The question here is "what would constitute adequate action".
To my understanding, to avoid the dire consequences the alarmists
are predicting, we'd have to go back to pre-industrial levels of
emissions, on the order of 1% of current levels. GLOBALLY.
I don't think anyone is advocating that idea. It is obviously silly.
While stopping net emissions entirely would allow the system to
equilibrate at preindustrial levels, nobody imagines this is doable in
the next century.
Freezing net emissions now and reducing them by 75% over the next century is expected to allow thye system to equilibrate at concentrations below double the preindustrial background. That is probably the best we can manage, but we can only manage it if we take matters seriously now. (Unfortunately, because our systems are based on national sovereignty, a fair allocation of the costs is very politically problematic.)
Net emissions will eventually be reduced for two reasons: first, the supply of fossil fuels is finite. Second, combustion of all fossil fuels in the absence of some method for sequestering carbon will likely be so catastrophic that it is unlikely that industrial activity will continue until we are done using them up anyway. The sooner we act as if they were running out, the better off we will be in the long run.
Freezing net emissions now and reducing them by 75% over the next century is expected to allow thye system to equilibrate at concentrations below double the preindustrial background. That is probably the best we can manage, but we can only manage it if we take matters seriously now. (Unfortunately, because our systems are based on national sovereignty, a fair allocation of the costs is very politically problematic.)
Net emissions will eventually be reduced for two reasons: first, the supply of fossil fuels is finite. Second, combustion of all fossil fuels in the absence of some method for sequestering carbon will likely be so catastrophic that it is unlikely that industrial activity will continue until we are done using them up anyway. The sooner we act as if they were running out, the better off we will be in the long run.
The resources we would need to spend to effect a 1 year delay in
global warming (which 1 year would be 25 years out due to the
commitment and the time it would take to implement the policies) would
be far better spent in preparing to deal with the consequences,
especially given that the consequences are unavoidable, regardless of
what we do about it.
It is the final maximum concentration of greenhouse gases that is the main determinant of how much damage we cause. A 1-year delay of the identical trajectory is therefore not an especially helpful idea, I agree. However, your suggestion is misframed. The question is when we begin the hard work of the 75% reduction. Any sensible understanding of the carbon cycle supports the intuitively obvious conclusion: the sooner, the better.
Your absolute assertion that we should and must do nothing except adapt seems pulled out of a hat. While I dislike the usual economists' analysis, it is at least more cogent and less absolutist than the above. If we do as you suggest, we will eventually make the earth no more habitable than any ordinary planet, Mars, say, and even so we will eventually run out of fossil fuels.
We need one or both of two things: a method or methods for keeping carbon out of the air or a strategy or strategies for keeping carbon in the ground. Adaptation is inevitable, but shrugging and proposing adaptation misses the point.
The rate at which we burn carbon is of great interest to economic thinking, which is adamant that something called "economic growth" is a necessity for well-being, not just in poor countires but in rich ones as well. It is utterly beside the point for the real, physical planet on which we live, which mostly thrives or sickens on the total amount of carbon we release over time.
We need to do everything we can to limit that amount, within the extent allowed by other catastrophic risks that we also seem to be navigating between. That appears to amount to freezing annual emission rates as soon as possible and gradually bringing them down over the next century, and that is what all advocates of climate-driven policy except for a few fringe back-to-the-land folks are recommending.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
