“The climate talks [in Paris] were a fraud”


Dr James Hansen on The Open Mind.

Signatures won’t save the climate”, writes Danielle Ola at PVTech.

And, despite the good news below, Bloomberg New Energy Finance warns:

The 2⁰C scenario would require much more money. On top of the $7.8 trillion, the world would need to invest another $5.3 trillion in zero-carbon power by 2040 to prevent CO2 in the atmosphere rising above the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s ‘safe’ limit of 450 parts per million.

Update, 2016-06-30

Investment in renewables required to achieve global climate goals is ‘entirely possible’”. That’s from IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency).

Update, 2016-07-14

We are apparently heading to the +3C to +4C region, even if COP21 is fully implemented. (See NCAR’s full report.)
Sanderson-ONeill-Tebaldi_fig1_2016-07-14_163539
Sanderson-ONeill-Tebaldi_fig4_2016-07-14_164002

About hypergeometric

See http://www.linkedin.com/in/deepdevelopment/ and http://667-per-cm.net
This entry was posted in adaptation, Anthropocene, Carbon Worshipers, citizenship, climate change, climate disruption, Daniel Kahneman, Eaarth, ecology, Ecology Action, environment, environmental law, fossil fuel divestment, fossil fuels, geophysics, global warming, greenhouse gases, Hyper Anthropocene, James Hansen, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, liberal climate deniers, meteorology, mitigation, natural gas, Neill deGrasse Tyson, oceanography, Our Children's Trust, petroleum, pipelines, rationality, reasonableness, science, Spaceship Earth, sustainability, the energy of the people, the green century, the right to be and act stupid, UU Humanists, Warren Buffett, zero carbon. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to “The climate talks [in Paris] were a fraud”

  1. Gingerbaker says:

    $7.8 plus $5.3 trillion = $13.1 trillion.

    How many AFFE (Annual Fossil Fuel Expenditure) units is that? 2 years worth of worldwide fossil fuel expenditures?

    When we put it into that perspective, we can see what a bargain RE could be.

      • Gingerbaker says:

        Is it exact?

        This is a critically important question, because it seems to me that the best way – by far – to solve AGW is to talk about how much money we will save by doing so (and paint deniers as fossil fuel profiteers).

        And we can’t talk about those numbers because we really don’t know what they are. And we don’t know what they are for two reasons:

        1) Most people don’t write about the topic

        2) Nobody seems to care that how much it costs is dependent on whether we approach the project as a commons project, or just let laissez-faire capitalism worry it around the edges. (People think the latter approach is just Jim Dandy and “empowering” which drives me absolutely bananas.)

  2. The trouble is that people “think fast” about these risks, to borrow the term from Daniel Kahneman, and they should be “thinking slow”. The connection with climate change has been addressed many times elsewhere before.

    The work of Kahneman and late colleague Amos Tversky has been neatly summarized by Heukelom and their’s a piece about their Prospect Theory on Wikipedia. Kahneman shared the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on such behavioral economics.

    If ask him about it, however, you won’t like the answer:

    DANIEL KAHNEMAN is not hopeful. “I am very sorry,” he told me, “but I am deeply pessimistic. I really see no path to success on climate change.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s