50 to 1 Climate mitigation costs 50 times more than Adaptation

THAT was funny. Each new record drop should be labeled 'Natural Variation!'

 

Absolutely, but bigger than the problem of doing bad math and incorrectly calculating ghg impacts from these things, is the damage it can potentially do to the environment. It pretends that ghg is the biggest risk to the environment, not the biodiversity in these old growth areas. I find this similar to the ethanol mandate, where the ghg impact was fudged, and the environmental impact of a monoculture that uses large amounts of pesticides and fertilizer was ignored.

Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets - IOPscience
My summary - if the models are correct and governments don't do something major today (which they won't) then we will blow past the 2 degree rise in temperatures by 2100.

IMHO the world is not going to end here, and no amount of money is going to stop this rise if the models are correct.

 

That is what happens when people like you successfully advocate to delay intervention. Eventually it becomes too late.


Too bad really, that you will not be around to see the consequences of your folly.

 

The world will certainly not end. However, the amount of human suffering, hardship and deaths will/has increased.
And money is not needed, just awareness. A modern home can be built for the same cost as a 'to code' house and save 40% of the energy.

As for stopping the rise, that would require a lot of cooperation. But it is much easier to at least slow the rise.

 

Yes but can you convince people to knock down old inefficient homes and build new ones? Can you do that for no money. Can you oil consumption to 20% of today's per passenger mile for no money? Can you get china to stop building coal power plants and shut them down for no money? What fantacy world makes 80% reduction in ghg in less than 40 years free?

A blast from 1984, cool old Regan video included, most of the lyrics are still true

IMHO the only way to stay under 2 degree rise (if the models are right) is a nuclear war destroying much of china's push for energy.

I am definitely not against reduction of fossil fuel use, I even put forth a strategy for the US in this thread. What I don't think we can do is actually change China's and India's trajectory. If we can't do that reductions in the US are not going to suddenly create a rosy scenario.

The US and Europe are already decreasing ghg emissions. They can do more. China is increasing emissions faster than the US and Europe cut.

 

Remind me again what fraction of China's industrial output is for the US and European markets.

 

They make great MacBooks

 

Here is another new study:


Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health

J. Jason West,(and 9 others)

Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate2009 Received 22 April 2013 Accepted 16 August 2013 Published online 22 September 2013

(from the abstract)

“We use new relationships between chronic mortality and exposure to fine particulate matter and ozone, global modelling methods and new future scenarios. Relative to a reference scenario, global GHG mitigation avoids 0.5±0.2, 1.3±0.5 and 2.2±0.8 million premature deaths in 2030, 2050 and 2100. Global average marginal co-benefits of avoided mortality are US$50–380 per tonne of CO2, which exceed previous estimates, exceed marginal abatement costs in 2030 and 2050, and are within the low range of costs in 2100. East Asian co-benefits are 10–70 times the marginal cost in 2030. Air quality and health co-benefits, especially as they are mainly local and near-term, provide strong additional motivation for transitioning to a low-carbon future.”

 

One projection of world population in 2100 is 11 billion. "Premature deaths" of 2.2 million is just 0.02% of the population. That is virtually in the noise compared to one epidemic of a significant flu.

Studies like that have to be based on an enormous number of assumptions that are questionable today and definitely will be irrelevant 90 years from now. As someone who support sustainability as an essential goal for our decendents, these "clean up or die" publications cause more damage than good.

 

Wish you had excerpted the 50 to 380 $ per ton, instead. I think one useful purpose of the publication is to help us to correctly monetize fossil-C emissions.

For me, sustainability starts with water supply , food supply, and making sure that near-sea-level areas remain habitable. I imagine that those 3 things could cost some serious money. Will they cost much more at 600 ppm instead of 400 ppm CO2 ? If we could answer that question, then we'd be making some progress with this thread.

 

Monetizing CO2 emissions has the same issues. The value out of any "science publication" is based on arbitrary assumptions, not marketplace exchange value (which is where the real monetary value is actually established).

Pollution interactions with the entire environment is too complex to try and reduce to a single number on a single substance. It obscures the issues instead of reveals them. The only thing to be learned from publications like this is learning what assumptions the authors hold, not what the future holds. What you do is real science. What these folks are doing is generating publications labeled as science.

 

Mojo, you say that half trillion could do a lot of excellent things. I don't disagree, but by what mechanism could we divert capital in that direction? Your wisdom tell you that it could only come from ceasing research directed at understanding better how the Earth system works. I would prefer to look elsewhere.

What if the world's most profitable industry ( fossil-C burning) became a bit less profitable? By way of monetizing C emissions. It would be wrong to send that into already-rich pockets, but it there a way for it to achieve sustainability goals? Or is it something of which we dare not speak?

 

In there cap and trade scheme the EU tried to monetize ghg. In the trading scheme prices were set much lower, and now are under 7 euros per ton
Europe's Carbon Market Collapse Won't Kill Cap And Trade

How have they done since the system was created in 2005
United States and European Emission Patterns | The Energy Collective
If you look at just eu27 numbers they have done great, dropping 13.4%. How about the US? Listening to the moaning about the US not doing anything it must be much less right? The US fell 11.7% (est) in the same time period. The US economy though has done much better than europe since 2005, so per $gdp the reductions have been about equal.

Monetizing didn't work much better in europe than do nothing in america. The eu could fix its cap and trade but with a poor economy, they likely won't. The two big drivers of ghg in the US, oil and coal can be addressed, but not likely with a straight carbon tax, or a jumbled cap and trade.

Solar will likely be much cheaper at 600ppm Switching from coal to natural gas is less expensive today. Water supply, carbon taxes would not help there. Ethanol subsidies supposedly to combat ghg seem to hurt food and water security. Many policies are destructive. Only a few are helpful. Taxing diesel less to combat carbon dioxide increases particulates and NOx in european air.

 

I don't think we have spent anything like that, where do those figures come from?
The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria - Forbes
We do as taxpayers, pay for misjudging the climate

Who's Paying the Price for Global Warming?: Scientific American Podcast

These are programs that the government taxes us, pretends the climate is different than it is, then pays out from low priced insurance.

 

Perhaps with the exception of Norway's tropical reforestation, cap and trade until now has been ineffective. Shall we conclude from that it can never serve a useful purpose? Experts, speak up please.

Australia may soon discontinue their C-monetization policies, and science and environmental ministerial posts as well. All good with all of you, right? Aussies don't need that stuff? Do they need CSIRO?

The global economy now continues as sucky. Maybe related to major financial instutions' (unprosecuted) refinancing scam, or maybe not. I see this as an inopportune moment to load on new taxes, even if their cash-showers could be wonderfully redistributed.

Also, local wars continue hither and thither. Messy world. If in any way this plays into the hands of the Energy Companies, we cannot discuss it here. It is FHOP material.

What would be the best multi-decadal outcomes of burning everything, and what would be the worst? What would be the best multi-decadal outcomes of reducing the burn rate, and what would be the worst? Stick some numbers on those 4. We can discuss them here.

We may need another plan. The current plan is to burn everything. Are there no alternatives to consider? This is the 50 to 1 thread, so we have an hypothesis to support or refute.

 

Gosh, now we return to the 2012 US agricultural drought. I usta think that American farmers got hammered, but more recently it looks like they did pretty well.

If in any year, agriculture goes very poorly, the US govt will transfer funds much larger than research to offset ag losses. It is built into the system. It certainly won't go away by Mojo protesting that research should be defunded. It is just a thing.

Should we change that thing? What elcted group of legislators (with hope of local re election) would change it? It is a muddle.

Ag interests and fossil-C interests like the current money flows. Do you think they are optimal? Do you vote????

 

The primary reasons that US GHG emissions have dropped since '08 is 1: the recession dropped demand, and dropped the total number of vehicle miles driven, and 2: the massive switch from coal to natural gas, due in large lrt to fracking. (fracking providing a not all together net benefit however, if you factor in the water quantity and quality issues, coupled with huge accidentl releases of raw methane from well structures that a probably not reported in the total emission numbers (making the US numbers look rosier than they actually are!) and the shear amount of nat gas flaring going on in the Bakann because it is cheaper to flare than to bring to market!)

To somehow give the US a gold star for emission reduction when you actually look at the numbers, and the reasons for the numbers is, shal we say, disengenious.

On side note to Mojo...if we accept you number that we hve spend $1/2 trillion on mitigation, ($500 Billion) do you REALLY think "That money could have brought clean water to every living being on the planet ,cured cancer, fed the starving."?

If so, you are perhaps more delusional than I thought.

Icarus

 

No more or less than your average flat Earther/Apollo moon conspiracy hybrid.

 

You probably just failed to actually read the entire post, or perhaps understand it.

What I was saying was that politicians were giving europe a gold star for "doing something about ghg" with cap and tax, but the result was really not much different than the US do nothing system, that people have been giving an F. You should be graded on results, and Europe had similar reasons for reduction as the US. If they get an A, we should get an A. I give both systems a solid C.

Europes cap and trade does not work. Numbers would have fallen without it, but it did transfer wealth, which may have been its point. It could be fixed, but I doubt it will be. California's cap and trade looks similarly flawed, copying many of the mistakes.

What has worked in US policy. First the biggest boost was the shift from coal to natural gas. Deregulation of natural gas prices, started with Reagan completed with Clinton. Cap and trade and regulation of coal pollutants under bush 41. Industry and DOE improving fracking under clinton and bush 43 to increase supply of natural gas which reduces demand. This was slow, and coal is still favored. Grid systems often dispatch coal first. Old coal plants are grandfathered. Mountain top removal is still allowed. Policy can go much further in regulating the pollution, and this would also help wind and solar as well as natural gas.

The other bright spot was bush 43s raising of cafe standards, increased under obama. The plug-in tax credits may pay off in further reducing oil use.

Policies that did not work - ethanol mandate and subsidies, coal grandfathering, natural gas price controls, long periods of time with no increase in cafe standards (this also helped lead to bad decisions of chrysler and gm leading to their bailout by tax payers). Oil subsidies.

You probably get it, just because a government says a policy is to do X it often does Y. The US and Europe can do much better.

I question the number. The forbes piece I posted that was anti subsidy had much lower numbers. It is probably orders of magnitude lower. A friends charity - Gazelle's foundation - gets clean water to people in africa that do not have it. It does not cost very much for some of these programs, but with $500B we could do a lot of good. There is not that $500B though.