Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
My understanding is that due to the lag in effect of cutting C02 emmissions and seeign atmospheric reductions is that even if we stop emitting now we still go over the 2 degree mark. Haven't looked at the most recent models though. Either way its certainly not politically possible.
|
This I agree with, the limiting re-agent is political feasibility not technical possibility.
Quote:
|
I disagree with Truism 6. It fails to account for new tech and fails to recognize that currently we do not have the technology to reduce our carbon emmissions by 97%. In all likelyhood advances in technology will reduce the cost of solving the problem from the present cost.
|
All of the technology exists today. THere are numerous reports and studies outlining how we can deploy current technologies to drastically reduce GHGs. It is not credible to claim otherwise.
Quote:
|
I guess my conclusion wasn't well stated. My opinion is that we should not spend money reducing Carbon Emissions when we know that isn't a possible solution either politically or technically. Instead we should focus dollars on finding geo-engineering solutions that allow us to emit carbon at our current rate while reducing global warming. To do anything else seems like paddling upstream. You will never change China and India's C02 emmissions therefore you will never be able to effectively reduce global C02 emmissions. Spending money chasing after C02 emmissions is throwing it away.
|
China is changing its own emissions as we speak. You're basically rolling out dated tropes used to delay action and confuse people. China has embarked on some of the most ambitious carbon reduction policies on Earth. It is engaging in a cap and trade system, has grown renewables by absolute capacity more than anywhere else on the Earth combined, is shutting down coal plants earlier than their economic life. It has partenered with the U.S. to aggresively phase out HFCs and other warming gases. Just yesterday it signed a memo with California to trade technologies and evaluate a joint cap and trade system.
You then go on to say that geo-engineering, likely the most risky AND most expensive solution to dealing with GHGs is the solution. This is simply not rational. First geoengineering is not understood in its impact and geoengineering solutions cost more than 10x more that other things like renewable energy and CCS.
Quote:
|
As a society we will never sacrifice the present for the future so all solutions need to be framed around that fundemental fact.
|
Agreed entirely, this is the nut of the problem. My way to deal with it is to not accept it as utter fate that we'll never pull back from the walls of the petri dish. That we are smart and self-aware enough to know an existential threat when we see one. I think arguments like your own only add oxygen to this ember that we should simply be nihilistic about climate and that there's nothing we can do. The imperative to act is so strong based on the consequences and the ingenuity and ability of humans to overcome this threat has largely been untapped. Once we're in the jaws of climate and the teeth start sinking, it will be bitter consolation to say "there was nothing we could have done, and I'm so glad I paid 10% lower energy costs over the last 20 years."
