I think that’s a little bleak. We certainly won’t hit our more optimistic goals at this point, but 4c is a very negative prediction, even 3.5 is right at the worst end of current predictions.
It certainly is bleak, but time will tell. It was probably twenty years ago when I read scores of papers on this topic. I have only seen us largely fail, then more recently reverse course.
I understand what you are saying regarding ‘bitter rhetoric’ (although I absolutely reject the notion that that describes the content of my post). However I have seen that unrealistic optimism, or what has ultimately been cheerleading for fossil fuel powered capitalism’s continued expansion is far more harmful. An unwillingness to address the scale of our problems has proven more harmful. I am willing to bet 100% of my available money that I am proven right say in 2045, provided I am offered terms that make that wager worthwhile.
The largest single issue with non-bitter-rhetoric has been the claim that ‘net zero’ technology that simply doesn’t exist is going to save us, which happened because IPCC’s working group three 'discounted the future at 5%. In fact this was and still is nothing more than a means to allow business as usual to continue.
(Working group three is the group supposedly responsible for coming up with a plan to mitigate climate change, it contains more economists than scientists, and as you may or may not know, a large part of ‘economics’ is simply cheerleading for capitalism). They said we will discount the future at 5%, meaning money spent on fossil fuels now will return 5%, which compounded means in roughly 14 years that capital has doubled. We’ll do that a few times then invest that money in removing co2 from the atmosphere. Slight digression: when the Soviet Union collapsed we saw one year of 5% reduction in emissions, followed by one year of 4% reduction in emissions. This also resulted in the early deaths of tens of millions. We are approach a point where the scale of emissions required are not possible without causing societal collapse, which usually leads to warfare: the most carbon intensive activity known to human kind. The time for blind optimism has long since past. I have simply come to terms with the range of likely outcomes, and none of them are good from a late twentieth century/early twenty first century perspective.
It certainly is bleak, but time will tell. It was probably twenty years ago when I read scores of papers on this topic. I have only seen us largely fail, then more recently reverse course.
the course reversal is going to go further as our politics continues to shift to the right; even democrats are quietly endorsing high tariffs on green technologies and fossil fuel extraction like biden did.
It certainly is bleak, but time will tell. It was probably twenty years ago when I read scores of papers on this topic. I have only seen us largely fail, then more recently reverse course.
I understand what you are saying regarding ‘bitter rhetoric’ (although I absolutely reject the notion that that describes the content of my post). However I have seen that unrealistic optimism, or what has ultimately been cheerleading for fossil fuel powered capitalism’s continued expansion is far more harmful. An unwillingness to address the scale of our problems has proven more harmful. I am willing to bet 100% of my available money that I am proven right say in 2045, provided I am offered terms that make that wager worthwhile.
The largest single issue with non-bitter-rhetoric has been the claim that ‘net zero’ technology that simply doesn’t exist is going to save us, which happened because IPCC’s working group three 'discounted the future at 5%. In fact this was and still is nothing more than a means to allow business as usual to continue.
(Working group three is the group supposedly responsible for coming up with a plan to mitigate climate change, it contains more economists than scientists, and as you may or may not know, a large part of ‘economics’ is simply cheerleading for capitalism). They said we will discount the future at 5%, meaning money spent on fossil fuels now will return 5%, which compounded means in roughly 14 years that capital has doubled. We’ll do that a few times then invest that money in removing co2 from the atmosphere. Slight digression: when the Soviet Union collapsed we saw one year of 5% reduction in emissions, followed by one year of 4% reduction in emissions. This also resulted in the early deaths of tens of millions. We are approach a point where the scale of emissions required are not possible without causing societal collapse, which usually leads to warfare: the most carbon intensive activity known to human kind. The time for blind optimism has long since past. I have simply come to terms with the range of likely outcomes, and none of them are good from a late twentieth century/early twenty first century perspective.
the course reversal is going to go further as our politics continues to shift to the right; even democrats are quietly endorsing high tariffs on green technologies and fossil fuel extraction like biden did.