On 5/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> the
> > response of the controller will continue to be especially sluggish.
>
> I am not sure why a temperature or concentration target would all by
> itself change that dynamic, it might even be argued that because
> governments like say Canada's are perfectly happy to have a lofty
> target without having a policy to achieve it, the targets might
> actually make the response more sluggish.
Good point, but only reinforcing my argument to James that we must
accept a solution that is far from optimal.
> > It is, of course, no good avoiding a CO2-driven catastrophe by
> > creating an economics-driven catastrophe. There are other horsemen of
> > the apocalypse waiting in the wings as well.
>
> Some people argue that there can't be an economics driven catastrophe,
> because renewables and efficiency are cheap enough already that a
> switch over a few decades would only mean slower growth.
I don't think many people argue that.
Many people believe that there is no necessity of an economics driven
catastrophe, which is different.
I don't think it's possible to argue that there is no possibility of
an economic catastrophe for a sufficiently incompetent economic
policy. The issue is how difficult it is to arrive at a policy that
threads the needle. In my estimate, the needle gets narrower every
year, so it gets harder the longer we delay.
The alternative point of view is that our increasing skills and wealth
suggest delaying until some later date. The problem with this argument
as usually presented is that no way of detecting the last possible
minute to take action so as to probably avoid all catastrophes is
proposed.
There is no informed view of the situation wherein policy inaction
does not with very high likelihood reach a moment where it is too late
to avoid catastrophe. I would call the likelihood well over 90% but
even if it is over 10% it calls for mitigation.
I am of the intuitive opinion that we probably have not passed that
moment but that its arrival is quite soon given the lags in political
and industrial systems as well as in the climate response.
Logically rather than intuitively, I would say that the intuition
expressed above, in agreement with no less than Jim Hanson, is
difficult to prove but more importantly it is difficult to exclude.
Because estimating that moment is difficult and because optimizing
policy is also difficult, vigorous action now is required to avoid
significant probability of a catastrophe later.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
