It's one of the more realistic papers I have seen. For example. "The last twenty years of largely futile effort on GHG control confirms that the path to abatement will be long and torturous. Abatement policies would impose high costs on states with GHG-intensive economies; yet, most of these states stand to reap only modest benefits from abatement; conversely, few of the states with the most to gain from limiting GHG output have much power to bring it about (Buys, et al. 2007). Moreover, within key states, major power blocs oppose GHG controls"
This is essentially my argument for the "pull" of very low cost non-carbon energy as opposed to the "push" of trying to limit carbon emissions. Who is going to pump and refine oil for 5 dollar a gallons gasoline when carbon neutral synthetic gasoline costs a dollar a gallon? Keith On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > Pls see attached > > A > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
