* radically changes* Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:42 AM, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/849C694F-ABD5-4653-8CDD-C0399B5880A3%40gmail.com.
