to do.'
While I saw more than a few EVs and hybrids drive by, it was mostly pick-em-ups from around here and big SUVs from down below, punctuated occasionally by a logging truck full of what we call 'pencils' - skinny 2nd and 3rd growth Redwoods.
I went home with my head spinning, read a little more, then today, sunny and comfortable, went to lunch with Rochelle at the Mendocino Cafe, where I saw a pair of female GenZ-ers demand that the waiter light the propane heater, one of those jobs with the flame inside the glass cylinder that absolutely belch waste heat and unconsumed methane into the atmosphere.
I have no doubt that we as a species *could* pull out of the death spiral. I am, however, quite sure that we haven't the will. We're too caught up in the drama of Ukraine, Trump, our 'smart' phones, re-establishing 'normal' after Covid (and whatever inevitably comes next), and too much under the thumb of uncaring wealth to make the necessary moves. Deer in the headlights.
I was interested to see that the authors were dismissive of hydrogen and carbon capture except in the context of localized manufacturing where there's an oversupply of electricity.
I apologize for being so pessimistic. I think the greatest disappointment is to be shown, as in this book, that we *could* salvage humanity, that doing so is practically in our hands, but also seeing that in the 35 years I have been working the restoration and resilience side of the street, except for my own life and my immediate family's, nowhere near the necessary 'hundred monkeys', not even my urban relatives, have taken up the work. Instead, there has been an acceleration of abuse, and the will to survive seems to be gone. It's especially painful looking at the segment of the population I feel the most Aloha for, teenagers, knowing what's in store for them. For old geeks like me . . . well, we have been alive through the most interesting, comfortable time for our entire species, and I'll probably be bowing out well before the shit really starts hitting the fan enough to affect me.
So I stopped reading this book . . . but you should read it.
December 11, 2023
Review by Michael Pelizzari, SpaceshipOne book club participant
The prevailing public understanding of climate change is that it can be stopped by reducing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gas emissions to their pre-industrial levels by mid-century. Peter Fiekowsky's book Climate Restoration explodes that popular myth by casting emissions reduction as “Job 1” in a much more ambitious but necessary program to save civilization and bring long-term stability to the biosphere. Stopping at Job 1 does nothing to halt the warming baked in by past emissions, reverse ocean acidification, sequester carbon emitted in the past, or prevent catastrophic methane bursts from thawing permafrost in the Arctic.
He outlines programs to accomplish these jobs by scaling up and commercializing existing technologies that mimic what the biosphere has done naturally in the geologic past, but doing it much more quickly. These include:
Synthesizing limestone from CO 2 for building materials.
Sequestering CO 2 in the seafloor by (1) expanding kelp forests and (2) sprinkling tiny amounts of iron to trigger phytoplankton blooms. Both programs would also enhance marine biodiversity.
Enhancing atmospheric methane oxidation to suppress methane spikes.
Finally, Fiekowsky outlines a plan to bring global population down to 2 billion people before the end of the century, because the demand of today’s 8 billion people on Earth’s resources makes climate restoration impossible. I agree that reducing the human population may be necessary, but not nearly as drastically as he envisions. What I find rather unfortunate is Fiekowsky's deference to Mark Jacobson, who claims that the energy sector can be decarbonized with renewable sources alone. When scientists criticized Jacobson's assumptions ( 1 ), he chose to sue them rather than defend his assumptions. That is the action of a propagandist for the fossil fuel industry, not an independent scientist. Renewables are the industry’s favorite zero-carbon sources because they are intermittent. When their output is down, wind and solar farms must burn fossil fuels to provide base load power. While batteries can store renewable energy to smooth their output, their capacity is woefully inadequate to liberate renewables from dependence on base load sources (fossil fuels and/or nuclear).
Jacobson is cited frequently by proponents of renewable energy who believe that nuclear power isn’t needed to decarbonize the energy sector. Most experts in energy and the environment disagree, and regard that belief as dangerous thinking. Climatologist James Hansen, for example, has argued since 2009 for ramping up nuclear power, and has been frustrated by antinuclear activists who have shut down nuclear power plants. In 2017 he said, "We cannot remain silent. If we sit back and say that in a few decades’ time it will become clear that phasing out fossil fuels will not succeed without nuclear power, we will be right, but by then, it will be too late! ... The opposition to nuclear power is truly insane. All these fears – about radiation, about waste, about accidents – have no basis in science. This aversion is quasi-religious and irrational." ( 2 )
Fiekowsky’s claim that a global population of no more than about 2 billion people can be sustained indefinitely on 100% renewable energy is probably right. Paul Ehrlich and Lester Brown came to similar conclusions long before him. The limit comes from the diluteness of solar radiation at Earth’s surface, just 1,000 watts per square meter. Sun and wind are free, but collecting their energy takes a huge mass of materials spread over vast areas. Nuclear energy is so much denser that nuclear plants require only 1/18 th the mass of solar farms and 1/11 th the mass of wind farms, for the same energy output. On a given parcel of real estate, a nuclear plant would generate 37 times as much energy as a solar farm, and 132 times as much as a wind farm. These facts make nuclear the most environmentally benign energy source. If Fiekowsky had included lots of nuclear power in his calculation, he would have estimated a much higher sustainable population limit.
I rate the book Climate Restoration Four Stars. Reading it raised my confidence that we can save civilization and restore the health of the biosphere on which it depends, by deploying technologies at our disposal today. The chapters on drawing down greenhouse gases to pre-industrial levels, preventing catastrophic methane bursts, and stabilizing the population to a long-term sustainable level, provide ideas and insights I had not encountered elsewhere in the climate change literature. I would have rated the book Five Stars if the chapter “Job One: Completing the Energy Transition” had included nuclear power, and the chapter “Population Restoration” had shown how the sustainable
population limit increases with the percentage of nuclear in the energy mix.
I hope a future edition of Climate Restoration includes a chapter on the long-term consequences of restoring the climate to its pre-industrial composition. Temperature drops that have led to ice ages were not precipitated by atmospheric changes in CO 2 concentration, as Fiekowsky asserts, but by long-term variations in Earth’s orbit and axial tilt (Milankovitch cycles). For this reason, people before 1980 were more worried about global cooling and the next ice age, than about global warming. If CO 2 levels are reduced to 300 ppm by 2100, the Milankovitch cycles will again dominate temperature trends, leading to an ice age in about 50,000 years. ( 3 )
But industries profiting handsomely from sequestering carbon over the next half century may want to keep going after they’ve outlived their usefulness and could become self-perpetuating “cash cows” (like today’s fossil fuel industries). If they cannot be stopped and reduce CO 2 concentrations below 250 ppm, they could trigger the next ice age much more quickly. I’d be interested in reading how Fiekowsky deals with this prospect.
References. If a link fails, copy it and paste to web browser.
1… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z....
2… https://www.replanet.ngo/post/climate...
3... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...
The prevailing public understanding of climate change is that it can be stopped by reducing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gas emissions to their pre-industrial levels by mid-century. Peter Fiekowsky's book Climate Restoration explodes that popular myth by casting emissions reduction as “Job 1” in a much more ambitious but necessary program to save civilization and bring long-term stability to the biosphere. Stopping at Job 1 does nothing to halt the warming baked in by past emissions, reverse ocean acidification, sequester carbon emitted in the past, or prevent catastrophic methane bursts from thawing permafrost in the Arctic.
He outlines programs to accomplish these jobs by scaling up and commercializing existing technologies that mimic what the biosphere has done naturally in the geologic past, but doing it much more quickly. These include:
Synthesizing limestone from CO 2 for building materials.
Sequestering CO 2 in the seafloor by (1) expanding kelp forests and (2) sprinkling tiny amounts of iron to trigger phytoplankton blooms. Both programs would also enhance marine biodiversity.
Enhancing atmospheric methane oxidation to suppress methane spikes.
Finally, Fiekowsky outlines a plan to bring global population down to 2 billion people before the end of the century, because the demand of today’s 8 billion people on Earth’s resources makes climate restoration impossible. I agree that reducing the human population may be necessary, but not nearly as drastically as he envisions. What I find rather unfortunate is Fiekowsky's deference to Mark Jacobson, who claims that the energy sector can be decarbonized with renewable sources alone. When scientists criticized Jacobson's assumptions ( 1 ), he chose to sue them rather than defend his assumptions. That is the action of a propagandist for the fossil fuel industry, not an independent scientist. Renewables are the industry’s favorite zero-carbon sources because they are intermittent. When their output is down, wind and solar farms must burn fossil fuels to provide base load power. While batteries can store renewable energy to smooth their output, their capacity is woefully inadequate to liberate renewables from dependence on base load sources (fossil fuels and/or nuclear).
Jacobson is cited frequently by proponents of renewable energy who believe that nuclear power isn’t needed to decarbonize the energy sector. Most experts in energy and the environment disagree, and regard that belief as dangerous thinking. Climatologist James Hansen, for example, has argued since 2009 for ramping up nuclear power, and has been frustrated by antinuclear activists who have shut down nuclear power plants. In 2017 he said, "We cannot remain silent. If we sit back and say that in a few decades’ time it will become clear that phasing out fossil fuels will not succeed without nuclear power, we will be right, but by then, it will be too late! ... The opposition to nuclear power is truly insane. All these fears – about radiation, about waste, about accidents – have no basis in science. This aversion is quasi-religious and irrational." ( 2 )
Fiekowsky’s claim that a global population of no more than about 2 billion people can be sustained indefinitely on 100% renewable energy is probably right. Paul Ehrlich and Lester Brown came to similar conclusions long before him. The limit comes from the diluteness of solar radiation at Earth’s surface, just 1,000 watts per square meter. Sun and wind are free, but collecting their energy takes a huge mass of materials spread over vast areas. Nuclear energy is so much denser that nuclear plants require only 1/18 th the mass of solar farms and 1/11 th the mass of wind farms, for the same energy output. On a given parcel of real estate, a nuclear plant would generate 37 times as much energy as a solar farm, and 132 times as much as a wind farm. These facts make nuclear the most environmentally benign energy source. If Fiekowsky had included lots of nuclear power in his calculation, he would have estimated a much higher sustainable population limit.
I rate the book Climate Restoration Four Stars. Reading it raised my confidence that we can save civilization and restore the health of the biosphere on which it depends, by deploying technologies at our disposal today. The chapters on drawing down greenhouse gases to pre-industrial levels, preventing catastrophic methane bursts, and stabilizing the population to a long-term sustainable level, provide ideas and insights I had not encountered elsewhere in the climate change literature. I would have rated the book Five Stars if the chapter “Job One: Completing the Energy Transition” had included nuclear power, and the chapter “Population Restoration” had shown how the sustainable
population limit increases with the percentage of nuclear in the energy mix.
I hope a future edition of Climate Restoration includes a chapter on the long-term consequences of restoring the climate to its pre-industrial composition. Temperature drops that have led to ice ages were not precipitated by atmospheric changes in CO 2 concentration, as Fiekowsky asserts, but by long-term variations in Earth’s orbit and axial tilt (Milankovitch cycles). For this reason, people before 1980 were more worried about global cooling and the next ice age, than about global warming. If CO 2 levels are reduced to 300 ppm by 2100, the Milankovitch cycles will again dominate temperature trends, leading to an ice age in about 50,000 years. ( 3 )
But industries profiting handsomely from sequestering carbon over the next half century may want to keep going after they’ve outlived their usefulness and could become self-perpetuating “cash cows” (like today’s fossil fuel industries). If they cannot be stopped and reduce CO 2 concentrations below 250 ppm, they could trigger the next ice age much more quickly. I’d be interested in reading how Fiekowsky deals with this prospect.
References. If a link fails, copy it and paste to web browser.
1… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z....
2… https://www.replanet.ngo/post/climate...
3... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...
April 27, 2025
while im very hopeful that the 4 'easy' co2 capture ideas work on the world scale, nit changing our eating, food production, land usage, pollution is why we got here. we can't just science our way out of climate crisis. imate Restoration Ch 1 What is CR: we need to proactively reduce CO2 and capture 50 gigatonnes of CO2, 4 big Co2 capture ideas: ocean iron fertilization issues, synthetic limestone, seaweed permaculture, enhanced atmospheric methane oxidation EAMO, Educate women to reduce population, small familes Ch2 Renewable energy: well on the way, iron. Batteries, need incentives and policy change, science will solve issues ,Ch3 Synthetic limestone
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 6, 2026
wow! this book contains a hopeful alternative to climate doom, with clear steps on how we should change our mindset and investing priorities to avoid disaster. some technologies are controversial, but it’s an actionable starting point.
the one major flaw is the population chapter which feels completely out of place in an otherwise technology-focused book. the author calls to reduce the population to 2 bln (!!) and it wasn’t clear to me where this number comes from. besides, inequality (the fact that the wealthiest ~10% cause half of the emissions) is completely ignored.
a must-read anyway!
the one major flaw is the population chapter which feels completely out of place in an otherwise technology-focused book. the author calls to reduce the population to 2 bln (!!) and it wasn’t clear to me where this number comes from. besides, inequality (the fact that the wealthiest ~10% cause half of the emissions) is completely ignored.
a must-read anyway!
July 27, 2022
absolutely outstanding. essential reading for all aware humans
This book is soundly based on scientific research, clearly laid out , compelling discussion, well referenced.
An optimistic call for action based on good science.
This book is soundly based on scientific research, clearly laid out , compelling discussion, well referenced.
An optimistic call for action based on good science.
December 24, 2023
Una introducción muy interesante al concepto de restauración climática (la necesidad de, más allá de reducir las emisiones de CO2 a la atmósfera, reducir también la cantidad de co2 presente en la atmósfera en la actualidad hasta las 300ppm) así como a las distintas estrategias para lograrla.
April 1, 2025
Very informative. I really had no idea about a lot of this stuff affecting our climate. Little boring at some points and a tish redundant. Nonetheless I learned a lot and hope that the new discipline of climate restoration takes off in the coming years.
December 31, 2022
Revolutionary. Presents a way out of climate disaster with 4 feasible carbon removal techniques/processes.
January 4, 2023
5 stars because it worth the quick read and thought. I never felt so good about the small amount of kelp restoration volunteering I do.
February 4, 2023
Brilliant summary of the best options for saving our civilization from climate disruption.
November 16, 2024
INCREDIBLE BOOK! I recommend everyone read this. It is present climate solutions that are actually achievable and backed by good science. I appreciate how the author breaks down complicated ideas in an easy to understand manner. Although he present the issues of the climate crisis you are left feeling optimistic which I feel is rare in a climate change book.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews