Dear Colleagues, I’m a “radical”, or “heterodox”, economist so I think of economics (like other social sciences) as inherently based on values. But disregarding semantics perhaps we can all agree that unless the current global political economic regime hanged radically, over 6% GHG reduction per year is “realistically unrealistic”?
Ron Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Robert Chris <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Herb, thanks for the further explanation. > > David, the two statements are totally consistent. Your confusion is > unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical > worldview. But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and > move on Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward.. > > Regards > Robert > > > >> On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote: >> >> 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/A80B912B-A83E-455C-B7F2-A8DEB11A8B14%40gmail.com.
