Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at https://climatecolab.org/page/readonly.
Skip navigation
2comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Greg Robie

Jan 25, 2016
06:59

Member


1 |
Share via:

FYI, the 2°C 'goal' is a political, not a scientific one. It assumes that climate sensitivity is ~3, and wishes away the "fat tail" of the probability distribution regarding the current certainty about this number. The models that show that 2°C is yet an achievable goal factor into their calculations scaled carbon capture and storage technologies that are yet to make economic "sense"/cents. As an aside, the second plant on the planet that uses this technology  (& was built in a record six years), is having to pipe its CO2 80 miles to oil fields to assist in post-peak production of oil from those fields…to make [again] cents! But for motivated reasoning, a lack of a book, or technology is not the problem nor the solution. CapitalismFail with its enabling limited liability laws and their markets is. Freedom is, systemically, the right to be responsible. Hasn't freedom become an oxymoron: the right to be irresponsible…& the most exercised right in the Nation? If so, how does this proposal not feed into this social dynamic?


Ron Smith

Jan 29, 2016
04:53

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Thanks to opentoinfo for reading and reviewing the Yes We Can ! proposal.  Your critique appears to have several elements:

1. 2 degrees C may not be a problem because the "fat tail" in a probability distribution is not properly considered.  - Response: Recall Pascal's argument for the existence of God - if a moderate action today might or might not make an infinite future difference, the moderate action is justified even in view of the uncertainty.  A similar line of reasoning applies to taking reasonable action on global warming.  Further, the evidence for 2 degrees C is actually rather compelling.  Further yet, the Yes We Can ! program pays for itself and, like the space program, spins off significant collateral benefits.

2. Achievability of 2 degree C solution requires actions that do not make economic sense. - Response: Anchor of the Yes We Can ! solution is a transportation infrastructure that pays for itself and feeds synergistic effectiveness multipliers to all of the remaining legs of the solution.  The transportation infrastructure itself is expensive but can be approached incrementally, with early adapters proving the cost-effectiveness and a wider accepting gradual acceleration of the program over a 20 year period.  The sooner the better, but GRATIS or something like it is inevetable, in my humble opinion.

3. Carbon capture is unproven. - Response; switching to non-carbon electric power generation and electric transportation energy bypasses the need for carbon capture.  Re-forestation, on the other hand, is an important means of reversing CO2 accumulation.  Albedo modification may also be needed to reduce temperature as an adaptation.  All in good time.

4. The proposal advocates actions that contribute to a pervasive societal malaise. - Response; On the contrary, getting the technology community engaged in a global scale common purpose energizes the engineers, the builders, and like the space program, fires up imagination across the entire population.

5. Limited liability of capitalism is the root cause of our problem.  Response; Limitation of corporate liability encourages risk and investment.  We need those.

6.  Freedom; I'm all for it.  Even misguided freedom comes home by trial and error.  Abraham Lincoln said "God must love common people.  He made so many of them."