Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (42508)	8/27/2013 10:31:38 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

Same thing was happening B4 the first man burned the first lump of coal. Man, not termite, has upset the balance. Report: The More Carbon Emissions We Cut, The Better The World Economy Does By Jeff Spross on August 27, 2013 at 8:47 am CREDIT: NREL Work from an international effort to model climate change’s effects show that the more carbon emissions humanity cuts, the better the global economy will perform over the next century. The report is part of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was set up by the United Nations to offer a comprehensive assessment of climate science. The last report — the AR4 — was put out in 2007. And while the AR5 is not due until 2014, numbers from it are already making their way out. One big change between the AR4 and the AR5 will be the switch from “Special Report On Emissions Scenarios” (SRES) to “Representative Concentration Pathways” (RCPs) as tools for projecting future climates and economies. Both are extremely involved models that build in greenhouse gas emissions, climate changes, population changes, technological development, land use, and a host of other factors. But the RCPs are more advanced, and more importantly they also model what would happen if governments got proactive about cutting carbon emissions through policy changes. The graph below shows the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million (ppm) under four different RCP scenarios. The RCP2.6 (the green line) features the most aggressive reduction in carbon emissions by the global community, which stabilizes the carbon concentration around 450 ppm and then slowly brings it down. The RCP8.5 (the blue line) shows us blasting nearly all the way to 1,000 ppm by 2100, which is what we’re likely to do if we continue business as usual. CREDIT: The representative concentration pathways – van Vuuren et.al. 2011 Now look at this graph. That’s the wealth the planet will produce as modeled under the four RCPs. Needless to say, it doesn’t bode well for the claim that aggressively cutting carbon emissions will wreck the economy. CREDIT: The representative concentration pathways – van Vuuren et.al. 2011 By the end of the century, the global economy would be well over $100 trillion larger under the most ambitious policies to reduce carbon emissions, versus the business-as-usual scenario. There’s a reason for this. Climate change means more droughts and altered rain patterns, leading to greater food insecurity. It means constricted freshwater supplies and heat waves, putting more strain on the infrastructure of cities and communities. It means less water to help run power stations and manufacturing processes, and altered river flows that can render shipping lanes useless. It means stronger storms and extreme weather that cause more damage, and it even means new and larger climate areas diseases can travel in. Add it all up, and it means a lot of damage to the economy. The RCP2.6 is the course of action most likely to keep us under two degrees Celsius of warming — the threshold above which climate change becomes really dangerous according to most scientists. But the RCP8.5 is the scenario most likely to get us near five degrees Celsius of warming, an outcome summed up by David Roberts of Grist as “hell on earth.” Worse, the IPCC reports are consensus documents between many players. That leads them to be conservative in their climate projections, with a tendency to lowball their estimates of the worst case scenarios. So the consequences for the climate — and thus for the economy — could in fact be much worse than the RCP8.5 modeling accounts for. HT: Skeptical Science thinkprogress.org