It may be possible for the current Western neoliberal neoclassical worldview to adapt to the need for climate stability.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Robert Chris Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2023 12:13 AM To: H simmens <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; geoengineering <[email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected]>; via NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>; Healthy Climate Alliance <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime? 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 <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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/0f8901d96b00%24ebccf470%24c366dd50%24%40rtulip.net.
