Alastair McDonald wrote:
> Surely that is not true? A scenario is just a scenario, a line on a graph
> which shows the concentration of CO2 against future time. Whether
> CO2 rises because the global economy is expanding or because the
> permafrost is melting is irrelevant, if the shape of the subsequent graph is
> the same. If the level of CO2 falls, then whether it is caused by
> measures brought in by governments to protect the environment, or
> because the oil has run out, will make no difference to the climatic
> consequences. We don't know which scenario is correct, but we
> can say that if we continue with business as usual, as Hansen is pointing
> out, then the consequences will be catastrophic.
What is "business as usual"? There is no such thing as a policy vacuum.
Given that there are already policies in place which explicitly target
GHG emissions, we are already diverging from "business as usual" under
the assumption that it is being used to mean "no policies to reduce GHG
emissions". Moreover, there are large numbers of policies being drafted
all the time which will have some conseqences for emissions even if that
is not their primary target.
It's not a matter of "do something" (perhaps Kyoto) or "do nothing".
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
