People give up a resource, of any kind and with any burden, only under a few conditions (not in any order): 1 - rigorously enforced government mandate, be it taxes or regulations (but remember prohibition which failed as no viable option was offered) 2 - buy out, 3 - existence of a preferable alternative, based on economic, political, cultural, religious or some other respected driver but not education or moral suasion, or distant future gains or costs as these are deeply discounted. No one knows when that last tree is cut that makes the forest unsustainable (not as is commonly stated, the very last tree) and so there is much argument and righteous justification. The future is almost always sacrificed for the present.
The start point for change is on the ground not in pronouncements or policy documents. Demonstrated performance promotes acceptance. The issue to be addressed is how to harness the not insignificant knowledge, skills and contacts of this group to promote tangible engineering. Mike Trachtenberg On Oct 1, 2013, at 3:28 PM, David Lewis <jrandomwin...@gmail.com> wrote: > "it might be that for the middle classes of the industrial world that climate > change is really a secondary issue and they'll still have their TV sets and > their McBurgers and McNuggets to eat and life would go on...." > > - thus spake Ken Caldeira, discussing his Sept 2012 Scientific American > article in a video produced by himself. He says in the video the article is > his answer to a question posed to him by Sci-Am editors, i.e. "what would > happen if we burned ALL the fossil fuels available and dumped that CO2 into > the atmosphere?" > > What if Pachauri produced a 4 minute video discussing the new Working Group I > AR5 report using this "do nothing about your fossil fuel addiction and a > hundred years from now people just like you might still be watching TV and > eating their McBurgers worrying about something else" concept, saying the > IPCC thought this could be one way things might turn out, after civilization > burned ALL the fossil fuels? > > Those who promote the carbon budget approach are doing so in reaction to a > previous effort which had not roused civilization to act decisively. Almost > everyone used to sign on to calls for civilization to act to reduce GHG > emissions by a certain percentage by a certain date. An example of a fairly > recent call like this, for "approximately 50% reduction in global emissions > from 1990 levels by 2050" is the G8 +5 Academies Joint Statement. Similar > calls date back to at least 1988. > > The criticism is, politicians and everyone else might think they could expand > emissions right up until 2049 and then deal with the problem. Civilization > is certainly continuing to expand its emissions. Hence the push by some to > try a different approach. > > Schellnhuber, who is central in the German discussion about what that country > should do about climate change, has been promoting this relatively new carbon > budget approach. He is, according to Caldeira if I understand him correctly, > one of these dangerous noise makers. Why is it that Germany seems so far > ahead of the US when it comes to taking nationally coordinated action aimed > at limiting emission of GHG? The principal adviser to Chancellor Merkel on > climate change has been prescribing "a recipe for disaster" that can only > encourage politicians to delay "concrete action now". Presumably, Merkel has > been ignoring her climate adviser. > > An example of the way Schellnhuber presents the carbon budget concept was > recorded, i.e. when he gave the keynote and the closing remarks at the 4 > degrees conference in Australia. He thought the approach had advantages. > > Obviously, since it is a fact that civilization is recarbonizing its energy > system notwithstanding the total of everything Germany and every other > country is doing, this approach could also be a flop. > > Enter Caldeira. > > He offers his idea, i.e. it is imperative that we frame the issue differently > again. Fine. Not one more emitted molecule of CO2 is "allowable", we must > say, while driving our motorcycles to work or as we fly to the next > scientific conference. We must preach that everyone should believe that > "when I emit CO2, I am transgressing against nature and future generations", > period. > > Maybe it will work. However, condemning the sincere efforts of others who > have better results in their own countries to show for their efforts, just > because nothing so far anywhere is good enough, in the way Caldeira has, goes > too far. > > "Ease up on those acid filled beakers" was a caption under a Far Side cartoon > of scientists fighting each other in a lab. > > > > On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 1:16:49 AM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote: > I usually try to avoid off-topic posts, but this time I feel strongly enough > that I just can't resist temptation. > > (He was responding to the Romm post, i.e. > http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/30/2699121/real-budget-crisis-co2/ > > The Real Budget Crisis: ‘The CO2 Emissions Budget Framing Is A Recipe For > Delaying Concrete Action Now’ > BY JOE ROMM ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 AT 5:17 PM > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
