David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically
realistic. The global economy just found $trillions from nowhere to
respond to COVID-19. The British didn't ask their economists whether it
made sense to go to war with Germany in 1914 and 1939. The US didn't put
an economist's slide rule over the idea of going into Korea or Vietnam.
Whatever one's views about the merits or outcomes of these military
adventures, their relevance here is that economists were at best only
peripheral to the decisions to act.
Economic theory is based on things remaining much the same in the future
as they were in the past and for change to occur gradually. Faced with
an existential threat, economic considerations are largely irrelevant.
So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the
likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.
Regards
Robert
On 07/04/2023 07:50, David desJardins wrote:
This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with whether the goal is
economically realistic. It’s only about whether the goal is
politically realistic.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 11:40 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Follow up to previous 1.5 C or 2.0 C post:
c) Some quick calculation regarding the unrealistic economics of
trying to stay below 15 c, or 1.8 C (per the "well below" 2 C of
the Paris Accord) based on a purely voluntary NDC regime:
As global GHG emissions have not declined by 4.65% from 2019 which
would have necessary for gradual year over year achievement of the
35 GT CO2e level in 2030 necessary for a 66% chance of staying
below 1.8 C estimated by the UNEP/IPCC per the the citations in my
paper
(https://www.cpegonline.org/post/our-two-climate-crises-challenge
), we now have to reduce global GHG emissions from an estimated 58
GT CO2e in 2022 by 6.12% per year to reach 35 GT by 2030 (just
redid the calc).
I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario that I am
aware of. Certainly not without a global cap and trade system like
the Kyoto accord that has been dismantled in favor of voluntary
NDCs. In the last 4 years (from 2019 59.1 GT to 2022 58 GT) we've
been able to achieve a 0.6% (just did the calc) year over year
reduction that is about 1/10^th the level of reduction that we
would need from now on to get to 35 GT by 2030.
Best,
Ron
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9BBmacNDRYim1hvM%2BjtPQOr%3DrFd9yUbP-ufYA2GkqUtAA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9BBmacNDRYim1hvM%2BjtPQOr%3DrFd9yUbP-ufYA2GkqUtAA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAP%3DxTqOqDV4AaR7XxhjrnK69hxMXRWOGkx_rVRV4k_56T1Kijg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAP%3DxTqOqDV4AaR7XxhjrnK69hxMXRWOGkx_rVRV4k_56T1Kijg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/748518fe-b5e2-31e4-3a08-08ad438b19b6%40gmail.com.
