Ron-

Your assertion is ambiguous: do you mean 6% emission reduction per year, or
6% GHG level reduction per year?

6% annual emission reduction could be easily accomplished with WW III or a
major recession, even with today's economic regime.

Achieving a 6% annual reduction would not leave us with a known safe GHG
level though. CO2 is 40% higher than the highest humans have ever survived
long-term. That was 300 ppm. Any level above that (especially 40% above it)
 is playing Russian roulette with our children--which is, or should be,
considered immoral in our society.

Reducing GHG (CO2 equivalent) levels faster than 6% per year could be done
with accelerated atmospheric methane oxidation, at low cost (see my book).

Peter

On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 7:42 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  changed 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]>
> <[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
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Healthy Climate Alliance" 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/healthy-climate-alliance/A80B912B-A83E-455C-B7F2-A8DEB11A8B14%40gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/A80B912B-A83E-455C-B7F2-A8DEB11A8B14%40gmail.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/CAEr4H2k_jMEJG-_D7hS%2BM9Ge_nsBrN3fF2p%2BRByNtkTm43ioUA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to