Thanks Doug. Agreed. The problem Is that (without a mandatory global regime in place) elected leaders can’t just shut down fossil fuel production and exports (that nations with over 1.1 billion people 14.2 percent of global population depend on for over 10% for critical foreign exchange exports, see: https://www.cpegonline.org/post/our-two-climate-crises-challenge ) and, if short-run alternatives are not immediately available, drive up energy prices for their already (mostly) desperately poor countries without losing their jobs and more importantly causing massive suffering in their countries.
I repeat over 6% global annual GHG emission reduction per year (and I believe this just takes Into account anthropogenic emissions - not recently accelerating positive feedback driven net increases In natural GHG emissions like methane release from permafrost etc ) is just not going to happen without a global regime change revolution that is also not at all likely as social evolution (especially pro-democratic evolution) generally takes much longer than the climate clock allows. As Herb notes. urgent immediate direct climate cooling (DCC) is realistically (without an unprecedented and from our current vantage point impossible to conceive revolution in global civilization) the only option to avoid crossing the 1.5 and 2.0 C thresholds and (see my prior post) put us at high likelihood of crossing at least 4 major planetary tipping points. This is fundamentally not a technological or narrow economic financing or investment or real production problem, but a human civilization speed of change problem. Sounding like Robert C, but there is hope if DCC, that does not need a complete transformation of industrial hunter-gatherer civilization, can be quickly ramped up to give us time to make this essential transformation over the coming decades or longer. Best, Ron Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 8, 2023, at 12:29 PM, Douglas Grandt <[email protected]> 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 1/10th 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. >> -- >> 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. -- 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/4C9D4E4B-7706-4BC0-85A9-CC7651C04094%40gmail.com.
