Author Topic: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal  (Read 722 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6385
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2017, 10:08:02 am »
oh my! I'm shocked you cherry-picked what parts of my reply you'd actually respond to... shocked I tells ya! I guess everything else was just a tad too inconvenient for you.

Global agreements like Paris are meaningless virtue signaling exercises because they presume various regimes that are already rife with corruption and unable to enforce their existing laws will suddenly be able do because they signed an "agreement". This is in a world where the CO2 obsessed EU regulators turned a blind eye while their own carmakers evaded the spirit of the regulations. The only one who naive is you because you seem to think that such a global monitoring effort is remotely plausible given the governments that exist in the real world.

are you categorically stating that there are no independent means to monitor country specific emissions output... that there are no existing countries/group of countries doing exactly that today? Care to highlight where there are gaps in this current deployed technology monitoring/verification undertaking and which countries, in particular, which specific key country lags in its participation. C'mon, step out from behind your agenda and speak to reality - this is a defined "Technical Solutions" thread after all, hey!

The only issue here is your inability to understand logic. Asserting that there is no evidence that climate change is having a measureable effect on the weather today does not contradict the assertion that climate change effects in the future will largely be weather related. The lack of any credible link today is one of the reasons why adaptation makes more sense.
 
no - there are measurable effects today - simply because you don't accept them, doesn't allow you to ignore/negate them. But your reply here is rich, even coming from you! You are a flat-out denier in refusing to accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to GW/'climate-change'; here in this reply of yours, this is simply you slipping into that somewhat stealthy-denying strategy of "do nothing/delay today" while fronting your adaptation only hobby-horse! You presume to pronounce adaptation as incremental... yet you posit "some future" need for adaptation based on the, as you state, "vagaries of weather" and that "somewhere, at some future time", adaptation will be required. You really should tie-off your summary paragraphs with a Trumpian, "believe me"!

Mitigation when it focuses on cost effective technologies that can actually meet the needs of human populations can still be pursued. What has to go are arbitrary targets that everyone knows will not be met and only serve and an excuse for various rent seekers looking to profit from dumb government decisions made because of the false belief that CO2 reduction targets are a priority.
 
WTF! You were asked, "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?" - you even quoted it in your reply! So why when asked about your statements on adaptation do you revert to this reply of yours speaking to mitigation? Again, WTF! Notwithstanding your continued BS harping on "rent seekers" and false/arbitrary emission reduction targets...

But *local* emission reductions are largely pointless exercises. The atmosphere does not care if the UK or Canada reduces emissions by 20% if the emissions from China and India increase by 10x that amount in absolute terms. That is why I said that emissions reductions are all or nothing. Either everyone reduces emission or anyone who does reduce emissions make sacrifices for nothing. With adaptation societies look after themselves. That is the way it always has been and always should be.

The last point does not mean charity should not be offered to countries lacking the resources to deal with the effects on their own, however, it will be necessary to guard against opportunists who claim spurious connections to climate change in order access money that would not be offered otherwise.
 
no - although you typically go mute when shown the results of successful deployed policy/programs that can and have shown reduced emissions, they're typically provided to you simply because you repeatedly spout off that, "it just can't be done"! At least here in your declaring them as "pointless exercises", you're finally acknowledging them! You have the gall to posture over the absence of an implemented global agreement while at the same time perpetually declaring they're all "useless and arbitrary undertakings" - of course you do! And again, you're either completely blindingly naive or purposely disingenuous in not recognizing the global impacts of climate change on your presumed, "in isolation, every individual country looks after its own adaptation requirements to climate change".