Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:

“Anything we can actually do we can afford.”

Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve a goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and politically mediated. 

It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to the climate crisis:

Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that goal- 

Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature increases to well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures

Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to well below 1° C


Herb

Herb Simmens
Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens

On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins <[email protected]> wrote:


On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically realistic.

So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.

I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another? 

--
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/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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/A254AB7C-B04D-4B28-9FD7-745667FA2502%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to