Also inherent in the assumptions of the Greens is that there is such a thing as the “correct” global mean of temperatures. It is now readily apparent that what they will accept is the complete absence of man’s impact on the environment, which will never occur absent the existence of man!
In fairness to them, there is clearly a temperature band that humans need to survive and grow crops. There is no evidence, however, that we are moving outside that temperature band any time soon due to carbon dioxide emissions.
As you admit much of the carbon is already in the atmosphere. By adding more we are condemning future generations, just as prior generations have condemned us to suffer from their pollution. Do we want to do that when there are ways to avoid a large part of it? I am strongly pro-nuclear, by the way.
So how many trillion dollars is it worth to lower the future temperatures by 0.5°C?
And are you sure that is the best place to put all that money?
In North America natural gas is a far more cost-effective than nuclear, and it can be constructed in about 1/10th the time. Plus natural gas can replace all uses of coal, which nuclear cannot.
> Under current technology, we have no cost-effective method to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,
Really? Trees and bamboo and oceanic algae are by many standards extremely cost-effective, in that they spread through appropriate environments without requiring any human intervention at all. The problem is scale - only so many places have enough sun, water, and the right mix of trace elements, most of which are already in use. So, consider a technique which is, in human hands, somewhat more recent (if you can call the mesolithic "recent"), though fundamentally even older than algae: grinding up rocks, pouring resultant powder into the sea. https://worksinprogress.co/issue/olivine-weathering/
Good catch. I updated the text to make it more accurate.
“ Under current technology, we have no cost-effective method to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that is politically acceptable to Greens, so we have no choice but to adapt to future temperature increases or experiment with geo-engineering.”
But your comment ignores the main point of the article: that very expensive and lengthy programs to transform our energy system lead to very small changes in future temperatures.
Thank you - much needed data to counter the arguments from the greens/left that “we have to do something to save the planet”.
Also inherent in the assumptions of the Greens is that there is such a thing as the “correct” global mean of temperatures. It is now readily apparent that what they will accept is the complete absence of man’s impact on the environment, which will never occur absent the existence of man!
Thanks for the comment.
In fairness to them, there is clearly a temperature band that humans need to survive and grow crops. There is no evidence, however, that we are moving outside that temperature band any time soon due to carbon dioxide emissions.
As you admit much of the carbon is already in the atmosphere. By adding more we are condemning future generations, just as prior generations have condemned us to suffer from their pollution. Do we want to do that when there are ways to avoid a large part of it? I am strongly pro-nuclear, by the way.
Carbo dioxide is not pollution.
So how many trillion dollars is it worth to lower the future temperatures by 0.5°C?
And are you sure that is the best place to put all that money?
In North America natural gas is a far more cost-effective than nuclear, and it can be constructed in about 1/10th the time. Plus natural gas can replace all uses of coal, which nuclear cannot.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/a-simple-and-cost-effective-plan
> Under current technology, we have no cost-effective method to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,
Really? Trees and bamboo and oceanic algae are by many standards extremely cost-effective, in that they spread through appropriate environments without requiring any human intervention at all. The problem is scale - only so many places have enough sun, water, and the right mix of trace elements, most of which are already in use. So, consider a technique which is, in human hands, somewhat more recent (if you can call the mesolithic "recent"), though fundamentally even older than algae: grinding up rocks, pouring resultant powder into the sea. https://worksinprogress.co/issue/olivine-weathering/
Good catch. I updated the text to make it more accurate.
“ Under current technology, we have no cost-effective method to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that is politically acceptable to Greens, so we have no choice but to adapt to future temperature increases or experiment with geo-engineering.”
But your comment ignores the main point of the article: that very expensive and lengthy programs to transform our energy system lead to very small changes in future temperatures.