clv101 wrote:The carbon arithmetic presented so clearly by Kevin Anderson makes it clear the 2 degree target is impossible without imminent, dramatic, rapid action - action which absolutely isn't forthcoming.
I have not looked at the carbon arithmetic, but I think you are probably right in the round if not the specific. The relatively mild actions so far have resulted in Trumpery.
clv101 wrote:The carbon arithmetic presented so clearly by Kevin Anderson makes it clear the 2 degree target is impossible without imminent, dramatic, rapid action - action which absolutely isn't forthcoming.
I have not looked at the carbon arithmetic, but I think you are probably right in the round if not the specific. The relatively mild actions so far have resulted in Trumpery.
You think that's the reason for Trump?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
No I don't think that's the reason for Trump. It has, however, resulted in him saying
the idiot - even more of an idiot than varoufakis wrote:
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
clv101 wrote:the 2 degree target is impossible without imminent, dramatic, rapid action - action which absolutely isn't forthcoming.
Nutshell, big time.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
So for Nordhaus, the aim of the exercise is to do the sums and find the level of climate mitigation effort that minimises the costs of climate change AND the costs of mitigation when added together – all discounted back to present values.
Nordhaus speculates that there will be some benefits of extra recreation in the US from a warmer world, but some loss of life elsewhere
Economists really are the scum of the earth and get far more attention than their predictions merit.
This is what a group of powerful people look like when they lose touch with reality
Hear fecking hear.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
When they discount back to present values they are putting a much lower value on future benefits, i.e. the lives of our children and grandchildren, than they are on ours. So we will be much better off than our offspring because our politicians who listen to our economists have arranged it that way.
I don't actually understand why people discount the future. I mean, I'm allowed to b/c my heart might pack it in soon (I still don't, though, b/c of the younger Renewables). But *normal* people? Why?
I don't think that normal people, if normal is people who think about things, discount the future. It is economists who regularly do it and on a professional basis as well!!
By the way, welcome back, Candy. You've been doing a bit of reading in the past few days by the look of the number of posts recently!
