![]() ![]() This binary characterization of the climate problem is curiously out of step with climate science.įranzen cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s projections of emission reductions needed to fall within 2 degrees and deems them unrealistic. ![]() ![]() He looks back at thirty years of strong global emissions growth even after the scientific community started warning of a serious climate problem as evidence that future efforts to rein in emissions are destined to fail.įranzen writes, “In the long run, it probably makes no difference how badly we overshoot two degrees once the point of no return is passed, the world will become self-transforming.” In essence, he suggests society as we know it can survive at plus 1.99 degrees Celsius, but not at plus 2.01. He suggests that scientists’ sophisticated climate models-which run thousands of emissions scenarios to look at a range of possible outcomes-are trafficking in unrealistic hope if they incorporate complete decarbonization by mid-century.īy doing his “own kind of modelling” (thought experiments), Franzen identifies myriad reasons why complete decarbonization will not occur: widespread climate change denial, the inherent disconnect between costs incurred today and benefits largely received by future generations, and non-actors free-riding on the emission reductions of others. Why the pessimism? Franzen sees human behavior driven by individual self-interest as anathema to the collective action needed to keep global temperatures from rising two degrees above pre-industrial levels-net zero carbon emissions by 2050. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |