Move along, nothing to see here!
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:11 am
Ego wrote: ↑
Mon May 27, 2019 3:25 am
The former head of Natural Resource Studies at the Cato Institute changes his mind on climate policy, not because he sees the science differently now but because he learned more about risk management.
Frustrating article. During his time at CATO the author had all the necessary mental models, data sets, and journal articles required to come to this conclusion.
So what changed his mind about managing the risks of global warming? His non-answer is, "I changed my mind about that, however, because (among other things) I changed my mind about risk management."
I suspect that the real reason is that he has left CATO and is no longer paid to look at the world in a certain way. His revelation that global warming is too risky to play games is mostly a sad confirmation of Sinclair. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
If I was going to find a silver lining it would be that people such as him are finding it somehow worthwhile to believe in the science that they've spent decades trying to refute. Until change is profitable, nothing will change.
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:23 am
This is better than nothing, this was my line of thinking for a while.
- Posts: 885
- Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am
Since economics principles were added to the discussion in regards to risk management, the what, when, where, who, and how have to be answered. The following link is an emission pie chart by the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/source ... -emissions
. How much would each section of the pie chart need to be reduced to satisfy those who want to avoid global warming? How would we convince the people being impacted by the drastic reduction to support those initiatives? What alternative power source would be acceptable that in and of itself doesn't have a carbon footprint in production, transportation, and installation? How would we convince the politicians to support these carbon cutting programs as their vocal constituents start voting their economic interests? And how would we prevent a national green energy program from becoming a boondoggle as everyone rushes to be first? Even smart people can have bad ideas and/or suck at implementation.
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:56 am
- Location: the Netherlands
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11494
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
@Campitor - Emissions really need to come all the way down to 0.00, so the ultimate/eventual answer is the entire pie, unfortunately. The IPCC plan(*) ("2018 Doom report") would have them reduced to 45% of 2010 levels by 2030 (11 years from now) and reaching net 0.00 by 2050 (31 years from now) requiring inventing and concluding a massive installation of [likely bio-energy] carbon capture and storage technology by then. This would keep the long term global surface heating under +2C (after briefly going over for a few decades late this century). There's at least a 66% chance that doing so would avoid hitting one of the positive feedback tipping cycles that would send everything out of control (at which point we can no nothing but try to survive and try not to make the problem worse).
(*) It would really surprise me insofar the scientists proposing it actually thought it would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing anywhere.
Aside from the yet-to-be-invented BECSS, doing this is technically possible (meaning the technology already exists), but I can not for the life of me imagine how the human species would collectively demonstrate that level of foresight/concern for the future if it means paying for it upfront. Most likely, this will be a game of playing catch-up, always doing too little too late. The EU elections held this weekend showed some capacity for rejecting both the narrow-minded nationalist parties and the short-sighted traditional parties in favor of looking somewhat wider/father than---how to put it---the national interests of the current generations in power. Apparently, the past few years have been a bit of a wake-up call to younger generations that voting matters (voter participation was historically high)---there really might be something the The Fourth Turning. Unfortunately, people woke up about 40 years too late, that is, to say that the measure people have agreed to put in place now (insofar the politicians can figure out how to implement them) are adequate insofar they would have happened 40 years ago. What we should be doing now is what I guess people will eventually come around to attempt doing in 2060 ...