> While I'm not saying the conclusion is necessarily wrong, note the SRES > did not attempt to consider stabilisation scenarios, or indeed any > direct CO2 mitigation effort at all (IMO a very disappointing decision > which I hope they overturn for the next set of scenarios). So deliberate > efforts to curb demand growth and promote renewables might achieve > more than is suggested in the scenarios.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/087.htm gives the following relevant reference: Mori, S. 2000: Effects of Carbon Emission Mitigation Options under Carbon Concentration Stabilization Scenarios. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 3(2). and by the same author: Energy Economics Volume 26, Issue 4 , July 2004, Pages 565-578 Alternative technology strategies for climate change policy The key section from that paper reads as follows: "The previous sections suggest that the contribution of nuclear power is essential to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon- dioxide. Although the nuclear power is the most cost-effective option, it is not indispensable as will be shown in this section." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
