Thanks Arthur, I missed that, probably because of sheer disinterest. :-)
Brings me back to one of my original points: if we get to the 1.5 level by 2030, and the IPCC consensus estimates hold, then we get to 2 degrees between 2050 and 2060.
And if we can’t transition organically to renewables by then, then we probably deserve to be treading water.
So, that gets us back to the OTHER point: the only way that the terrifying “destruction of humanity” predictions come true is if the outlier warming projections are true. And, managing to those outliers would cause you to rip up your economy in the process; for some, the solution could be worse than the disease.
Do you concur?
Here’s where I see this going:
- The Paris Accords will fall apart, now that the US isn’t around to foot the bill using taxpayer money.
- There will be no major governmental actions to curb warming on the part of anyone. Neither the Europeans nor the Americans will end up transferring major amounts of money to developing nations to establish renewables in their nations. Developed nations who want to tax and spend to push renewable development will find that it causes them to get crushed at the ballot box.
- That said, many developing nations will invest in renewables as they grow, despite the lack of support. NGOs will pop up to help with hydro and geothermal technology establishment in developing nations.
- Worldwide per capita carbon emissions will decline organically over time as renewables become more economically feasible, not because the government forces the movement with regulation.
- The rate of decline will continue to offend climate activists, claiming that it is too slow, for the rest of yours and mine entire lifetimes, and beyond.
- Matt will die happy in the 2080’s or 2090’s, surrounded by his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, wondering how it was that none of the things he thought were going to happen in his teens actually came to pass.