Author Topic: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal  (Read 714 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6377
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« on: November 27, 2017, 08:29:05 am »
The trouble with any rational cost-benefit analysis is it depends on so many economic and technological assumptions and outright guesses that they are meaningless. So when someone says it is more cost effective to spend a trillions reducing the increase CO2 emissions by 5% than it would be to to pay for various measures needed to adaptation I can say with confidence that they are basing their claim on nothing but guesses and if these guesses were made by someone with an agenda then those guesses are nothing but ideological propaganda.

To be clear, the meaningless of cost benefit analyses also applies to analyses that say adaptation is a better option. [waldo: which paints your aforementioned, "stating with confidence", as nothing more than an attachment to your personal predilections... i.e., as meaningless as your interpretation. And the irony is thick in this thread, as the OP's silver bullet geo-engineering concept is, in itself, an adaptation approach... ]

I prefer adaption because:

1) Adaptation is local - no global agreements required and no problem with freeloaders/cheaters; [waldo: this is an incredibly naive statement, notwithstanding its isolated focus on effect, rather than cause. The environment is not local, oceans are not local, the atmosphere is not local, etc.. It's also predicated on an acceptance that developing/smaller nations will not be able to adapt given the absence of global assistance; developing/smaller nations where adaptation capacity is often the lowest and needs are the highest - too bad, so sad for them! And, of course, you play out one of your favourite go-to's: freeloaders/cheaters! Of course you do, in spite of repeatedly being shown the stringent auditing approaches integrated into global agreements.]

2) Adaptation only requires deployment of tech that we already use to protect against the vagaries of weather - so it is lower risk; [waldo: outside of being such an ignorant comment, your accommodation to the "vagaries of weather" is a real testament to the heights of your hypocrisy... you're the guy who steadfastly refuses to accept changing weather ties to climate change - oh my! That you would imply there are no technology gaps associated with adaptation is a true reflection on your blow-hardiness, on your know-nothingness!]

3) Adaptation is incremental. Every little bit helps. CO2 mitigation is all or nothing - i.e. if we don't cut CO2 by enough we will still need to spend on adaption. [waldo: riddle me this: in the face of limited funding scenarios, as adaptation costs are emissions dependent, how do you reconcile an iterative adaptation only approach to ever increasing global temperatures? How many iterations, how many... increments in your view to target effects only in the absence of causal mitigation? Those with any understanding don't propose, as you imply, a mitigation only strategy; rather, what is needed quite obviously is a 3-pronged strategy of prevention, adaptation and mitigation.]

4) Many specific examples of CO2 mitigation are virtue signalling exercises that have no chance of achieving their stated goal - this means I have little confidence that governments are capable providing incentives that actually reduce *global* CO2 emissions. [waldo: you've repeatedly been shown how various policy approaches have acted to reduce country/localized specific emissions - you simply choose to ignore them, over and over again. And yet you have all the confidence in governments capability to manage incremental/iterative adaptation in the face of completely ignoring rising global emissions and rising global temperatures - how self-serving and selective to your fossil-fuel BigOil allegiance - yes?]