Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Ron Baiman]

Updated data calcs.  The 2019 estimate had been reduced so going forward
requires 4.7% yearly reduction rather than 6/.1%,  but as all of the
decline in global GHG from 2019 to 2021 was due to Covid, the big question
is whether global GHG emissions will plateau in 2023?  In other words any
sustained decline in GHG is still not clearly visible in the data.  Latest
calcs and links to data summarized below:

Global GHG emissions would have needed to decline by 4.65%/year from an
estimated 54.82 GT CO2e in 2019 (
https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions#annual-greenhouse-gas-emissions-how-much-do-we-emit-each-year)
to achieve a 35 GT CO2e level in 2030 and a 66% chance of limiting average
global temperature increase to below 1.8 C
(file:///C:/Users/rbaiman/Downloads/EGR2022-3.pdf , Table ES.2). However,
global GHG emissions declined by an average of only 0.3% a year from 2019
to an estimated 54.49 GT CO2e in 2021 (
https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions#annual-greenhouse-gas-emissions-how-much-do-we-emit-each-year
). As  a consequence , we must now reduce global GHG emission by 4.7% per
year to reach 35 GT by 2030.

There is no  real-world scenario under a system  of voluntary NDCs that
will produce a 4.7%/year reduction in CO2e.  Indeed, the 0.3% yearly GHG
reduction from 2019 to 2021 is less than 1/15th of the 4.7%  yearly
reduction needed, and that reduction was largely attributed to the Covid-10
Pandemic.  In 2022, global GHG emissions increased and, depending on the
state of the economy, could potentially plateau in 2023 or increase, not
decline (
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-global-emissions-plateau-in-2023-four-trends-to-watch/
)

Best,

Ron

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 4:56 AM Robert Chris  wrote:

> Doug
>
> This more nuanced response covers the bases.  Thanks.  I particularly
> relate to your comment that the policy relevance of models is not a binary
> 'they are/they aren't'.  Unfortunately that isn't how they're regarded by
> many influential people who should know better.  The real value of models
> is their ability to interrogate the relationships between baskets of
> climate relevant variables and not in their ability accurately to predict
> future climate states of the planet.  The models may well have their own
> internal consistency but it is a challenge, even for the better informed,
> to grasp the extent to which they are truly predictive.  This isn't helped
> by the use of global aggregates and averages that mask wide spatial and
> temporal variability.
>
> BTW, I wasn't suggesting that 'if we don’t correctly capture what the
> temperature would be in the year 3000, then it follows that our models are
> utterly useless for making near-term policy choices'.  The point I was
> trying to make is that we need to abandon the idea that any short term
> policy goal, e.g. net zero by 2050, is job done, global warming solved,
> let's move on.  Whether net zero by 2050 is even sufficient to avoid a
> climate catastrophe in the relatively near future is an open question.  But
> crucially, so long as we've got 8 billion or so people all wanting the
> latest gizmo and longer vacations in far away places, global warming is a
> situation that will have to be continuously managed into the distant future
> and therefore our short term policy choices should always be open to
> adaptation as the future unfolds.  That requires more of a change in
> policymakers' and the public's attitude towards the science, than it does
> in the processes of science itself.
>
> Of course if in a century or so we're back down to 1 billion or so, where
> we were not so long ago, then most of the global warming problem gets
> sorted by natural ecosystems.  Maybe that's the most cost effective way of
> addressing global warming - sit back, do next to nothing to make the
> unsustainable sustainable and just let nature take it course.
>
> Regards
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 12/04/2023 01:50, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
>
> I did not state that the models are not policy-relevant… both because I
> don’t agree with that being a binary statement of either they are or they
> aren’t (rather, they are useful for answering some questions and less
> useful for answering others), and because the specific issue I was
> responding to is not the most relevant factor in thinking through that
> question.
>
>
>
> I disagree completely with your assertion that if we don’t correctly
> capture what the temperature would be in the year 3000, then it follows
> that our models are utterly useless for making near-term policy choices.
> Rather, I think that what happens in the next century or two actually do
> matter.  I agree with you that what happens beyond then **also** matters,
> but I don’t think it is essential that a climate model correctly capture
> that.  You don’t need to run a climate model to say that we’re in trouble
> if we maintain elevated CO2 concentrations for the next 1000 years, as this
> thread points 

RE: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Douglas MacMartin]

I did not state that the models are not policy-relevant… both because I don’t 
agree with that being a binary statement of either they are or they aren’t 
(rather, they are useful for answering some questions and less useful for 
answering others), and because the specific issue I was responding to is not 
the most relevant factor in thinking through that question.

I disagree completely with your assertion that if we don’t correctly capture 
what the temperature would be in the year 3000, then it follows that our models 
are utterly useless for making near-term policy choices.  Rather, I think that 
what happens in the next century or two actually do matter.  I agree with you 
that what happens beyond then *also* matters, but I don’t think it is essential 
that a climate model correctly capture that.  You don’t need to run a climate 
model to say that we’re in trouble if we maintain elevated CO2 concentrations 
for the next 1000 years, as this thread points out, and climate models aren’t 
necessarily useless simply because they ignore physics that isn’t (necessarily) 
relevant to predicting nearer-term impacts.

And I do agree that the degree of uncertainty in heading into uncharted 
territory is not well understood, including the possibility of more rapid 
changes than are predicted in current climate models.  But I think there’s a 
lot of room between “climate models are perfect representations of the future” 
and “climate models are not policy-relevant”; just because they are obviously 
not perfect does not make them totally useless as you seem to suggest…



From: Robert Chris 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 8:23 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; mmacc...@comcast.net; Tom Goreau 

Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com; Planetary Restoration 
; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?


Doug

It seems that mistakenly I thought you were justifying the appropriateness of 
the models.  Apologies.  On a closer reading, the following emerges:

Your final words 'That isn’t what the models are intended to do', in context, 
mean that we shouldn't criticise the models for not being policy-relevant even 
though they exclude millennial factors because the models are not intended to 
be policy relevant.  They are just models that produce certain outputs based on 
certain inputs and certain algorithms.  The degree to which the models are a 
faithful predictor of the range of plausible futures is unknowable until that 
future arrives, and made more so by the absence of the millennial factors.  
Policymakers use these models at their (and our) peril.

Have I got that right?  If so, it might be a good idea if someone told the 
policymakers that they're basing their policies on the wrong data.

Regards

Robert


On 11/04/2023 17:31, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
Robert,

I agree with almost everything you write, except for your belief that what you 
wrote is in any way in conflict with what I wrote.

doug

From: Robert Chris 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:17 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; 
mmacc...@comcast.net; Tom Goreau 

Cc: 
healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com;
 Planetary Restoration 
;
 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
; 
geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?


Doug

There's a significant caveat in there - assuming we 'eventually get to net 
zero', and a significant ethical assumption - that policy relevance is limited 
to a century timescale.  And a further physical climate assumption - that 
cascading tipping events will not be triggered on any plausible current and 
short term policy regime.

If you set the rhetoric aside, there's little evidence to suggest that by 
mid-century or even for a decade or more after that, we'll get to net zero.  
Your 'eventually' is doing a lot of work here!  For this to happen requires  us 
to start the decommissioning of fossil fuel assets now and scaling GGR/CDR to 
close to or beyond GtCO2e/yr within the next few years.  Current geopolitics 
shows no sign of substantive action to match the rhetoric on either of those, 
or the likelihood of any imminent breakthrough that might materially accelerate 
things.

As to the ethical assumption, if the ethics are constrained to consider only 
the scenarios in which we get to net zero, then you need to be pretty damn sure 
you're going to get there.  But we're far from being sure about that.  So 
limiting policy relevance to the century timescale is tantamount to declaring 
that what happens beyond that is no 

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Robert Chris]

Doug

It seems that mistakenly I thought you were justifying the 
appropriateness of the models. Apologies.  On a closer reading, the 
following emerges:


Your final words 'That isn’t what the models are intended to do', in 
context, mean that we shouldn't criticise the models for not being 
policy-relevant even though they exclude millennial factors because the 
models are not intended to be policy relevant.  They are just models 
that produce certain outputs based on certain inputs and certain 
algorithms.  The degree to which the models are a faithful predictor of 
the range of plausible futures is unknowable until that future arrives, 
and made more so by the absence of the millennial factors.  Policymakers 
use these models at their (and our) peril.


Have I got that right?  If so, it might be a good idea if someone told 
the policymakers that they're basing their policies on the wrong data.


Regards

Robert


On 11/04/2023 17:31, Douglas MacMartin wrote:


Robert,

I agree with almost everything you write, except for your belief that 
what you wrote is in any way in conflict with what I wrote.


doug

*From:* Robert Chris 
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:17 AM
*To:* Douglas MacMartin ; mmacc...@comcast.net; 
Tom Goreau 
*Cc:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com; Planetary 
Restoration ; 'Eelco Rohling' 
via NOAC Meetings ; geoengineering 

*Subject:* Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds 
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?


Doug

There's a significant caveat in there - assuming we 'eventually get to 
net zero', and a significant ethical assumption - that policy 
relevance is limited to a century timescale.  And a further physical 
climate assumption - that cascading tipping events will not be 
triggered on any plausible current and short term policy regime.


If you set the rhetoric aside, there's little evidence to suggest that 
by mid-century or even for a decade or more after that, we'll get to 
net zero.  Your 'eventually' is doing a lot of work here!  For this to 
happen requires  us to start the decommissioning of fossil fuel assets 
now and scaling GGR/CDR to close to or beyond GtCO2e/yr within the 
next few years.  Current geopolitics shows no sign of substantive 
action to match the rhetoric on either of those, or the likelihood of 
any imminent breakthrough that might materially accelerate things.


As to the ethical assumption, if the ethics are constrained to 
consider only the scenarios in which we get to net zero, then you need 
to be pretty damn sure you're going to get there.  But we're far from 
being sure about that.  So limiting policy relevance to the century 
timescale is tantamount to declaring that what happens beyond that is 
no concern of ours.  This is like setting a discount rate that reaches 
infinity on 1 Jan 2100 (or maybe 2103) - all benefits and costs 
thereafter have no present value today so we don't need to worry 
ourselves about them.  An ethics so constrained seems to me seriously 
dysfunctional.


On the tipping events, the literature on this suggests that we are 
already treading on thin ice.  Is it sane to base our policy regime on 
the assumption that there are no tipping points that might derail our 
smooth but slow transition to net zero?


Regards

Robert

On 11/04/2023 01:07, Douglas MacMartin wrote:

Also, of course, the long-term response is only realized if nobody
ever develops and deploys any CDR over that long-term timeframe.

If you believe that we will eventually get to net-zero and that
some level of CDR will get deployed to go below net-zero, then
it’s the century-scale warming that matters, not the millennial-scale.

There are of course millennial-scale processes that are not
included in climate models, so there’s neither any reason to
expect them to match on that time-scale, nor any reason to
criticize them on that particular basis, or to use that particular
argument to suggest that the models aren’t policy-relevant.  That
isn’t what the models are intended to do.

*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com

 *On Behalf Of *Michael
MacCracken
*Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2023 1:54 PM
*To:* Tom Goreau 
; Robert Chris
 
*Cc:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com; Planetary
Restoration 
; 'Eelco Rohling'
via NOAC Meetings 
; geoengineering


*Subject:* Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

Well, in that the climate depends on the radiative forcing and the
radiative forcing is logarithmic with the CO2 concentration, doing
a linear regression of CO2 and temperature would give an estimate
  

RE: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Douglas MacMartin]

Robert,

I agree with almost everything you write, except for your belief that what you 
wrote is in any way in conflict with what I wrote.

doug

From: Robert Chris 
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:17 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; mmacc...@comcast.net; Tom Goreau 

Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com; Planetary Restoration 
; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?


Doug

There's a significant caveat in there - assuming we 'eventually get to net 
zero', and a significant ethical assumption - that policy relevance is limited 
to a century timescale.  And a further physical climate assumption - that 
cascading tipping events will not be triggered on any plausible current and 
short term policy regime.

If you set the rhetoric aside, there's little evidence to suggest that by 
mid-century or even for a decade or more after that, we'll get to net zero.  
Your 'eventually' is doing a lot of work here!  For this to happen requires  us 
to start the decommissioning of fossil fuel assets now and scaling GGR/CDR to 
close to or beyond GtCO2e/yr within the next few years.  Current geopolitics 
shows no sign of substantive action to match the rhetoric on either of those, 
or the likelihood of any imminent breakthrough that might materially accelerate 
things.

As to the ethical assumption, if the ethics are constrained to consider only 
the scenarios in which we get to net zero, then you need to be pretty damn sure 
you're going to get there.  But we're far from being sure about that.  So 
limiting policy relevance to the century timescale is tantamount to declaring 
that what happens beyond that is no concern of ours.  This is like setting a 
discount rate that reaches infinity on 1 Jan 2100 (or maybe 2103) - all 
benefits and costs thereafter have no present value today so we don't need to 
worry ourselves about them.  An ethics so constrained seems to me seriously 
dysfunctional.

On the tipping events, the literature on this suggests that we are already 
treading on thin ice.  Is it sane to base our policy regime on the assumption 
that there are no tipping points that might derail our smooth but slow 
transition to net zero?
Regards

Robert


On 11/04/2023 01:07, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
Also, of course, the long-term response is only realized if nobody ever 
develops and deploys any CDR over that long-term timeframe.

If you believe that we will eventually get to net-zero and that some level of 
CDR will get deployed to go below net-zero, then it’s the century-scale warming 
that matters, not the millennial-scale.

There are of course millennial-scale processes that are not included in climate 
models, so there’s neither any reason to expect them to match on that 
time-scale, nor any reason to criticize them on that particular basis, or to 
use that particular argument to suggest that the models aren’t policy-relevant. 
 That isn’t what the models are intended to do.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 On 
Behalf Of Michael MacCracken
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 1:54 PM
To: Tom Goreau ; Robert 
Chris 
Cc: 
healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com;
 Planetary Restoration 
;
 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
; 
geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?


Well, in that the climate depends on the radiative forcing and the radiative 
forcing is logarithmic with the CO2 concentration, doing a linear regression of 
CO2 and temperature would give an estimate of the rise in temperature that is 
far from linear, so the 16 C would be way too high.

There is then the issue that the change in temperature in high latitudes is 
well above the global average change in temperature, and so that would be 
another contribution to giving a rate too high for the change in global average 
temperature. So, if regression were to get temperature change in high latitudes 
ad not the global average, one would have a value more than the change in the 
global average temperature.

Mike
On 4/10/23 1:29 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:
It’s just the regression of Antarctic Ice temperature versus CO2 data. The sea 
level regression implies +23 meters.

When I did it in 1990 there was only one glacial cycle of data, but Eelco 
Rohling independently did the same analysis when there was 800,000 years of 
data, and got essentially identical values.

The models must be serious underestimates to fall so far off the actual long 
term climate data.

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef 

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Robert Chris]

Doug

There's a significant caveat in there - assuming we 'eventually get to 
net zero', and a significant ethical assumption - that policy relevance 
is limited to a century timescale.  And a further physical climate 
assumption - that cascading tipping events will not be triggered on any 
plausible current and short term policy regime.


If you set the rhetoric aside, there's little evidence to suggest that 
by mid-century or even for a decade or more after that, we'll get to net 
zero.  Your 'eventually' is doing a lot of work here!  For this to 
happen requires  us to start the decommissioning of fossil fuel assets 
now and scaling GGR/CDR to close to or beyond GtCO2e/yr within the next 
few years.  Current geopolitics shows no sign of substantive action to 
match the rhetoric on either of those, or the likelihood of any imminent 
breakthrough that might materially accelerate things.


As to the ethical assumption, if the ethics are constrained to consider 
only the scenarios in which we get to net zero, then you need to be 
pretty damn sure you're going to get there.  But we're far from being 
sure about that.  So limiting policy relevance to the century timescale 
is tantamount to declaring that what happens beyond that is no concern 
of ours.  This is like setting a discount rate that reaches infinity on 
1 Jan 2100 (or maybe 2103) - all benefits and costs thereafter have no 
present value today so we don't need to worry ourselves about them.  An 
ethics so constrained seems to me seriously dysfunctional.


On the tipping events, the literature on this suggests that we are 
already treading on thin ice.  Is it sane to base our policy regime on 
the assumption that there are no tipping points that might derail our 
smooth but slow transition to net zero?


Regards

Robert


On 11/04/2023 01:07, Douglas MacMartin wrote:


Also, of course, the long-term response is only realized if nobody 
ever develops and deploys any CDR over that long-term timeframe.


If you believe that we will eventually get to net-zero and that some 
level of CDR will get deployed to go below net-zero, then it’s the 
century-scale warming that matters, not the millennial-scale.


There are of course millennial-scale processes that are not included 
in climate models, so there’s neither any reason to expect them to 
match on that time-scale, nor any reason to criticize them on that 
particular basis, or to use that particular argument to suggest that 
the models aren’t policy-relevant. That isn’t what the models are 
intended to do.


*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
 *On Behalf Of *Michael MacCracken

*Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2023 1:54 PM
*To:* Tom Goreau ; Robert Chris 

*Cc:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com; Planetary 
Restoration ; 'Eelco Rohling' 
via NOAC Meetings ; geoengineering 

*Subject:* Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds 
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?


Well, in that the climate depends on the radiative forcing and the 
radiative forcing is logarithmic with the CO2 concentration, doing a 
linear regression of CO2 and temperature would give an estimate of the 
rise in temperature that is far from linear, so the 16 C would be way 
too high.


There is then the issue that the change in temperature in high 
latitudes is well above the global average change in temperature, and 
so that would be another contribution to giving a rate too high for 
the change in global average temperature. So, if regression were to 
get temperature change in high latitudes ad not the global average, 
one would have a value more than the change in the global average 
temperature.


Mike

On 4/10/23 1:29 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:

It’s just the regression of Antarctic Ice temperature versus CO2
data. The sea level regression implies +23 meters.

When I did it in 1990 there was only one glacial cycle of data,
but Eelco Rohling independently did the same analysis when there
was 800,000 years of data, and got essentially identical values.

The models must be serious underestimates to fall so far off the
actual long term climate data.

*Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance*

*Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.*

*Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK*

*37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139*

*gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org 
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)*

*Books:*

*Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration,
Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase*

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392


*Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration*

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734


*No 

RE: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[robert]

Thanks RC, good response.  The challenge for humanity to slow dangerous warming 
is to define and agree a critical path in engineering and politics.

 

This requires firstly agreement that albedo enhancement is the critical 
immediate task. The carbon responses are slower and can be deferred.

 

The political challenges are of course immense, but unless they are engaged 
there is no hope.

 

A critical path is a gradual and incremental program logic based on a theory of 
change.  Each step becomes possible as previous steps are sufficiently 
advanced.  

 

My rough suggestion for a critical path to 2050 is as follows.

 



 

Cutting GHGs, for example by large oceanic industries to make biochar and other 
useful carbon stores from algae, will take much longer to have temperature 
effect than Albedo Enhancement, so CDR can be the subject of research for years 
before implementation.  Brian Von Herzen has already significantly advanced 
marine carbon conversion through his Marine Permaculture project, including 
XPrize funding.

 

A critical path in politics requires that blockages be identified and 
mitigated.  My call for a new Bretton Woods Conference on climate cooling 
through Albedo Enhancement would advance this step by presenting AE as an 
objective that can be agreed by governments.  This requires that AE be 
formulated in a way that does not include unacceptable conditions, such as 
linkage to unwanted economic reform.  The proposal for a system of Radiative 
Forcing Credits can meet this criterion by ensuring compatibility with 
government economic policies.  The main attractive features are that RFCs would 
cost much less than decarbonisation and be far more effective in meeting 
climate goals.

 

Deferring emission reduction would be an incentive for those wishing to reduce 
the cost and upheaval and risk of decarbonisation.  However, justifying this 
against the weight of climate opinion is a major challenge.  The intellectual 
focus should be recognition that emission reduction and CDR cannot replace the 
cooling effect possible with AE.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com 
 On Behalf Of 'Robert Chris'
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 2:11 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net; 'H simmens' ; da...@desjardins.org
Cc: rpbai...@gmail.com; 'geoengineering' ; 
'healthy-planet-action-coalition' 
; 'via NOAC Meetings' 
; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' 
; 'Planetary Restoration' 

Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

 

Hi RobertT

Your post below is a very helpful summary of what needs to be done.  It also 
puts front and centre the question of political feasibility.  Below are several 
extracts from your post.  I shall not comment on each but the Executive Summary 
is that the nature of the changes you are saying are necessary 'to slow 
dangerous warming' are, to put it mildly, non-trivial.  Some of them run 
counter to the neoliberal Zeitgeist (e.g. state regulation, government 
guarantees that would require increased taxation).  Some require extended 
periods of consistent large scale industrial investment (e.g. building a carbon 
mining industry, ocean technologies, commodifying CO2).  Others require a 
radical change in worldview (e.g. recognising that AE is even necessary, and 
the neoliberal capitalist economy evolving into something that it isn't 
currently).  Almost all require the major economies to move in unison.  Some 
assume new global governance beyond the UNFCCC and a recognition of the 
importance of cooling.  The idea of RF credits assumes the design of such a 
structure for global application.

That's quite a lot of fundamental change.  How long do we have to make those 
changes and scale them to be effective at slowing warming?  My guess is that we 
have a lot less time than almost any single one would require and almost 
certainly not enough time for enough of them to be climatically significant.

One particularly scares me - ocean technologies have massive profitable growth 
potential.  Having screwed the lithosphere, cryosphere, atmosphere and the 
biosphere, you're now expecting us to exploit the hydrosphere at scale and 
speed in some environmentally friendly way that assumes that capitalists will 
not see it as yet another bonanza-like free resource.

There's a stack of commentary in this thread that suggests that worthy as your 
vision is, it is simply unachievable.  Tom Goreau and Mike MacCracken have 
remarked about their experiences with politicians on the front line of climate 
policy.  The video clip from the NYT that Herman Gyr flagged is a brilliant 
(and humorous) explanation of the economic realities.  The simple fact is, as 
Partha Dasgupta explains, that all we need do is to pay for what we use, 
including the cost of righting the environmental degradation our economic 
activities cause.  What he does not say in the clip is that we also have to pay 

RE: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Douglas MacMartin]

Also, of course, the long-term response is only realized if nobody ever 
develops and deploys any CDR over that long-term timeframe.

If you believe that we will eventually get to net-zero and that some level of 
CDR will get deployed to go below net-zero, then it’s the century-scale warming 
that matters, not the millennial-scale.

There are of course millennial-scale processes that are not included in climate 
models, so there’s neither any reason to expect them to match on that 
time-scale, nor any reason to criticize them on that particular basis, or to 
use that particular argument to suggest that the models aren’t policy-relevant. 
 That isn’t what the models are intended to do.

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  On 
Behalf Of Michael MacCracken
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 1:54 PM
To: Tom Goreau ; Robert Chris 
Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com; Planetary Restoration 
; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
; geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?


Well, in that the climate depends on the radiative forcing and the radiative 
forcing is logarithmic with the CO2 concentration, doing a linear regression of 
CO2 and temperature would give an estimate of the rise in temperature that is 
far from linear, so the 16 C would be way too high.

There is then the issue that the change in temperature in high latitudes is 
well above the global average change in temperature, and so that would be 
another contribution to giving a rate too high for the change in global average 
temperature. So, if regression were to get temperature change in high latitudes 
ad not the global average, one would have a value more than the change in the 
global average temperature.

Mike
On 4/10/23 1:29 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:
It’s just the regression of Antarctic Ice temperature versus CO2 data. The sea 
level regression implies +23 meters.

When I did it in 1990 there was only one glacial cycle of data, but Eelco 
Rohling independently did the same analysis when there was 800,000 years of 
data, and got essentially identical values.

The models must be serious underestimates to fall so far off the actual long 
term climate data.

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)

Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon 
Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734

No one can change the past, everybody can change the future

It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think

Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and 
sea level rise wash the beach away

Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change



From: Michael MacCracken 
Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 at 4:23 PM
To: Tom Goreau , Robert 
Chris 
Cc: 
"healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com"
 
,
 Planetary Restoration 
,
 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings 
, 
geoengineering 

Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?


Hi Tom--I'd be interested in seeing your 1990 paper because 16 C would take 
temperatures to much higher than they have ever been, and yet there have been 
periods when the CO2 concentration has apparently been well above 1000 ppm, so 
the 16 C value seems seriously inconsistent with what we know of Earth history.

Best, Mike
On 4/10/23 5:02 AM, Tom Goreau wrote:
BEFORE UNFCCC was signed, it was clear from paleoclimate data that +16 degrees 
C or so is the equilibrium temperature for 400ppm CO2 (Goreau 1990), but all 
governments ignored the real data because they preferred the fictitious claim 
from models that warming would “only” be around 1-4 degrees C, and occur well 
after a new leader emerges from the next election, selection, or coup.

I briefed the Association of Small Island States just before they signed on to 
a treaty that  was an effective death sentence for low coasts and a suicide 
pact for low lying island nations to that effect, but their heads of states 
were told by the rich countries to sign or they would lose their foreign aid, 
something none could 

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

['Robert Chris']

Hi RobertT

Your post below is a very helpful summary of what needs to be done.  It 
also puts front and centre the question of political feasibility.  Below 
are several extracts from your post.  I shall not comment on each but 
the Executive Summary is that the nature of the changes you are saying 
are necessary 'to slow dangerous warming' are, to put it mildly, 
non-trivial.  Some of them run counter to the neoliberal Zeitgeist (e.g. 
state regulation, government guarantees that would require increased 
taxation). Some require extended periods of consistent large scale 
industrial investment (e.g. building a carbon mining industry, ocean 
technologies, commodifying CO2).  Others require a radical change in 
worldview (e.g. recognising that AE is even necessary, and the 
neoliberal capitalist economy evolving into something that it isn't 
currently).  Almost all require the major economies to move in unison.  
Some assume new global governance beyond the UNFCCC and a recognition of 
the importance of cooling.  The idea of RF credits assumes the design of 
such a structure for global application.


That's quite a lot of fundamental change.  How long do we have to make 
those changes and scale them to be effective at slowing warming?  My 
guess is that we have a lot less time than almost any single one would 
require and almost certainly not enough time for enough of them to be 
climatically significant.


One particularly scares me - ocean technologies have massive profitable 
growth potential.  Having screwed the lithosphere, cryosphere, 
atmosphere and the biosphere, you're now expecting us to exploit the 
hydrosphere at scale and speed in some environmentally friendly way that 
assumes that capitalists will not see it as yet another bonanza-like 
free resource.


There's a stack of commentary in this thread that suggests that worthy 
as your vision is, it is simply unachievable.  Tom Goreau and Mike 
MacCracken have remarked about their experiences with politicians on the 
front line of climate policy.  The video clip from the NYT that Herman 
Gyr flagged is a brilliant (and humorous) explanation of the economic 
realities.  The simple fact is, as Partha Dasgupta explains, that all we 
need do is to pay for what we use, including the cost of righting the 
environmental degradation our economic activities cause.  What he does 
not say in the clip is that we also have to pay for what we've already 
used.  This whole debate comes down to one about the distribution of 
those costs - who is to bear them.  The global warming challenge is how 
to solve that question fast enough.  Sadly, I don't have an answer to 
that and I very much doubt that anyone else has or will have soon enough 
to make a difference.  That's why, to be brutally frank, it's good to be 
in your late 70s.  You see, at heart I'm just another slimy neoliberal 
just concerned mostly about me!


 * well designed state regulation
 * change the law to incentivise action on planetary cooling
 * new albedo industry can be built when governments recognise that
   correcting the planetary heating imbalance by targeting zero RF is a
   main and proper objective of climate policy
 * Investment would then be funded by government guarantee of payment
   for demonstrated albedo increase, or equivalent cooling effect,
   within a context of scientific analysis to guide safe and effective
   implementation
 * government guarantee is the basis of RF credits, which could then
   expand into private finance with a far stronger empirical basis than
   carbon credits
 * Our discussions have amply proved that decarbonisation is a flawed
   strategy with no hope of preventing tipping points
 * That makes climate a world security problem that can only be fixed
   with higher albedo
 * A carbon mining industry could extract a hundred gigatonnes C per year
 * there is enormous scope to commodify CO2 with RF credits in ways
   that will deliver sustained economic growth and climate repair
 * ocean has a billion cubic kilometres of water that our economy has
   barely started to use
 * Ocean technologies have massive profitable growth potential
 * I see no reason except their own prejudices and inertia why the
   neoliberal capitalist community cannot evolve to get on board with
   this vision
 * while recognising that their history of disrespect for conquered
   peoples means their views and actions should be treated with suspicion.
 * The Nationally Determined Commitments approach has failed and needs
   a rethink, through an International Climate Organisation
 * A completely different approach from the Paris Accord, grounded
   instead in Radiative Forcing Credits for albedo enhancement and
   carbon conversion, is the only way to slow dangerous warming.

Regards

Robert


On 10/04/2023 07:42, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:


Robert Chris and other readers,

On neoliberalism, its homo economicus assumptions can only work 
effectively under well designed state 

RE: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[robert]

Robert Chris and other readers,

 

On neoliberalism, its homo economicus assumptions can only work effectively 
under well designed state regulation to deliver rule of law.  It is possible to 
change the law to incentivise action on planetary cooling and other public 
goods.  My view is that an international system of radiative forcing credits 
can offer the best basis and motivation for well-regulated investment in 
cooling technologies in ways that can harness the good points of neoliberalism 
and mitigate its harm. 

 

Stabilising the climate requires a return to net zero heating against the 
Holocene baseline.  Action to reduce the positive warming forcing from GHGs is 
essential, but is far slower than action to build the negative forcing effects 
of albedo to equal and oppose and largely neutralise heating through direct 
climate cooling.  A new albedo industry can be built when governments recognise 
that correcting the planetary heating imbalance by targeting zero RF is a main 
and proper objective of climate policy.  Investment would then be funded by 
government guarantee of payment for demonstrated albedo increase, or equivalent 
cooling effect, within a context of scientific analysis to guide safe and 
effective implementation. The government guarantee is the basis of RF credits, 
which could then expand into private finance with a far stronger empirical 
basis than carbon credits.

 

The polarisation of climate politics is at an impasse, with neoliberals 
retreating into denial and nuclear because they cannot see a response to the 
decarbonisation logic.  Our discussions have amply proved that decarbonisation 
is a flawed strategy with no hope of preventing tipping points.  That makes 
climate a world security problem that can only be fixed with higher albedo.  
Cutting the Gordian Knot of the climate impasse needs the quick cooling focus 
that can be delivered by RF credits.

 

On your point about economic growth, my view is that RF credits offer capacity 
to shift the economy to a sustainable approach.  RF credits will base climate 
policy in planetary science, by restricting climate subsidies to actions that 
actually cool the planet or pay for loss and damage.  RF credits will also 
importantly show that long term addition to carbon stock and flow through 
technologies such as biochar and algae has strongly measurable RF impact that 
will promote investment in them.  The beauty of converting CO2 into useful 
products is that it generates a cyclic economy, providing a basis for continued 
emissions to be eventually overbalanced and outweighed by the scale of carbon 
conversion.  

 

A carbon mining industry could extract a hundred gigatonnes C per year, limited 
only by the planetary boundaries of Earth System Sensitivity, with scale of 
operation constrained by the need to prevent a new Ice Age.  Ice Age scale is 
around a trillion tonnes C removal, and is so big that there is enormous scope 
to commodify CO2 with RF credits in ways that will deliver sustained economic 
growth and climate repair.  

 

The profit motive governing the relationship between capital and labour 
presents no intrinsic barrier to climate repair, but it requires a strong state 
able to regulate business.

Your point, RC, that “On a finite planet never ending growth is the definition 
of unsustainability” is a common trope.  The ocean has a billion cubic 
kilometres of water that our economy has barely started to use for climate 
repair, taking advantage of the massive natural area, energy and resources at 
sea.  Ocean technologies have massive profitable growth potential.  As well, if 
growth is targeted through RF credits at actions that actually repair and 
restore and regenerate the natural system, by converting CO2 into useful 
products, alongside brightening, then there is no reason why long term growth 
cannot be sustained.  A forest can grow forever as long as its complex adaptive 
system is stable.  An economic shift to recognition of planetary goals can 
equally be sustained forever in ways that enhance prosperity, peace, 
biodiversity and equality.  

 

I see no reason except their own prejudices and inertia why the neoliberal 
capitalist community cannot evolve to get on board with this vision, while 
recognising that their history of disrespect for conquered peoples means their 
views and actions should be treated with suspicion. A main incentive for them 
is to reduce the costs and upheaval of emission reduction.

 

In my work managing the chaplaincy at the Australian National University, I am 
building a multi faith community 

 .  I see these values as integral to work on climate change, and hope there 
will be more opportunities for discussion, including during my visit to the UK 
in May and June.

 

On whether 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds are economically realistic in a voluntary 
NDC regime, the 

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

['Robert Chris']

Hi RobertT, 'It may be possible'. I wonder.  Neoliberalism extols the 
primacy of markets in the allocation of resources. Neoclassical 
economics is mostly about the behaviour of Homo economicus, and 
idealised human who always acts rationally to optimise his/her wealth.  
Steve Keen has pretty convincingly debunked both these mythical 
viewpoints in relation to climate change.


I'm a Chartered Accountant/CPA  not an economist so this is where I 
venture into shark infested waters.  I'm hoping that those more 
knowledgable will be able to rescue me if I stray too close to danger.


Capitalism is at the heart of the problem.  Here let me be clear that 
I'm talking about the relationship between capital and labour in which 
those with capital invest it with view to making a profit and purchase 
labour from those without capital to do the work necessary to generate 
the profits.  That is a gross oversimplification but hopefully 
sufficient for now.  I'm not talking about trading for a profit or free 
markets or many other economically relevant factors, just the 
relationship between capital and labour.


Capital will only be invested in projects expected to make a profit.  
Making a profit implies growth because without growth demand is limited 
and commercial activity becomes at best a zero sum game.  Note that in 
the last several decades, GDP growth has become the single most 
important measure of economic performance. Growing GDP is good.  
Shrinking GDP is bad.  In effect, capitalism is structurally dependent 
on growth.  On a finite planet never ending growth is the definition of 
unsustainability.


In a message just received, you comment 'Trying to take down capitalism 
in order to fix the climate makes no sense.  Far better to seek 
constructive partnerships with industry for cooling.'  I think this is 
confused.  It begs the question as to who is the master, the capitalists 
or those seeking constructive partnerships with them.  I could accept 
the first sentence if in the second you replace 'seek' with 'enforce'.


To close, capitalism won't be dismantled and replaced by something else, 
it'll gradually morph into something more appropriate for the needs of 
the future; that's how it emerged from feudalism and mercantilism.  The 
critical issue right now is that capitalists are mostly motivated by 
short term profits and not by the need to accelerate AE R if they 
consider that not to be the best way they can generate profits.  If 
governments enforced a regime in which companies were obliged to act in  
a climate responsible manner, things could be very different.  But they 
don't for all manner of reasons that I won't go into here.


Regards

Robert


On 09/04/2023 20:32, rob...@rtulip.net wrote:


It may be possible for the current Western neoliberal neoclassical 
worldview to adapt to the need for climate stability.


*From:*planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com 
 *On Behalf Of *Robert Chris

*Sent:* Sunday, April 9, 2023 12:13 AM
*To:* H simmens ; da...@desjardins.org
*Cc:* rpbai...@gmail.com; geoengineering 
; healthy-planet-action-coalition 
; via NOAC Meetings 
; Healthy Climate Alliance 
; Planetary Restoration 

*Subject:* Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds 
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?


Herb, thanks for the further explanation.

David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is 
unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal 
neoclassical worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to 
recognise that and move on  Not doing so will just bring the system 
collapse forward..


Regards

Robert

On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:



 Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:

“Anything we can actually do we can afford.”

Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to
achieve a goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value
based and politically mediated.

It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect
to the climate crisis:

Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature
increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed
that goal-

Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature
increases to well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures

Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to
well below 1° C

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimmens



On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins
  wrote:



On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris
 wrote:

David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always
economically realistic.

So long as global warming is mediated through an economic
lens, the likelihood of a happy ending is pretty 

RE: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[robert]

It may be possible for the current Western neoliberal neoclassical worldview to 
adapt to the need for climate stability.

 

From: planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com 
 On Behalf Of Robert Chris
Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2023 12:13 AM
To: H simmens ; da...@desjardins.org
Cc: rpbai...@gmail.com; geoengineering ; 
healthy-planet-action-coalition 
; via NOAC Meetings 
; Healthy Climate Alliance 
; Planetary Restoration 

Subject: Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

 

Herb, thanks for the further explanation. 

David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is 
unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical 
worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and move 
on  Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward..

Regards 

Robert

 

On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:

 

 Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes: 

 

“Anything we can actually do we can afford.”

 

Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve a 
goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and politically 
mediated. 

 

It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to the 
climate crisis:

 

Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature increases to 
well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that goal- 

 

Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature increases to 
well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures

 

Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to well below 1° C

 

 

Herb

Herb Simmens 

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimmens





On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins   
 wrote:

 

On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris mailto:robertgch...@gmail.com> > wrote:

David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically realistic.

So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the likelihood 
of a happy ending is pretty remote.

I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com
 

 .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/57c56292-e259-2407-2de1-12675f26db9c%40gmail.com
 

 .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/0f8901d96b00%24ebccf470%24c366dd50%24%40rtulip.net.

Re: Fwd: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Robert Chris]

Mike, you point to a key distinction that I had perhaps ignored. The 
dynamics of setting goals are not the same as those of realising them.


Economics may have been a major factor in setting the Paris targets but 
they are not an enabler of their realisation.  If the political will was 
there among a sufficient number of leading economies to deliver on the 
Paris targets, they would find a way of doing that that would overcome 
any economic constraints that might otherwise have been thought to be 
impediments.


Regards

Robert




As I loosely recall, when the 2 C goal was approved in Paris, the value
was chosen because it was thought that it would be
realistically/economically achievable. The goal could not be higher due
to thoughts about tipping points or lower due to economic
realities--though they did set 1.5 C as an aspirational goal as the
developing nations felt the impacts of 2 C on them would be unbearable.
So, I'd say economics played a goal there--indeed, even the primary
rationale for the choice.

Mike

On 4/8/23 9:54 AM, Robert Chris wrote:
> David, you've put your finger right on it.  Being economically
> realistic is not a sufficient condition to enable the realisation of
> any goal.  For some goals, it isn't even a constraint because for
> them, what is economically realistic is made to fit the goal, rather
> than the goal being tailored to fit what's economically realistic.
> Money is not the only store of value.
>
> Regards
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 08/04/2023 18:26, David desJardins wrote:
>> If the goal is always economically realistic, then it follows that
>> looking at the goal through an economic lens will always enable it,
>> not prevent it.
>


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/c1cc3b97-4f27-0715-7bc2-9e09145d5129%40gmail.com.

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[David desJardins]

Most of the world population are governed by self-interested despots who
don’t even care about what happens to their subjects. And most of the rest
don’t actually want their theoretically democratic governments to
prioritize climate policy over their perceived short-term interests. It’s
just hard to imagine some kind of global mobilization, under those
conditions.

On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 1:01 PM Robert Chris  wrote:

> Doug
>
> What needs to change?  The recognition by governments that global warming
> is already a clear and present danger and therefore they need to deploy
> their coercive power to make things happen at the necessary pace.  So long
> as the primary approach to intervention is through market incentives, there
> is little chance of that happening.  The normal rules of efficiency and
> risk minimisation don't apply in crisis management.  The primary criterion
> is effectiveness.  Efficiency and risk management must be subordinate -
> they're not to be ignored, but they're not to lead.
> Regards
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 08/04/2023 20:29, Douglas Grandt wrote:
>
> RobertC, Herb and David,
>
> This conversation seems to have taken a tangent from what I believe Ron
> intended to covey:
>
> *I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario *
>
>
> My reply to Ron was an attempt to affirm that view with a realistic metric
> that *demonstrates failure *in the decade since Hansen’s 2013 paper
> proposing 6% annual decline in fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
>
> Politics and economics certainly have played a roll in past performance
> failure, but what needs to change to jump-start weekly shuttering
> refineries and oil fields?
>
> Ron’s message:
>
> we now have to reduce global GHG emissions from an estimated 58 GT CO2e in
> 2022 by 6.12% per year to reach 35 GT by 2030 (just redid the calc).
>
> I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario that I am aware of.
> Certainly not without a global cap and trade system like the Kyoto accord
> that has been dismantled in favor of voluntary NDCs.  In the last 4 years
> (from 2019 59.1 GT to 2022 58 GT) we've been able to achieve a 0.6% (just
> did the calc) year over year reduction that is about 1/10th the level of
> reduction that we would need from now on to get to 35 GT by 2030.
>
>
> My reply was 10:07am ET yesterday
>
>
> *From:* 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Climate Alliance
> *Date:* April 7, 2023 at 10:07:11 AM EDT
> *To:* Ron Baiman
> *Cc:* healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, 'Eelco
> Rohling' via NOAC Meetings, Healthy Climate Alliance, geoengineering, Brian
> von Herzen
>
> *Subject:* *[HCA-list] Re: [prag] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds
> economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?*
>
> Thanks, Ron,
>
> …
>
> Best regards,
> Doug
>
> Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)
>
> On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Robert Chris 
>  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Herb, thanks for the further explanation.
>
> David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is
> unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical
> worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and
> move on  Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward..
> Regards
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:
>
> 
>  Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:
>
> “Anything we can actually do we can afford.”
>
> Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve
> a goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and
> politically mediated.
>
> It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to the
> climate crisis:
>
> Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature
> increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that
> goal-
>
> Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature increases
> to well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures
>
> Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to well
> below 1° C
>
>
> Herb
>
> Herb Simmens
> Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
> @herbsimmens
>
> On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins 
>  wrote:
>
> 
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris 
> wrote:
>
>> David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically
>> realistic.
>>
> So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the
>> likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.
>>
> I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com
> 

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Ron Baiman]

Thanks Doug.  Agreed. The problem
Is that (without a mandatory global regime in place) elected leaders can’t just 
shut down fossil fuel production and exports (that nations with over 1.1 
billion people 14.2 percent of global population depend on for over 10% for 
critical foreign exchange exports, see: 
https://www.cpegonline.org/post/our-two-climate-crises-challenge ) and,
if short-run  alternatives are not immediately available, drive up energy 
prices for their already (mostly) desperately poor countries without losing 
their jobs and more importantly causing massive suffering in their countries.  

I repeat over 6% global  annual GHG emission reduction per year (and I believe 
this just takes Into account anthropogenic emissions - not recently 
accelerating positive feedback driven net increases
In natural GHG emissions like methane release from  permafrost etc ) is just 
not going to happen without a global regime change revolution that is also not 
at all likely as social evolution (especially pro-democratic evolution) 
generally takes much longer than the climate clock allows. 

As Herb notes. urgent immediate direct climate cooling (DCC) is realistically 
(without an unprecedented and from our current vantage point impossible to 
conceive revolution in global civilization) the only option to avoid crossing 
the 1.5 and 2.0 C thresholds and (see my prior post) put us at high likelihood 
of crossing at least 4 major planetary tipping points. 

This is fundamentally not a technological or narrow economic financing or 
investment or real production problem, but a human civilization speed of change 
problem. Sounding like Robert C, but there is hope if DCC, that does not need a 
complete transformation of industrial hunter-gatherer civilization, can be 
quickly ramped up to give us time to make this essential transformation over 
the coming decades or longer.

Best,
Ron 





Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 8, 2023, at 12:29 PM, Douglas Grandt  wrote:
> 
> 
> RobertC, Herb and David,
> 
> This conversation seems to have taken a tangent from what I believe Ron 
> intended to covey:
> 
>> I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario 
> 
> My reply to Ron was an attempt to affirm that view with a realistic metric 
> that demonstrates failure in the decade since Hansen’s 2013 paper proposing 
> 6% annual decline in fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
> 
> Politics and economics certainly have played a roll in past performance 
> failure, but what needs to change to jump-start weekly shuttering refineries 
> and oil fields?
> 
> Ron’s message:
> 
>> we now have to reduce global GHG emissions from an estimated 58 GT CO2e in 
>> 2022 by 6.12% per year to reach 35 GT by 2030 (just redid the calc).  
>> 
>> I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario that I am aware of. 
>> Certainly not without a global cap and trade system like the Kyoto accord 
>> that has been dismantled in favor of voluntary NDCs.  In the last 4 years 
>> (from 2019 59.1 GT to 2022 58 GT) we've been able to achieve a 0.6% (just 
>> did the calc) year over year reduction that is about 1/10th the level of 
>> reduction that we would need from now on to get to 35 GT by 2030.
> 
> My reply was 10:07am ET yesterday
>> 
>> From: 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Climate Alliance
>> Date: April 7, 2023 at 10:07:11 AM EDT
>> To: Ron Baiman
>> Cc: healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, 'Eelco Rohling' 
>> via NOAC Meetings, Healthy Climate Alliance, geoengineering, Brian von 
>> Herzen 
>> Subject: [HCA-list] Re: [prag] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically 
>> realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?
>> 
>> Thanks, Ron,
> … 
> 
> Best regards,
> Doug 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)
> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Robert Chris  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Herb, thanks for the further explanation. 
>> 
>> David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is 
>> unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical 
>> worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and 
>> move on  Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward..
>> 
>> Regards
>> Robert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:
>>> 
>>> “Anything we can actually do we can afford.”
>>> 
>>> Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve a 
>>> goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and politically 
>>> mediated. 
>>> 
>>> It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to the 
>>> climate crisis:
>>> 
>>> Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature 
>>> increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that 
>>> goal- 
>>> 
>>> Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature increases to 
>>> well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures
>>> 
>>> Restoring a healthy 

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Robert Chris]

Doug

What needs to change?  The recognition by governments that global 
warming is already a clear and present danger and therefore they need to 
deploy their coercive power to make things happen at the necessary 
pace.  So long as the primary approach to intervention is through market 
incentives, there is little chance of that happening.  The normal rules 
of efficiency and risk minimisation don't apply in crisis management.  
The primary criterion is effectiveness.  Efficiency and risk management 
must be subordinate - they're not to be ignored, but they're not to lead.


Regards

Robert


On 08/04/2023 20:29, Douglas Grandt wrote:

RobertC, Herb and David,

This conversation seems to have taken a tangent from what I believe 
Ron intended to covey:



*I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario *


My reply to Ron was an attempt to affirm that view with a realistic 
metric that *demonstrates failure *in the decade since Hansen’s 2013 
paper proposing 6% annual decline in fossil fuel CO2 emissions.


Politics and economics certainly have played a roll in past 
performance failure, but what needs to change to jump-start weekly 
shuttering refineries and oil fields?


Ron’s message:

we now have to reduce global GHG emissions from an estimated 58 GT 
CO2e in 2022 by 6.12% per year to reach 35 GT by 2030 (just redid the 
calc).


I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario that I am aware 
of. Certainly not without a global cap and trade system like the 
Kyoto accord that has been dismantled in favor of voluntary NDCs.  In 
the last 4 years (from 2019 59.1 GT to 2022 58 GT) we've been able to 
achieve a 0.6% (just did the calc) year over year reduction that is 
about 1/10^th  the level of reduction that we would need from now on 
to get to 35 GT by 2030.


My reply was 10:07am ET yesterday

*
*
*From:* 'Douglas Grandt' via Healthy Climate Alliance
*Date:* April 7, 2023 at 10:07:11 AM EDT
*To:* Ron Baiman
*Cc:* healthy-planet-action-coalition, Planetary Restoration, 'Eelco 
Rohling' via NOAC Meetings, Healthy Climate Alliance, geoengineering, 
Brian von Herzen
*Subject:* *[HCA-list] Re: [prag] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds 
economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?*


Thanks, Ron,

…

Best regards,
Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)


On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Robert Chris  wrote:



Herb, thanks for the further explanation.

David, the two statements are totally consistent. Your confusion is 
unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal 
neoclassical worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to 
recognise that and move on  Not doing so will just bring the system 
collapse forward..


Regards

Robert


On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:


 Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:

“Anything we can actually do we can afford.”

Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to 
achieve a goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value 
based and politically mediated.


It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect 
to the climate crisis:


Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature 
increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed 
that goal-


Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature 
increases to well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures


Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to 
well below 1° C



Herb

Herb Simmens
Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens

On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins  
wrote:



On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris 
 wrote:


David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always
economically realistic.

So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens,
the likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.

I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com 
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/57c56292-e259-2407-2de1-12675f26db9c%40gmail.com 

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Robert Chris]

David, you've put your finger right on it.  Being economically realistic 
is not a sufficient condition to enable the realisation of any goal.  
For some goals, it isn't even a constraint because for them, what is 
economically realistic is made to fit the goal, rather than the goal 
being tailored to fit what's economically realistic.  Money is not the 
only store of value.


Regards

Robert


On 08/04/2023 18:26, David desJardins wrote:
If the goal is always economically realistic, then it follows that 
looking at the goal through an economic lens will always enable it, 
not prevent it.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/18c0be8b-130c-4bef-04f0-2028fbef4b51%40gmail.com.

Re: [HCA-list] Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Ron-

Your assertion is ambiguous: do you mean 6% emission reduction per year, or
6% GHG level reduction per year?

6% annual emission reduction could be easily accomplished with WW III or a
major recession, even with today's economic regime.

Achieving a 6% annual reduction would not leave us with a known safe GHG
level though. CO2 is 40% higher than the highest humans have ever survived
long-term. That was 300 ppm. Any level above that (especially 40% above it)
 is playing Russian roulette with our children--which is, or should be,
considered immoral in our society.

Reducing GHG (CO2 equivalent) levels faster than 6% per year could be done
with accelerated atmospheric methane oxidation, at low cost (see my book).

Peter

On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 7:42 AM Ron Baiman  wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
>  I’m a “radical”, or “heterodox”, economist so I think of economics (like
> other social sciences) as inherently based on values. But disregarding
> semantics perhaps we can all agree that unless the current global political
> economic regime  changed radically, over 6% GHG reduction per year is
> “realistically unrealistic”?
>
> Ron
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Robert Chris  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Herb, thanks for the further explanation.
>
> David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is
> unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical
> worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and
> move on  Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward..
> Regards
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:
>
> 
>  Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:
>
> “Anything we can actually do we can afford.”
>
> Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve
> a goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and
> politically mediated.
>
> It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to the
> climate crisis:
>
> Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature
> increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that
> goal-
>
> Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature increases
> to well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures
>
> Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to well
> below 1° C
>
>
> Herb
>
> Herb Simmens
> Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
> @herbsimmens
>
> On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins 
>  wrote:
>
> 
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris 
> wrote:
>
>> David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically
>> realistic.
>>
> So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the
>> likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.
>>
> I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another?
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to healthy-climate-alliance+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/A80B912B-A83E-455C-B7F2-A8DEB11A8B14%40gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEr4H2k_jMEJG-_D7hS%2BM9Ge_nsBrN3fF2p%2BRByNtkTm43ioUA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Ron Baiman]

* radically changes*

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:42 AM, Ron Baiman  wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
>  I’m a “radical”, or “heterodox”, economist so I think of economics (like 
> other social sciences) as inherently based on values. But disregarding 
> semantics perhaps we can all agree that unless the current global political 
> economic regime  hanged radically, over 6% GHG reduction per year is 
> “realistically unrealistic”? 
> 
> Ron 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Robert Chris  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Herb, thanks for the further explanation. 
>> 
>> David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is 
>> unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical 
>> worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and 
>> move on  Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward..
>> 
>> Regards
>> Robert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:
>>> 
>>> “Anything we can actually do we can afford.”
>>> 
>>> Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve a 
>>> goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and politically 
>>> mediated. 
>>> 
>>> It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to the 
>>> climate crisis:
>>> 
>>> Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature 
>>> increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that 
>>> goal- 
>>> 
>>> Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature increases to 
>>> well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures
>>> 
>>> Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to well below 
>>> 1° C
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Herb
>>> 
>>> Herb Simmens
>>> Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
>>> @herbsimmens
>>> 
 On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins  wrote:
 
 
 On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris  wrote:
> David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically 
> realistic.
> 
> So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the 
> likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.
> 
 I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another? 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 "geoengineering" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/849C694F-ABD5-4653-8CDD-C0399B5880A3%40gmail.com.

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

 I’m a “radical”, or “heterodox”, economist so I think of economics (like other 
social sciences) as inherently based on values. But disregarding semantics 
perhaps we can all agree that unless the current global political economic 
regime  hanged radically, over 6% GHG reduction per year is “realistically 
unrealistic”? 

Ron 


Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 8, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Robert Chris  wrote:
> 
> 
> Herb, thanks for the further explanation. 
> 
> David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is 
> unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical 
> worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and 
> move on  Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward..
> 
> Regards
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
>> On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:
>> 
>>  Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:
>> 
>> “Anything we can actually do we can afford.”
>> 
>> Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve a 
>> goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and politically 
>> mediated. 
>> 
>> It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to the 
>> climate crisis:
>> 
>> Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature increases 
>> to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that goal- 
>> 
>> Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature increases to 
>> well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures
>> 
>> Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to well below 
>> 1° C
>> 
>> 
>> Herb
>> 
>> Herb Simmens
>> Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
>> @herbsimmens
>> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris  wrote:
 David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically realistic.
 
 So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the 
 likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.
 
>>> I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another? 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "geoengineering" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/A80B912B-A83E-455C-B7F2-A8DEB11A8B14%40gmail.com.

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[David desJardins]

On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 10:13 AM Robert Chris  wrote:

> David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is
> unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal neoclassical
> worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to recognise that and
> move on  Not doing so will just bring the system collapse forward.
>

I feel like I've got exactly zero sympathy for the "current Western
neoliberal neoclassical worldview", so I really have no idea what you're
talking about. If the goal is always economically realistic, then it
follows that looking at the goal through an economic lens will always
enable it, not prevent it.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqPNq9-k49fV9J83FVxx1VW%2BL8uK2Sr46BjgBdoF%3DP%3DTxw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Robert Chris]

Herb, thanks for the further explanation.

David, the two statements are totally consistent.  Your confusion is 
unsurprising, you're reflecting the current Western neoliberal 
neoclassical worldview.  But it's run its course and we all need to 
recognise that and move on  Not doing so will just bring the system 
collapse forward..


Regards

Robert


On 08/04/2023 17:32, H simmens wrote:


 Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:

“Anything we can actually do we can afford.”

Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to 
achieve a goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based 
and politically mediated.


It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to 
the climate crisis:


Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature 
increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed 
that goal-


Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature 
increases to well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperatures


Restoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to well 
below 1° C



Herb

Herb Simmens
Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future
@herbsimmens

On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins  
wrote:



On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris  
wrote:


David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically
realistic.

So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens,
the likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.

I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/57c56292-e259-2407-2de1-12675f26db9c%40gmail.com.

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[H simmens]

Another way to articulate what Robert said is to  quote  Keynes:“Anything we can actually do we can afford.”Economics can help guide us on the most resource sparing means to achieve a goal, but the setting of the goal is inherently value based and politically mediated. It seems that there are at least three possible goals with respect to the climate crisis:Our current goal - Avoid the worst impacts by limiting temperature increases to well below 2° C by 2100 even if we temporarily exceed that goal- Avoid the activation of tipping points by limiting temperature increases to well below 2° at all times by shaving peak temperaturesRestoring a healthy climate by limiting temperature increases to well below 1° CHerbHerb SimmensAuthor A Climate Vocabulary of the Future@herbsimmensOn Apr 8, 2023, at 9:13 AM, David desJardins  wrote:On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris  wrote:
  

  
  
David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically
  realistic.So long as global warming
  is mediated through an economic lens, the likelihood of a happy
  ending is pretty remote.I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another? 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/A254AB7C-B04D-4B28-9FD7-745667FA2502%40gmail.com.

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[David desJardins]

On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 4:59 AM Robert Chris  wrote:

> David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically realistic.
>
So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the
> likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.
>
I'm confused. Don't these two statements contradict one another?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAP%3DxTqNykihi%3DceVHijTdjdy_a9i%3DjiAgh%2BPqJRHQKEbw4mP2w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [prag] Re: [geo] Are 1.5 c or 2.0 c thresholds economically realistic in a voluntary NDC regime?

[Robert Chris]

David, no matter what the goal may be, it is always economically 
realistic.  The global economy just found $trillions from nowhere to 
respond to COVID-19.  The British didn't ask their economists whether it 
made sense to go to war with Germany in 1914 and 1939. The US didn't put 
an economist's slide rule over the idea of going into Korea or Vietnam.  
Whatever one's views about the merits or outcomes of these military 
adventures, their relevance here is that economists were at best only 
peripheral to the decisions to act.


Economic theory is based on things remaining much the same in the future 
as they were in the past and for change to occur gradually.  Faced with 
an existential threat, economic considerations are largely irrelevant.  
So long as global warming is mediated through an economic lens, the 
likelihood of a happy ending is pretty remote.


Regards

Robert


On 07/04/2023 07:50, David desJardins wrote:
This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with whether the goal is 
economically realistic. It’s only about whether the goal is 
politically realistic.


On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 11:40 PM Ron Baiman  wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Follow up to previous 1.5 C or 2.0 C post:

c) Some quick calculation regarding the unrealistic economics of
trying to stay below 15 c, or 1.8 C (per the "well below" 2 C of
the Paris Accord) based on a purely voluntary NDC regime:

As global GHG emissions have not declined by 4.65% from 2019 which
would have necessary for gradual year over year achievement of the
35 GT CO2e level in 2030 necessary for a 66% chance of staying
below 1.8 C estimated by the UNEP/IPCC per the the citations in my
paper
(https://www.cpegonline.org/post/our-two-climate-crises-challenge
), we now have to reduce global GHG emissions from an estimated 58
GT CO2e in 2022 by 6.12% per year to reach 35 GT by 2030 (just
redid the calc).

I don't see this happening in any real-world scenario that I am
aware of. Certainly not without a global cap and trade system like
the Kyoto accord that has been dismantled in favor of voluntary
NDCs.  In the last 4 years (from 2019 59.1 GT to 2022 58 GT) we've
been able to achieve a 0.6% (just did the calc) year over year
reduction that is about 1/10^th the level of reduction that we
would need from now on to get to 35 GT by 2030.

Best,
Ron


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9BBmacNDRYim1hvM%2BjtPQOr%3DrFd9yUbP-ufYA2GkqUtAA%40mail.gmail.com

.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to planetary-restoration+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CAP%3DxTqOqDV4AaR7XxhjrnK69hxMXRWOGkx_rVRV4k_56T1Kijg%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/748518fe-b5e2-31e4-3a08-08ad438b19b6%40gmail.com.