----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 10:04 AM
Subject: [Global Change: 1590] Re: 2C?
>
> On 5/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
<...>
> 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
>
While we might agree that vigorous action is required sooner rather than
later, I would suggest that rather than picking a target & time-table, the
probability of successfully achieving stabilization may be increased by
choosing a path of least resistance. To paraphrase Gerhaus, put an
achievement policy in place rather than set a lofty goal.
A simple analogy may help: suppose we are rolling down the road to
catastrophe. To change direction, we may set a goal aloft, on top of a
peak, and then apply whatever force is required to roll our globe uphill to
reach the peak. An alternative achievement policy would be to lower the
terrain in the direction of the goal and allow the globe to roll
effortlessly in the direction of the goal.
By changing the political conditions under which economic decisions are
made, the economic engine can be steered toward the goal. In the energy
production sector this might play out by lowering the cost of non-fossil
alternatives relative to fossil fuels, by imposing a carbon tax, for
example. Decision-makers would then tilt power-production infrastructure
development in the direction of low GHG-emitting alternatives and get us
rolling in the direction of stabilization, without the need to set explicit
allowable emission limits.
Picking a goal of 2C or, a particular GHG concentration like 2x, while
necessary in a general sense to indicate change is desired, is not necessary
for policy formation or action. If it were, then potential delays would
arise from arguing over where to draw the line and how precisely it is to be
measured and what penalties are to be imposed for non-compliance, and what
global law enforcement agency will regulate emissions, punish wrongdoers,
etc. etc. This kind of argument occupied (some might say "wasted") much of
the Kyoto negotiators' time.
I think that to get policy tilting in the right direction, for now it is
sufficient to gesture vaguely in the direction of "stabilization" without
being too particular about what level of stabilization must be achieved, or
when.
-dl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
