The McGlade paper is indeed very important and well worth reading since it works backwards from the 2-degree target to provide what amounts to a regional "hit list" for declaring carbon resources unburnable (see Table 1 in the paper). Most of the Canadian oil and gas resources are found to be unburnable in this exercise, which provides a principled basis for opposing Keystone 2XLT and Canadian extraction projects in general rather than just being against Keystone because it's easy to be against sited projects or in the hopes of annoying the energy industry to death (two rationales cited earlier in this thread).
Needless to say, there are huge political and economic implications to recommending conscious regional skewing of asset stranding. ᐧ On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Charles H. Greene <[email protected]> wrote: > For those who want scientific justification for rejecting the KXL > pipeline, here is a very important paper that just came out in Nature. > > Chuck Greene > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
