Roger Pielke Jr has an interesting post on setting policy for emissions
reductions that target particular levels at which CO2 should be stabilised.
This seems to be the preferred approach, both for policy makers and
advocates of climate change mitigation. I find myself in the odious position
of criticising this approach while having nothing much better to offer.
Nevertheless, here are some expanded thoughts on this matter that I
submitted as a comment on Roger's post.
(
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000923t
he_dismal_prospects.html )
Firstly, any good emissions policy also needs to consider ocean acidity. It
is fine for GW if stabilized emissions balance natural sinks at some low
risk temperature change, but as long as that means increasing the level of
carbonic acid in the ocean, the global environment still faces a huge
problem. This urgent issue remains remarkably out of sight in the public
debate.
As for the best policy on reducing carbon emissions, it is unfortunate that
"as much as possible as soon as possible" is not precise enough for policy
makers, litigators and tax incentive schemes. It is equally unfortunate that
public perceptions seem to mirror the fabled "Frog in the Pot of Boiling
Water". How much worse is 380 than 378? How much worse is 382 than 384, and
on it goes until we find ourselves asking "how much worse is 550 than 450?"
But perhaps the greatest challenge to both our political and economic ways
of thinking is the temporal seperation between cause and effect that
characterizes this issue. Few alive now will ever see the consequences of
their choices, and none will ever know the long term effects that our
current and recent-past lifestyle and technology choices have set in motion.
Four, five or six year terms do not encourage today's leaders to place any
priority on such long range planning. Markets have trouble looking beyond
the next financial quarter. The IPCC scenarios may stop in 2100, but let's
not forget that the world does not.
So what the Climate Change debate is faced with here is a perfect storm of
societal character flaws and through these, incontrovertible proof of the
immaturity human civilization. I am a big believer in the adage that what
doesn't kill you makes you stronger, but that is what you say to yourself
after you have survived. And while I am not worried that the species will
not survived, I think there is abundant and clear evidence that our global
society may not.
Coby
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
