Climate Colab Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
What are the pros and cons of this plan?
|
Rob Laubacher Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Staff
| Proposal contributor
This plan lays out a plausible technology roadmap toward a low carbon future.
|
Thomas Malone Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Staff
|
With the current models of costs, this plan looks like the best alternative to minimize both damage costs and mitigation costs. The closest competing plan is the G8 plan, but the G8 plan has a risk of much greater mitigation costs without much addiitional benefit in reduced damage costs.
|
Adam Siegel Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
Unfortunately stabilization at 450ppm does not align with the latest science, which sets a max of 350ppm. If we stabilize at levels above the maximum limit of 350ppm, there will be extremely high human, social, and financial costs adapt.
|
Josh Introne Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
oui. je suis aussi. La climate es vraimemt mal.
|
Rob Laubacher Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Staff
| Proposal contributor
This plan reduces emissions greatly at moderate cost.
|
Nuno Climaco Pereira Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
Not the perfect, but the feasible and possibly the most effective of all. Despite all the impacts of climate change, I cannot trust in very ambitious long-term political commitments, such as the 350ppm. Just because it's easy to promise, but then this politicians won't be in place in the targeted dates. An example is Europe commitment with Kyoto protocol, only 5 of 15 countries have accomplished their modest targets.
|
Andelman Andelman Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
Yes, but it relies excessively on the good functioning of cap & trade systems. There is no evidence those systems will work properly and without international agreements, emissions will just be offset to countries who will not adopt severe cap&trade regulations.
|
Ktor313 Ktor313 Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
this plan seems like a good approach. my one argument is that I believe that developed countries should reduce their emissions by 75%. I'll try a new scenario like that.
|
Lara Lara Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
This seems like a relatively measured and sane approach. One MAJOR challenge: getting policymakers to agree on the mid-term emissions cuts (like reductions in 2030).
|
Josh Introne Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
We need much stronger controls on multinational corporations!
|
Cristina Cristina Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
Also I like this plan, because it seems to produce an increasing in global temperature of about 2°.
The real challenge for world politicians is to identify suitable solutions to help rapidly developing countries to reduce their emissions.
|
Josh Introne Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
stronger controls on multi-national corporations who don't want to listen to anyone and lead us to self-destruct ourselves in favor of their short-term goals
|
Nuno Climaco Pereira Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
Developing countries are still growing and most of energy intensive industries are now there. And still being delocalized there. 75% would have to mean a radical change of global economy and society model. By so, these current targets of 20% for 2030 seem much more viable.
|
Emg48 Emg48 Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
This is too sane an approach. If we don't do something even more aggressive, we won't have enough of an impact to reduce the negative impacts on billions of people. Somehow, we need to get not only countries but also companies, NGOs, and individuals to collectively achieve a radical shift.
|
Cantoine Cantoine Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
Something in between this and the 450 ppm developed country plan would be better.
|
Josh Introne Sep 30, 2010 03:46
Member
|
Agree we need to be much more prioactivee!
|