7comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
 Maurice Goulding Nov 10, 2010 04:10  |
You say this is a realistic solution, but your "solution" can be likened to shielding a home with an umbrella in a hurricane. I mean for this to be constructive criticism, but your group must realize that leading scientists believe we need to stay well under 400ppm, yes? People must make the change or suffer the consequences. There's really no point in doing anything half way. The environment is not sitting at the table ready to compromise with what the human species wants. If is far more realistic to just wait and let the Earth balance itself out and eliminate most of the global human population through flood, drought, famine and disease.
|
Null Null Nov 10, 2010 05:26 | Proposal contributor
Dear Crisco-luv,
I encourage you to read more in detail our proposal and the reason why we make it. As climate scientists (I know that the word has been a little depreciated recently) working on prediction models we definitely agree that this 617 ppm is not a desirable outcome. Although this target has been designed so we can reach a first compromise. Our feeling is that no country is ready to make a giant leap now (so what about more than 190 countries) so the only way to agree is to have a low target. Of course this would lead to the creation of institutions and of a framework on which we can work later to reach a more "safe" level.
Once again the reason why we propose this plan is explained more in detail in the description of our plan.
Arthur Gueneau
|
 Yang Ruan Nov 10, 2010 05:05 |
Presumably we can continue to mitigate beyond 2100. Perhaps having an end date in 2100 is a little misleading. This is a restriction of most of the climate models, probably for good reason as things get more and more uncertain.
|
Jodi Schneider Nov 18, 2010 02:02 |
Without further information, tripling emissions for Africa seems reasonable--but it would be useful to have figures on current emissions and graphs of the projected values (both with your proposal and without it) on a per-country basis. The fact that I have to go look for them on another tab (which isn't clearly labelled) is harmful to getting me to agree.
It's also not clear what the mitigation costs are based on.
|
Yang Ruan Nov 20, 2010 12:32 |
One thing I like is that the start dates for the different country groups is different. I think this is much more realistic and fair.
I think getting some kind of action is more important than getting the exact target right. It is clear that there will be damage no matter what the target is. This is because it would take a long time to bring down emissions and there is a large lag in the environmental responses to high CO2 concentrations (like the rising sea level). There is a real danger of doing a lot of mitigation, climate change continuing, and people then saying, "see it didn't work." What is the real irony is that while many of us here take the BAU levels as truth, but if we really mitigated, there is no way to prove that BAU would have really happened so people may again be reluctant to give credit to mitigation policies.
At any rate, even if we reach a 550 ppm target by 2100, we would probably want to reduce emissions further beyond that. In that sense, "overshoot" is inevitable. In fact, for all of the proposals, carbon concentration is rising at a positive slope by 2100, so plans with lower concentrations at 2100 will still eventually reach 600 or higher.
|
 Rob Laubacher Nov 22, 2010 01:12  |
The mitigation cost estimates are based on date from a group of emission stabilization scenarios generated as part of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum's EMF 22 exercise.
For more information, see https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/resources/-/wiki/Main/EMF+22+response+surfaces
|
Yang Ruan Nov 29, 2010 09:27 |
Congratulations on winning the Judge's Choice Award!
|
