Hi Doug
Your quantification of the removal of two ExxonMobils per year required to achieve IPCC goals reveals the wishful thinking in climate policy. People need hope, and when they cannot find hope in fact they create fantasy. “Nearly halving emissions by 2030”, the IPCC goal, is a fantasy. It is entirely unscientific as a practical objective. By contrast, direct cooling offers clear empirical evidence of feasibility. Ten ExxonMobils polluting the Earth, Ten ExxonMobils polluting the Earth, And if two ExxonMobils should vanish in a year We’ll have eight ExxonMobils polluting the Earth. (From Ten Green Bottles) Regards & Thanks Robert Tulip From: 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 12:07 AM To: Ron Baiman <[email protected]> Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration <[email protected]>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]>; Brian von Herzen <[email protected]> Subject: [HCA-list] Re: [prag] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime? Thanks, Ron, … 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 This reminds me of an ah ha moment I had back in 2013, which led me to a very disturbing conclusion — which Jim Hansen confirmed when we chatted at a CCL northeast regional conference in Nashua, NH, on November 14, 2015. The 6% annual decline he advocated in his December 3, 2013, paper Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature (Bit.ly/HansenPLOS <http://bit.ly/HansenPLOS> ) was not a linear decline to zero over 16 years, rather asymptomatic approaching zero at t = ♾️ That jives with an eight year compounded 6% decline from 58 to 35 GT CO2e you highlighted. My ah ha moment related to metrics that could track progress in visible terms, and I expressed it in two hashtags which we central to my daily Facebook and Twitter activity for several years: #RetireRefineries #OnePerWeek The implications were unfathomable! Retiring 750 global refineries at 6% would be initially manifested by shutting down 45 refineries of average production beginning in 2014, and 6% more in 2015, etc. Putting that into a more poignant metric: 6% of global refinery production would equate to termination oil field operations and refining output of two “ExxonMobils“ annually, as XOM is about 3% – 3.33% of total global oil production and refineries. Hansen et al. paper was premised on 2013 bring “year zero”—how many refineries have been shuttered in the past decade? Now we are faced with an 8 year horizon, not 16 years What physics had changed such that the decline in emissions has been relaxed so significantly? What in “Hansen’s science“ been relaxed and caused the goal posts to have been moved so dramatically? Shouldn’t the playing field been shortened to 50 yards? In very simplistic terms, shouldn’t the appropriate hashtags be more like: #RetireRefineries #TwoPerWeek Houston, we have a conundrum … Best regards, Doug Grandt Sent from my iPhone (audio texting) On Apr 6, 2023, at 11:40 PM, Ron Baiman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Dear Colleagues, Follow up to previous 1.5 C or 2.0 C post: c) Some quick calculation regarding the unrealistic economics of trying to stay below 15 c, or 1.8 C (per the "well below" 2 C of the Paris Accord) based on a purely voluntary NDC regime: As global GHG emissions have not declined by 4.65% from 2019 which would have necessary for gradual year over year achievement of the 35 GT CO2e level in 2030 necessary for a 66% chance of staying below 1.8 C estimated by the UNEP/IPCC per the the citations in my paper (https://www.cpegonline.org/post/our-two-climate-crises-challenge ), 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. Best, Ron -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9BBmacNDRYim1hvM%2BjtPQOr%3DrFd9yUbP-ufYA2GkqUtAA%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9BBmacNDRYim1hvM%2BjtPQOr%3DrFd9yUbP-ufYA2GkqUtAA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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] <mailto:[email protected]> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/3CE5DD22-59A2-4224-86FA-39FB08FF7D36%40mac.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/3CE5DD22-59A2-4224-86FA-39FB08FF7D36%40mac.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/0f7401d96b00%24a3d752f0%24eb85f8d0%24%40rtulip.net.
