We are not winning the climate change war. Emissions continue to rise, targets have been shaped by politics rather than physics, and the real danger is already visible in the form of stronger floods and deeper droughts that damage soils and threaten food production. This chapter explains why resolving climate change requires more than emission reduction alone, and why removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in soil is the only practical path forward at the scale required.
Resolving Climate Change
Like many people, I once thought of climate change as something distant, a problem for future generations. That changed abruptly when major floods hit Queensland and water ran under my house. It became clear that the most immediate threat is not gradual temperature rise but the increase in extreme weather events. Floods and droughts arrive suddenly, cause real damage, and undermine the systems we depend on. This is not a future issue. It is happening now.
When I examined the broader situation, the outlook was sobering. Despite decades of conferences and agreements, we are not winning the climate change battle. International targets such as Kyoto were set by what governments felt they could sell politically, not by what the climate system actually requires. Even if developed nations met their commitments, emissions growth in developing countries would overwhelm those reductions. Every year, tens of billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, and the total continues to rise.
Process, Not Just Technology
Enormous intellectual effort has gone into climate science and energy technology. We have been through Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, and many follow-up meetings. Yet the core trajectory has not changed. Emissions are higher than ever. This suggests that the problem is not simply a lack of clever devices or better data.
The deeper failure lies in process. Modern problem solving is dominated by reductionism. Issues are broken into parts and handed to separate agencies or disciplines. Climate change, however, is not an isolated problem. It is entangled with agriculture, water management, soil health, waste, energy systems, food security, economics, and human behaviour. Treating these as separate silos guarantees partial solutions that do not add up.
Resolving climate change therefore implies a change in how humanity interacts with the environment. That inevitably means changes in lifestyle and land use. And those changes will only occur if problems are approached in an integrated way that recognises real-world constraints and incentives.
The Good Life and the Adoption Problem
Modern life in affluent societies is comfortable and attractive. People enjoy mobility, reliable food supply, entertainment, healthcare, and technology. There is little appetite to give up these benefits in the name of climate action. Even if there were, it would not solve the problem.
We cannot go backwards. There are too many people and too much dependence on technology. Around four billion people aspire to the same standard of living enjoyed by developed nations. Some still lack basic electricity and food security. As they modernise, emissions will inevitably rise.
In the foreseeable future we will be living on a planet with roughly nine billion people, most of whom want a comfortable, energy-rich lifestyle. The challenge is not shrinking. It is accelerating.
Why I Took This On
I have contributed to the modern lifestyle. As an engineer, I recognised early the potential of computers in engineering, taught myself to program, and developed computer simulation tools that transformed an industry. The company I founded became a major exporter of technical software.
At the same time, Australia experienced massive dust storms and the loss of millions of tonnes of fertile topsoil. It became obvious to me that our desirable way of life rests on a fragile environmental foundation. That realisation drove my work in soil regeneration and water efficiency, and later my focus on climate change.
Environmental Innovation and Adoption
Renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar, and geothermal are valuable and necessary, but they are not sufficient on their own. Even rapid deployment does not address the existing excess of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. A critical step is missing: large-scale removal of carbon from the air.
Developing technology is often easier than getting it adopted. The public sees that emission reductions are politically difficult and physically insufficient in the short term. Even if Australia reached net zero tomorrow, it would not shield the country from climate-driven floods and droughts caused by global emissions. This gap is exploited by critics who frame action as “all pain, no gain”.
However, major developing nations are also exposed. China, for example, faces serious flood, drought, and food security risks. It has demonstrated the ability to act decisively when it sees a clear benefit. If a workable, scalable solution is adopted by one major country, others can follow.
Part 1 — Defining the Core Problem
A relatively small fraction of the global population has already raised greenhouse gas concentrations enough to alter climate. Despite widespread awareness, emissions continue to grow. As developing countries industrialise, there is no realistic near-term pathway to reduce global emissions enough to restore balance.
Emission reduction remains essential, but it is not enough. The unavoidable conclusion is that resolving climate change requires removing large quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The only way to resolve climate change is to remove large quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. My innovation has the potential to do this, but it only matters if it is adopted at scale.
Part 2 — A Proxy to Understand Adoption
When discussions begin with complex carbon chemistry, they quickly bog down in technical detail and miss the adoption issue. To illustrate the challenge, imagine a proxy device that looks like an air conditioner with a fan, a display, and a payment interface.
A user selects how much carbon they want removed and pays a fee, say $25 per tonne. The machine uses some water and outputs a liquid rich in complex organic compounds. That output becomes nutrient-rich irrigation water that improves soil structure, water holding capacity, and resistance to erosion. It delivers long-term food security benefits, even if it does not produce immediate cash returns.
Now consider scale. If each unit removes 100 tonnes per year, offsetting current emissions would require around one hundred million units operating globally. Manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and supplying land for such a system is feasible, but only if it is driven deliberately.
Very few individuals would voluntarily pay for this at the required scale. Governments must act, just as they have for smog, acid rain, and ozone depletion. Regardless of policy mechanism, the community ultimately pays. The challenge is to offer a value proposition that people can accept.
Part 3 — Understanding Opposition
Climate debate tends to fall into predictable groups: skeptics, professional commentators, environmental advocates, and vocal fringe voices. Understanding these dynamics is essential for effective action.
Skeptics often rely on misleading logic, such as arguing that because climate has always changed, humans cannot influence it. This ignores the fact that observed outcomes are the result of both natural and human drivers. Others deliberately confuse weather and climate, pointing to past floods or droughts as proof that current extremes are irrelevant. This misses the question of amplification.
Scientists, by contrast, communicate cautiously. Because we cannot run controlled experiments on Earth, conclusions are framed with probabilities and qualifications. To the public, this can appear as uncertainty or disagreement.
What people need to hear is simple and clear: climate change is real; modern living will not be abandoned; emissions cannot be reduced fast enough to prevent worsening extremes; and removing carbon from the atmosphere is essential.
Why Floods, Droughts, and Soil Matter Most
Life on Earth has survived wide temperature ranges. A modest change in global average temperature does not motivate most people. What does matter are the consequences: floods, droughts, and soil loss.
Warmer air holds more moisture. This changes rainfall patterns, producing heavier downpours in some regions and increased dryness in others. Floods strip away fertile topsoil, while drought and wind erosion remove what remains. Once organic matter is lost, soils weaken mechanically and erode more easily. The brown slurry seen in floodwaters is often prime agricultural soil.
Part 4 — Slowing the Carbon Return Flow
Plants already remove enormous quantities of carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. The problem is that most of this carbon quickly returns to the atmosphere through decomposition.
Carbon cycling is dynamic. Slowing the return of carbon to the atmosphere can be as powerful as increasing uptake. Some decomposition pathways release almost all carbon rapidly, such as burning or exposure to ultraviolet light. Others leave a fraction behind as stable residues that improve soil.
Fungi play a critical role. Compared to bacteria, fungi tend to produce longer-lived compounds and contribute to stable soil aggregates. Mycorrhizal fungi form partnerships with plants, improving water and nutrient uptake while helping stabilise carbon in soil. Even retaining a modest fraction of plant-derived carbon, applied at global scale, can shift the atmospheric balance.
Land Management at Scale
The practical solution lies in land management that favours these stabilising pathways. Organic material can be placed in managed decomposition zones that favour fungal activity and reduce rapid oxidation. Agricultural residues, green waste, coppiced biomass, and other organic streams can be redirected from landfill into soil systems.
This approach improves soil structure, increases water holding capacity, and reduces erosion, while embedding carbon. It also supports food production in a world facing water and nutrient constraints.
Proposed Action Plan
-
- Tell the truth clearly: the main threat is damage to global food production from amplified floods and droughts.
This can be addressed at reasonable cost by embedding carbon into soil. - Cooperate with China: China is highly exposed to climate risk and is a lead country for the developing world.
Practical cooperation can accelerate adoption and create simpler systems that benefit everyone. - Build major carbon-farming schemes in Australia: start with large agricultural basins where water is contested.
Use high water-efficiency methods that reduce evaporation and deep drainage, freeing water for environmental flows. - Create support structures for farmers: advisory services, demonstration farms, and research support
from universities and CSIRO to optimise fungi, plant selection, and machinery. - Monitor soil carbon realistically: recognise soil carbon is dynamic; monitor gains and losses rather than pretending “permanence” is simple.
- Treat scale as a logistics project: this will not happen by hoping market forces will do the job.
It requires coordinated, funded, practical operations that bring together land managers, councils, water and waste systems.
- Tell the truth clearly: the main threat is damage to global food production from amplified floods and droughts.
This is a proposal built on innovation, process, and adoption. The central concept is simple: plants already do the hard work of pulling carbon from the air. Our job is to change land management so a useful fraction stays in soil, while soils become stronger, more fertile, and more resilient in a changing climate.
Conclusion — From Theory to Reality
After floods, climate change stops being abstract. People see mud, damaged land, and delayed recovery. Minds change through experience, not models alone.
The uncomfortable truth is that local sacrifices do little without global action. But a coordinated approach that removes carbon from the atmosphere while rebuilding soils addresses both emissions and resilience.
The solution is not about heroic sacrifice. It is about using plants, soil biology, and smart land management to keep a useful fraction of carbon in the ground, strengthening food systems and buffering society against a changing climate.
Download “Resolving Climate Change I — How Innovation Can Help” (Full PDF)
