Most of the world population are governed by self-interested despots who don’t even care about what happens to their subjects. And most of the rest don’t actually want their theoretically democratic governments to prioritize climate policy over their perceived short-term interests. It’s just hard to imagine some kind of global mobilization, under those conditions.
On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 1:01 PM Robert Chris <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 1/10th 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]> > <[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 > "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/CAP%3DxTqNadWAXQOqH%3DeR_gB3iyQfcQxe%3DCP_RMe56vvhTsHTbDg%40mail.gmail.com.
