| The Paris Agreement: A deficient solution to a non-problem?28-03-2017 23:44 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
President Trump is expected to sign an order today rolling back the US's participation in the Paris Agreement. This action is intended to increase America's energy independence and make or preserve jobs.
The Paris Agreement's central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
One climate scientist, Judith Curry, claims that it won't even come close to accomplishing its goal.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/25/a-roadmap-for-meeting-paris-emissions-reductions-goals/#more-22922
Also it is still debatable whether the cure is even necessary. |
| 28-03-2017 23:54 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Meanwhile, Putin smiles and strokes his cat. |
| 29-03-2017 00:45 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Meanwhile, Putin smiles and strokes his cat.
And China takes over abatement leadership, not because of AGW but because they can't see across the street in their cities. |
| 29-03-2017 00:51 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21597) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Meanwhile, Putin smiles and strokes his cat.
So now it's all a Russian conspiracy, eh?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-03-2017 01:00 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Meanwhile, Putin smiles and strokes his cat.
So now it's all a Russian conspiracy, eh?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It's certainly the outcome that Putin wanted. Russia is almost completely dependent on exports of fossil fuels, so any moves towards reducing fossil fuel consumption could have been potentially disastrous for the Russian economy. This way, they get to keep their export market while not having to overtly oppose AGW mitigation strategies.
The possibility that the Russians interfered with the US election process in order to get an AGW-denying president is considerably more plausible than the worldwide scientific conspiracy proposed by the AGW deniers. |
|
| 29-03-2017 01:01 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
Russia does not need to conspire, we do it for them. |
| 29-03-2017 01:18 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Meanwhile, Putin smiles and strokes his cat.
So now it's all a Russian conspiracy, eh?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It's certainly the outcome that Putin wanted. You think so, eh? It's all a Russian plot!
Surface Detail wrote:
Russia is almost completely dependent on exports of fossil fuels,
so any moves towards reducing fossil fuel consumption could have been potentially disastrous for the Russian economy. Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
Surface Detail wrote:
This way, they get to keep their export market while not having to overtly oppose AGW mitigation strategies.
Did you know we don't import coal, oil, or natural gas from Russia?
Surface Detail wrote:
The possibility that the Russians interfered with the US election process in order to get an AGW-denying president is considerably more plausible than the worldwide scientific conspiracy proposed by the AGW deniers.
You really BELIEVE this, don't you?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Let's keep this joke going! What exactly do you believe the Russians did to interfere with the U.S. election?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 29-03-2017 01:19 |
| 29-03-2017 01:23 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Meanwhile, Putin smiles and strokes his cat.
So now it's all a Russian conspiracy, eh?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It's certainly the outcome that Putin wanted. You think so, eh? It's all a Russian plot!
Surface Detail wrote:
Russia is almost completely dependent on exports of fossil fuels,
so any moves towards reducing fossil fuel consumption could have been potentially disastrous for the Russian economy. Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
Surface Detail wrote:
This way, they get to keep their export market while not having to overtly oppose AGW mitigation strategies.
Did you know we don't import coal, oil, or natural gas from Russia?
Surface Detail wrote:
The possibility that the Russians interfered with the US election process in order to get an AGW-denying president is considerably more plausible than the worldwide scientific conspiracy proposed by the AGW deniers.
You really BELIEVE this, don't you?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Let's keep this joke going! What exactly do you believe the Russians did to interfere with the U.S. election?
Russia, or their agents, is suspected of hacking Hillary's emails.
Back to the subject, Russia is a big exporter of natural gas.
Edited on 29-03-2017 01:39 |
| 29-03-2017 01:28 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
It is you who is giving the impression of being utterly clueless.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fossil fuel
: a fuel (as coal, oil, or natural gas) formed in the earth from plant or animal remains
Edit: And the USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Do try to keep up.
Edited on 29-03-2017 01:29 |
| 29-03-2017 01:46 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
It is you who is giving the impression of being utterly clueless.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fossil fuel
: a fuel (as coal, oil, or natural gas) formed in the earth from plant or animal remains
Edit: And the USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Do try to keep up.
Surface Detail: The master of the straw man response. |
| 29-03-2017 01:50 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
It is you who is giving the impression of being utterly clueless.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fossil fuel
: a fuel (as coal, oil, or natural gas) formed in the earth from plant or animal remains
Edit: And the USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Do try to keep up.
Surface Detail: The master of the straw man response.
Really? In what way have I misrepresented ITN's post? He really does appear to be ignorant of the definition of fossil fuels. |
| 29-03-2017 01:56 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
It is you who is giving the impression of being utterly clueless.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fossil fuel
: a fuel (as coal, oil, or natural gas) formed in the earth from plant or animal remains
Edit: And the USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Do try to keep up.
Surface Detail: The master of the straw man response.
Really? In what way have I misrepresented ITN's post? He really does appear to be ignorant of the definition of fossil fuels.
You knew he meant Russia, not USSR, but you tried to lead the discussion to a straw man diversion.
Edited on 29-03-2017 02:01 |
| 29-03-2017 02:10 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
It is you who is giving the impression of being utterly clueless.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fossil fuel
: a fuel (as coal, oil, or natural gas) formed in the earth from plant or animal remains
Edit: And the USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Do try to keep up.
Surface Detail: The master of the straw man response.
Really? In what way have I misrepresented ITN's post? He really does appear to be ignorant of the definition of fossil fuels.
You knew he meant Russia, not USSR, but you tried to lead the discussion to a straw man diversion.
Nonsense. A strawman argument is based on a misrepresentation of your opponent's position. I have not done that. I simply corrected a mistake that ITN had made. Overly pedantic, perhaps, but not a strawman. It's not as though ITN is averse to doing the same, though he typically adds an insult too. |
| 29-03-2017 02:44 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
It is you who is giving the impression of being utterly clueless.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fossil fuel
: a fuel (as coal, oil, or natural gas) formed in the earth from plant or animal remains
Edit: And the USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Do try to keep up.
Surface Detail: The master of the straw man response.
Really? In what way have I misrepresented ITN's post? He really does appear to be ignorant of the definition of fossil fuels.
You knew he meant Russia, not USSR, but you tried to lead the discussion to a straw man diversion.
Nonsense. A strawman argument is based on a misrepresentation of your opponent's position. I have not done that. I simply corrected a mistake that ITN had made. Overly pedantic, perhaps, but not a strawman. It's not as though ITN is averse to doing the same, though he typically adds an insult too.
Sorry about the propensity for insult in this blog. It is usually, but not always, a last ditch effort to recover from a loosing position. Back to the straw man discussion, the reason I called it a straw man position is that ITN's argument had nothing to do with Russia vs USSR but you jumped on it. It is like jumping on a typo. |
| 29-03-2017 02:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Meanwhile, Putin smiles and strokes his cat.
So now it's all a Russian conspiracy, eh?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It's certainly the outcome that Putin wanted. You think so, eh? It's all a Russian plot!
Surface Detail wrote:
Russia is almost completely dependent on exports of fossil fuels,
so any moves towards reducing fossil fuel consumption could have been potentially disastrous for the Russian economy. Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
Surface Detail wrote:
This way, they get to keep their export market while not having to overtly oppose AGW mitigation strategies.
Did you know we don't import coal, oil, or natural gas from Russia?
Surface Detail wrote:
The possibility that the Russians interfered with the US election process in order to get an AGW-denying president is considerably more plausible than the worldwide scientific conspiracy proposed by the AGW deniers.
You really BELIEVE this, don't you?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Let's keep this joke going! What exactly do you believe the Russians did to interfere with the U.S. election?
Russia, or their agents, is suspected of hacking Hillary's emails.
Isn't that more an indication of how STUPID Hillary was to have her emails on a hackable server? Every time you idiots claim this, you are indicting Hillary, not Trump.
Frescomexico wrote:
Back to the subject, Russia is a big exporter of natural gas.
True. So? We don't buy any of it.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 29-03-2017 02:55 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
It is you who is giving the impression of being utterly clueless.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fossil fuel
: a fuel (as coal, oil, or natural gas) formed in the earth from plant or animal remains
Ah...using a dictionary as if it were a science textbook again...
How do you know any of these materials are formed from plant or animal remains? Hmmmm?
We can synthesize oil on an industrial scale using conditions similar to deep below ground without using any animal or plant material at all.
Methane can also be synthesized, again without the use of any plant or animal material.
We really don't have any idea where coal comes from. We can only guess. There has been some progress synthesizing it as well without any plant or animal remains.
You have no idea where any of that stuff comes from.
Fossils, on the other hand, are typically rock of various sorts. They do not burn.
Surface Detail wrote:
Edit: And the USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Do try to keep up.
Whatever. There's little difference.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-03-2017 02:56 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
It is you who is giving the impression of being utterly clueless.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fossil fuel
: a fuel (as coal, oil, or natural gas) formed in the earth from plant or animal remains
Edit: And the USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Do try to keep up.
Surface Detail: The master of the straw man response.
Really? In what way have I misrepresented ITN's post? He really does appear to be ignorant of the definition of fossil fuels.
No, that would be YOU. Fossils don't burn. Your use of 'fossil fuels' is a political term to refer to any fuel source that is 'evil'.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-03-2017 02:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. If the USSR is dependent on exporting fossils as fuel, they are clueless.
It is you who is giving the impression of being utterly clueless.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fossil fuel
: a fuel (as coal, oil, or natural gas) formed in the earth from plant or animal remains
Edit: And the USSR ceased to exist in 1991. Do try to keep up.
Surface Detail: The master of the straw man response.
Really? In what way have I misrepresented ITN's post? He really does appear to be ignorant of the definition of fossil fuels.
You knew he meant Russia, not USSR, but you tried to lead the discussion to a straw man diversion.
Nonsense. A strawman argument is based on a misrepresentation of your opponent's position. I have not done that. I simply corrected a mistake that ITN had made. Overly pedantic, perhaps, but not a strawman. It's not as though ITN is averse to doing the same, though he typically adds an insult too.
Actually it WAS a strawman. It doesn't matter. You understood what I was referring to. The use of the term served its purpose.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-03-2017 03:59 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
Back to the original subject, if AGW exists, to the extent that it is a problem, the Paris Agreement is not going to solve it and it would be very expensive. Also, the effort necessary to bring the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to pre-industrial levels is way more expensive. So, it seems that Trump is moving in the right direction, albeit for the wrong reasons. |
| 29-03-2017 10:24 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Frescomexico wrote:
Back to the original subject, if AGW exists, to the extent that it is a problem, the Paris Agreement is not going to solve it and it would be very expensive. Also, the effort necessary to bring the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to pre-industrial levels is way more expensive. So, it seems that Trump is moving in the right direction, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Now, that is what you call a strawman argument. Nobody is proposing that we bring the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to pre-industrial levels. You are arguing against a proposition that is not being made.
The purpose of the Paris agreement is to take a step towards stabilising CO2 concentrations at a level which will limit the increase in global temperature to 2C. Expensive, it may be, but at some point we'll need to find alternatives to fossil fuels in any case, as they are depleted. It surely makes sense to start on that now, both mitigating the impacts of AGW and giving us more time to develop alternative sources of energy.
The alternative? We continue on our merry way and our children's children inherit a situation in which temperatures and sea levels are rising and fossil fuels are becoming scarce. I don't think they'll thank us for that. |
| 29-03-2017 13:14 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Back to the original subject, if AGW exists, to the extent that it is a problem, the Paris Agreement is not going to solve it and it would be very expensive. Also, the effort necessary to bring the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to pre-industrial levels is way more expensive. So, it seems that Trump is moving in the right direction, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Now, that is what you call a strawman argument. Nobody is proposing that we bring the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to pre-industrial levels. You are arguing against a proposition that is not being made.
The purpose of the Paris agreement is to take a step towards stabilising CO2 concentrations at a level which will limit the increase in global temperature to 2C. Expensive, it may be, but at some point we'll need to find alternatives to fossil fuels in any case, as they are depleted. It surely makes sense to start on that now, both mitigating the impacts of AGW and giving us more time to develop alternative sources of energy.
The alternative? We continue on our merry way and our children's children inherit a situation in which temperatures and sea levels are rising and fossil fuels are becoming scarce. I don't think they'll thank us for that.
You're right, pre-industrial ievels is an exaggeration of the Paris Agreement goals but, even the negotiators stated that the 2 degree C goal was insufficient. From Wikipedia:
The negotiators of the Agreement however stated that the NDCs and the 2 °C reduction target were insufficient, instead, a 1.5 °C target is required, noting "with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 ̊C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030", and recognizing furthermore "that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ̊C by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 ̊C".
Since the projections didn't go beyond 2030, and since nobody seems to know the sensitivity involved, it is possible that emissions would have to be reduced even more. The truth is we don't know what "continuing on our merry way" will mean to our grandchildren, but we can estimate the cost of reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes and it won't be pleasant even for our children. |
| 29-03-2017 19:18 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Surface Detail wrote:
The alternative? We continue on our merry way and our children's children inherit a situation in which temperatures and sea levels are rising and fossil fuels are becoming scarce. I don't think they'll thank us for that.
What rising temperatures? What rising sea level?
You still using your manufactured data?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-03-2017 20:34 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Back to the original subject, if AGW exists, to the extent that it is a problem, the Paris Agreement is not going to solve it and it would be very expensive. Also, the effort necessary to bring the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to pre-industrial levels is way more expensive. So, it seems that Trump is moving in the right direction, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Now, that is what you call a strawman argument. Nobody is proposing that we bring the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to pre-industrial levels. You are arguing against a proposition that is not being made.
The purpose of the Paris agreement is to take a step towards stabilising CO2 concentrations at a level which will limit the increase in global temperature to 2C. Expensive, it may be, but at some point we'll need to find alternatives to fossil fuels in any case, as they are depleted. It surely makes sense to start on that now, both mitigating the impacts of AGW and giving us more time to develop alternative sources of energy.
The alternative? We continue on our merry way and our children's children inherit a situation in which temperatures and sea levels are rising and fossil fuels are becoming scarce. I don't think they'll thank us for that.
You're right, pre-industrial ievels is an exaggeration of the Paris Agreement goals but, even the negotiators stated that the 2 degree C goal was insufficient. From Wikipedia:
The negotiators of the Agreement however stated that the NDCs and the 2 °C reduction target were insufficient, instead, a 1.5 °C target is required, noting "with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 ̊C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030", and recognizing furthermore "that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ̊C by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 ̊C".
Since the projections didn't go beyond 2030, and since nobody seems to know the sensitivity involved, it is possible that emissions would have to be reduced even more. The truth is we don't know what "continuing on our merry way" will mean to our grandchildren, but we can estimate the cost of reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes and it won't be pleasant even for our children.
Nobody knows anything about the future, but we can make predictions with varying levels of certainty about the future on the basis of current measurements, theories and projections. The rational way to behave is to determine the most probable scenarios and proceed according to cost/benefit analyses based on these. This is basically what the Paris agreement to trying to achieve.
Yes, there are huge uncertainties involved, but our understanding of these should improve with effort and experience. The alternative approach - to simply pretend that the problem doesn't exist as, apparently, advocated by the US Republicans, amongst others - seems both irrational and immoral to me and can't fail to cause greater problems in the future. Problems don't usually simply vanish if you pretend they don't exist! |
| 29-03-2017 20:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Nobody knows anything about the future, but we can make predictions with varying levels of certainty about the future on the basis of current measurements, theories and projections. The rational way to behave is to determine the most probable scenarios and proceed according to cost/benefit analyses based on these.
Gawd. Stay out of Vegas, dude.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-03-2017 23:02 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Back to the original subject, if AGW exists, to the extent that it is a problem, the Paris Agreement is not going to solve it and it would be very expensive. Also, the effort necessary to bring the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to pre-industrial levels is way more expensive. So, it seems that Trump is moving in the right direction, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Now, that is what you call a strawman argument. Nobody is proposing that we bring the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to pre-industrial levels. You are arguing against a proposition that is not being made.
The purpose of the Paris agreement is to take a step towards stabilising CO2 concentrations at a level which will limit the increase in global temperature to 2C. Expensive, it may be, but at some point we'll need to find alternatives to fossil fuels in any case, as they are depleted. It surely makes sense to start on that now, both mitigating the impacts of AGW and giving us more time to develop alternative sources of energy.
The alternative? We continue on our merry way and our children's children inherit a situation in which temperatures and sea levels are rising and fossil fuels are becoming scarce. I don't think they'll thank us for that.
You're right, pre-industrial ievels is an exaggeration of the Paris Agreement goals but, even the negotiators stated that the 2 degree C goal was insufficient. From Wikipedia:
The negotiators of the Agreement however stated that the NDCs and the 2 °C reduction target were insufficient, instead, a 1.5 °C target is required, noting "with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 ̊C scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030", and recognizing furthermore "that much greater emission reduction efforts will be required in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 ̊C by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 ̊C".
Since the projections didn't go beyond 2030, and since nobody seems to know the sensitivity involved, it is possible that emissions would have to be reduced even more. The truth is we don't know what "continuing on our merry way" will mean to our grandchildren, but we can estimate the cost of reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes and it won't be pleasant even for our children.
Nobody knows anything about the future, but we can make predictions with varying levels of certainty about the future on the basis of current measurements, theories and projections. The rational way to behave is to determine the most probable scenarios and proceed according to cost/benefit analyses based on these. This is basically what the Paris agreement to trying to achieve.
Yes, there are huge uncertainties involved, but our understanding of these should improve with effort and experience. The alternative approach - to simply pretend that the problem doesn't exist as, apparently, advocated by the US Republicans, amongst others - seems both irrational and immoral to me and can't fail to cause greater problems in the future. Problems don't usually simply vanish if you pretend they don't exist!
I hear you on the cost/benefit analyses and the costs using present technology and extreme deprivation are astronomical given that the wealthiest nations will have to carry the less wealthy. The benefits attributable to those costs are still largely unknown. They are based on unverified feedbacks plugged into computer models with fudge factors that can make the models predict virtually anything. I have worked with models and know that to be the case.
I realize that climate is not something that we can experiment with in a test tube but the costs associated with trying to manipulate climate are so high that no sane business organization would ever touch it even if they had the funds. I also realize that, given the worst case scenarios, we don't have much time for research. However, there is no empirical evidence of worse case scenarios so let's spend a small part of that climate manipulation cost on further and more unbiased research until we better know what we are dealing with. |