Doug
What needs to change? The recognition by governments that global
warming is already a clear and present danger and therefore they need to
deploy their coercive power to make things happen at the necessary
pace. So long as the primary approach to intervention is through market
incentives, there is little chance of that happening. The normal rules
of efficiency and risk minimisation don't apply in crisis management.
The primary criterion is effectiveness. Efficiency and risk management
must be subordinate - they're not to be ignored, but they're not to lead.
Regards
Robert
On 08/04/2023 20:29, Douglas Grandt wrote:
RobertC, Herb and David,
This conversation seems to have taken a tangent from what I believe
Ron intended to covey:
*I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario *
My reply to Ron was an attempt to affirm that view with a realistic
metric that *demonstrates failure *in the decade since Hansen’s 2013
paper proposing 6% annual decline in fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
Politics and economics certainly have played a roll in past
performance failure, but what needs to change to jump-start weekly
shuttering refineries and oil fields?
Ron’s message:
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.
My reply was 10:07am ET yesterday
*
*
*From:* 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Climate Alliance
*Date:* April 7, 2023 at 10:07:11 AM EDT
*To:* Ron Baiman
*Cc:* healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, 'Eelco
Rohling' via NOAC Meetings, Healthy Climate Alliance, geoengineering,
Brian von Herzen
*Subject:* *[HCA-list] Re: [prag] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?*
Thanks, Ron,
…
Best regards,
Doug
Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)
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
<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 "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/57c56292-e259-2407-2de1-12675f26db9c%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/57c56292-e259-2407-2de1-12675f26db9c%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/b53b1bf1-13bf-2157-9f06-6939aa799005%40gmail.com.
