Climate Change Update
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,867
Likes: 466
Some folks will continue to do what little we can, but it won't amount to much in the face of corporate waste, profit over sustainability & the wasteful lives of those they share the planet with.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,579
Likes: 157
From: West Deptford NJ
https://www.investopedia.com/article...ioxide-co2.asp
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 34,130
Likes: 126
From: Canton, MA
Here is another point of view about the problem and how to address it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-ign...ate-1539125496
While the author does not deny the problem, he rejects the IPCC's advice on the grounds that the cost to meet their proposal outweighs the cost of living with the consequences. From the article:
The IPCC says carbon emissions need to peak right now and fall rapidly to avert catastrophe. Models actually reveal that to achieve the 2.7-degree goal the world must stop all fossil fuel use in less than four years. Yet the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 fossil fuels will still meet three-quarters of world energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented. The U.N. body responsible for the accord estimates that if every country fulfills every pledge by 2030, CO2 emissions will be cut by 60 billion tons by 2030. That’s less than 1% of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 2.7 degrees. And achieving even that fraction would be vastly expensive—reducing world-wide growth $1 trillion to $2 trillion each year by 2030.
The European Union promises to cut emissions 80% by 2050. With realistic assumptions about technology, and the optimistic assumption that the EU’s climate policy is very well designed and coordinated, the average of seven leading peer-reviewed models finds EU annual costs will reach €2.9 trillion ($3.3 trillion), more than twice what EU governments spend today on health, education, recreation, housing, environment, police and defense combined. In reality, it is likely to cost much more because EU climate legislation has been an inefficient patchwork. If that continues, the policy will make the EU 24% poorer in 2050.
Trying to do more, as the IPCC urges, would be phenomenally expensive. It is important to keep things in perspective, challenging as that is given the hysterical tone of the reaction to the panel’s latest offering. In its latest full report, the IPCC estimated that in 60 years unmitigated global warming would cost the planet between 0.2% and 2% of gross domestic product. That’s simply not the end of the world.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-ign...ate-1539125496
While the author does not deny the problem, he rejects the IPCC's advice on the grounds that the cost to meet their proposal outweighs the cost of living with the consequences. From the article:
The IPCC says carbon emissions need to peak right now and fall rapidly to avert catastrophe. Models actually reveal that to achieve the 2.7-degree goal the world must stop all fossil fuel use in less than four years. Yet the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 fossil fuels will still meet three-quarters of world energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented. The U.N. body responsible for the accord estimates that if every country fulfills every pledge by 2030, CO2 emissions will be cut by 60 billion tons by 2030. That’s less than 1% of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 2.7 degrees. And achieving even that fraction would be vastly expensive—reducing world-wide growth $1 trillion to $2 trillion each year by 2030.
The European Union promises to cut emissions 80% by 2050. With realistic assumptions about technology, and the optimistic assumption that the EU’s climate policy is very well designed and coordinated, the average of seven leading peer-reviewed models finds EU annual costs will reach €2.9 trillion ($3.3 trillion), more than twice what EU governments spend today on health, education, recreation, housing, environment, police and defense combined. In reality, it is likely to cost much more because EU climate legislation has been an inefficient patchwork. If that continues, the policy will make the EU 24% poorer in 2050.
Trying to do more, as the IPCC urges, would be phenomenally expensive. It is important to keep things in perspective, challenging as that is given the hysterical tone of the reaction to the panel’s latest offering. In its latest full report, the IPCC estimated that in 60 years unmitigated global warming would cost the planet between 0.2% and 2% of gross domestic product. That’s simply not the end of the world.
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 82,468
Likes: 1,193
How about:
Charge the Tesla with solar panels.
Replace the lawn with ground cover vs grass that needs to be mowed.
Build a rain garden and direct all of your downspouts to it.
Use less plastics!
Turn the fricken' lights off in the house when you aren't using them. Sorry, that is a pet peeve!
Plant trees!
Walk or ride a bike to the store in possible.
Stop looking at your cell phone while driving.....oh wait, that is for another thread!
Charge the Tesla with solar panels.
Replace the lawn with ground cover vs grass that needs to be mowed.
Build a rain garden and direct all of your downspouts to it.
Use less plastics!
Turn the fricken' lights off in the house when you aren't using them. Sorry, that is a pet peeve!
Plant trees!
Walk or ride a bike to the store in possible.
Stop looking at your cell phone while driving.....oh wait, that is for another thread!
I try to make as small of an impact on the environment as possible but it’s not always feasible. I try to use the same plastic water bottle for as long as possible, using just tap water to refill it. I stop on the way home from work to grocery shop versus going home and then going back out after I get home. I cancelled the home delivery of the local newspaper. Get it online.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 45,781
Likes: 8,288
From: Mish-she-gan
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16,375
Likes: 2,616
From: Long Beach, MS
Here is another point of view about the problem and how to address it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-ign...ate-1539125496
While the author does not deny the problem, he rejects the IPCC's advice on the grounds that the cost to meet their proposal outweighs the cost of living with the consequences.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-ign...ate-1539125496
While the author does not deny the problem, he rejects the IPCC's advice on the grounds that the cost to meet their proposal outweighs the cost of living with the consequences.