According to the PwC Low Carbon Emission Index, Australia lead the world in reduction of carbon intensity last year. The economy’s carbon intensity reduced by an astounding 7.2% in 2013.

Global economies must lower carbon emissions at five times the levels currently achieved

—-
“In the Index’s G20 analysis, an unexpected champion surpassed the annual target – Australia – recording a decarbonisation rate of 7.2% over 2013, putting it top of the table for the second year in a row. Three other countries – the UK, Italy and China – achieved a decarbonisation rate of between 4% and 5%. Five countries, however, increased their carbon intensity over 2013 – France, the US, India, Germany and Brazil.”
—-

dv said:

According to the PwC Low Carbon Emission Index, Australia lead the world in reduction of carbon intensity last year. The economy’s carbon intensity reduced by an astounding 7.2% in 2013.

Global economies must lower carbon emissions at five times the levels currently achieved

—-
“In the Index’s G20 analysis, an unexpected champion surpassed the annual target – Australia – recording a decarbonisation rate of 7.2% over 2013, putting it top of the table for the second year in a row. Three other countries – the UK, Italy and China – achieved a decarbonisation rate of between 4% and 5%. Five countries, however, increased their carbon intensity over 2013 – France, the US, India, Germany and Brazil.”
—-

is like The Biggest Loser where the real fatties are the ones that, in the beginning, lose weight the fastest?

What the hell is carbon intensity

Would this be mainly down to the mothballing of aluminium smelters?

What the hell is carbon intensity, you might be asking yourself.

It basically means the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of real GDP. The Australian economy grew by around 3% in real terms in 2013, and our greenhouse gas emissions dropped by about 4%, so our GHGe per GDP reduced by about 7%.

sibeen said:

Would this be mainly down to the mothballing of aluminium smelters?

probably has something to do with it… along with increases in the efficiency of household electrical consumption and the increase in uptake of rooftop solar.

sibeen said:

Would this be mainly down to the mothballing of aluminium smelters?

I haven’t looked at the details. I’ll let MZL take care of that.

I’ll tell you what it’s not.
It’s not those energy efficient light bulbs for the blind that are guaranteed for 2 years and last 3 months, have f’k all candle power and are making optometrists richer than weather girls.

Peak Warming Man said:

I’ll tell you what it’s not.
It’s not those energy efficient light bulbs for the blind that are guaranteed for 2 years and last 3 months, have f’k all candle power and are making optometrists richer than weather girls.

Yes they are as useless as low wat shower heads.

A couple of gramms of electricity is more expensive than a couple of gramms of coke these days.. I’m not surprised our intensity is drooping

Dropbear said:

A couple of gramms of electricity is more expensive than a couple of gramms of coke these days.. I’m not surprised our intensity is drooping

And you can’t even snort it off a supermodels behind

That’s how Tesla died.

You think as our technology progresses electricity and water would come down in price, seems to be opposite

Cymek said:

You think as our technology progresses electricity and water would come down in price, seems to be opposite

It’s all “maintenance” costs now.

Cymek said:

You think as our technology progresses electricity and water would come down in price, seems to be opposite

When nuclear power stations first came online the predictions were that electricity would become too cheap to meter

Cymek said:

You think as our technology progresses electricity and water would come down in price, seems to be opposite

I’m not sure I agree with that particular characterisation

Tracking these stats over the next few years will be interesting.

MartinB said:

Tracking these stats over the next few years will be interesting.

And perhaps somewhat disheartening.

Cymek said:

You think as our technology progresses electricity and water would come down in price, seems to be opposite

I think the unit price for electricity will continue to increase, and the % of income spent on electricity will continue to decrease.

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

A couple of gramms of electricity is more expensive than a couple of gramms of coke these days.. I’m not surprised our intensity is drooping

And you can’t even snort it off a supermodels behind

Supermodels prefer it being snorted up their behind!

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

A couple of gramms of electricity is more expensive than a couple of gramms of coke these days.. I’m not surprised our intensity is drooping

And you can’t even snort it off a supermodels behind

Supermodels prefer it being snorted up their behind!

It’s not all about them, you know

from PwC

PwC’s climate change analysts estimate global economies need to cut their energy related carbon emissions for every $ of GDP by 6.2% every year from now to 2100.

That’s more than five times the rate currently achieved.

For the sixth successive year of PwC analysis finds that the global carbon intensity reduction target has been missed.

The gap between what countries are doing and what’s needed continues to grow.

The reduction target is an estimate of how much countries need to reduce their energy related emissions by, while growing their economy, in order to limit global warming to 2°C.
2°C of warming is the limit scientists agree is needed to ensuring the serious risks of runaway climate change impacts are avoided.… (Non scientific, no such thing)

Current rates of carbon intensity mean the total amount of carbon the IPCC have advised the world can emit this century to limit climate change to 2°C, will be depleted within 20 years.
<<<

Such exact figures from such a rubbery hypothesis.

how can the IPCC advise anyone on the allowable amount of co2 they can emit, globally or otherwise, to limit warming to 2C, when they have no consensus on the figure for equilibrium climate sensitivity?

In other words, the IPCC don’t know what atmospheric level of co2 will produce a warming of 2C.

projections from their numerous models & their numerous runs result in a 2 C warming from an atmospheric level of CO2 anywhere from 385 ppmv (which we have passed already clearly debunking the higher model estimates of 2 x CO2 = 4.5C) to 720 ppmv.

380 ppmv to 720 ppmv can result in a warming of 2C depending on which model run you choose to believe.

And many recent papers are showing an ECS of less than 1.5C for 2 x CO2

>>> 2 C above pre-industrial temperatures <<<

Besides 2C representing an arbitrary threshold rather than a significant one what pre industrial temperature are they referring too?

Conveniently, the coldest period of the little ice age or the warmer periods prior ?????

.
this paper puts the goals and objectives of ‘climate stabilization’ into context

Discursive stability meets climate instability: A critical exploration of the concept
of ‘climate stabilization’ in contemporary climate policy

Maxwell T. Boykoff David Frame Samuel Randalls

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2805-2009.58.pdf

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2805-2009.58.pdf

A B S T R A C T
The goals and objectives of ‘climate stabilization’ feature heavily in contemporary environmental policy and in this paper we trace the factors that have contributed to the rise of this concept and the scientific ideas behind it. We posit that the fundamental premises behind stabilization targets are badly matched to the actual problem of the intergenerational management of climate change, scientifically and politically, and destined to fail.

By extension, we argue that policy proposals for climate stabilization are problematic, infeasible, and hence impede more productive policy action on climate change.

Policymakers essentially want to know at what point they can ‘acceptably’ stabilize concentrations (via the manipulation of emissions) in a way that will avoid both dangerous anthropogenic interference (hereafter DAI) in the climate system, while also avoiding future welfare reductions associated with reductions in economic growth.

In January 2007, the European Union (EU) set out proposals and options for limiting global warming to no more than 2 C above pre-industrial temperatures.
From such a target, two sorts of problematic inferences are frequently drawn:
first, that we can easily infer equilibrium concentration targets from equilibrium temperature targets, and vice versa;
and second, that 2 C represents a significant rather than arbitrary threshold. Generally, reports that invite such questionable inferences do not explicitly endorse them, but they relegate caveats to the fine print thus cementing an ideal stabilization target in the political and popular imagination.

Reaching coordinated solutions to climate change becomes a question of mitigating and managing the long-term future in a very specific, highly abstract way, since it involves future generations emitting just enough CO2 to maintain the concentrations at their target levels indefinitely regardless of the implications of this strategy for them and their descendants.

Shackley et al (1998, p. 194) have commented, ‘‘the impression that climate change can be so predicted and managed is not only misleading, but it could also have negative repercussions should policymakers act on this assumption.’’

The growing numbers of ENGOs since the 1970s, spurred on by ‘Earth Day’ in the US (Gottlieb, 1993), have assimilated these ideas into their discussions of climate change too. Partly this can be associated with a ‘quasi-religious’ ideal of stability (Kwiatkowska, 2001) that holds discursive power for engaging public and government attention to ‘save the planet’. A guiding ethos of climate stabilization is the imagined future, safe, secure, stable climate, which can be engineered by our actions now; but the flipside of this myth is that if action is not taken the future will be insecure, unsafe, and unstable.

that isn’t the extract but selective quotes.

ChrispenEvan said:

that isn’t the extract but selective quotes.

Welcome to Observer World.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that isn’t the extract but selective quotes.

Welcome to Observer World.

Much like your El Nino land.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that isn’t the extract but selective quotes.

Welcome to Observer World.

you mean the “Abstract”
the first part is, then yes, selective quotes.

the link to the entire article is provided

poikilotherm said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that isn’t the extract but selective quotes.

Welcome to Observer World.

Much like your El Nino land.

No just a misunderstanding on my part. Try and keep up poik.

even the first part is a selective quote from the abstract.

and just one sentence at the end as well.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that isn’t the extract but selective quotes.

Welcome to Observer World.

you mean the “Abstract”
the first part is, then yes, selective quotes.

the link to the entire article is provided

The object was to deceive.

ABSTRACT
The goals and objectives of ‘climate stabilization’ feature heavily in contemporary environmental policy
and in this paper we trace the factors that have contributed to the rise of this concept and the scientific
ideas behind it. In particular, we explore how the stabilization-based discourse has become dominant
through developments in climate science, environmental economics and policymaking. That this
discourse is tethered to contemporary policy proposals is unsurprising; but that it has remained
relatively free of critical scrutiny can be associated with fears of unsettling often-tenuous political
processes taking place at multiple scales. Nonetheless, we posit that the fundamental premises behind
stabilization targets are badly matched to the actual problem of the intergenerational management of
climate change, scientifically and politically, and destined to fail. By extension, we argue that policy
proposals for climate stabilization are problematic, infeasible, and hence impedemore productive policy
action on climate change. There are gains associated with an expansion and reconsideration of the range
of possible policy framings of the problem, which are likely to help us to more capably and dynamically
achieve goals of decarbonizing and modernizing the energy system, as well as diminishing
action on climate change. There are gains associated with an expansion and reconsideration of the range
of possible policy framings of the problem, which are likely to help us to more capably and dynamically
achieve goals of decarbonizing and modernizing the energy system, as well as diminishing
anthropogenic contributions to climate change.

full abstract

ChrispenEvan said:

even the first part is a selective quote from the abstract.

what I pasted doesn’t change what the paper is saying in any way.
so what’s your point?

WTF,,, did you want me to post the entire paper???

I can if that’s what you want?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Welcome to Observer World.

you mean the “Abstract”
the first part is, then yes, selective quotes.

the link to the entire article is provided

The object was to deceive.

fuckoff fuckwit,,, after you prove your assertion,

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

you mean the “Abstract”
the first part is, then yes, selective quotes.

the link to the entire article is provided

The object was to deceive.

fuckoff fuckwit,,, after you prove your assertion,

:))))))))

it is usual when posting that sort of thing to supply the whole abstract. don’t really need anymore though the conclusion can be helpful to. you don’t selectively quote the article unless you address those points selected.

ChrispenEvan said:

it is usual when posting that sort of thing to supply the whole abstract. don’t really need anymore though the conclusion can be helpful to. you don’t selectively quote the article unless you address those points selected.

no, i selected portions, correctly, simply to provide a review of what the paper’s views are about.

very helpful for those not bothered to read the entire paper

>>very helpful for those not bothered to read the entire paper<<

Like the Observer?

PermeateFree said:

>>very helpful for those not bothered to read the entire paper<<

Like the Observer?

ignoring the troll for the benefit of the other participants here.

PermeateFree said:

>>very helpful for those not bothered to read the entire paper<<

Like the Observer?

I’ve just read the whole paper and it seems well balanced.

I would suggest you do the same PF, but I think it’s beyond your mental capacity at your stage of life.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

>>very helpful for those not bothered to read the entire paper<<

Like the Observer?

I’ve just read the whole paper and it seems well balanced.

I would suggest you do the same PF, but I think it’s beyond your mental capacity at your stage of life.

Well if it isn’t the Observer’s twin brother. Your problems must run in the family.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

>>very helpful for those not bothered to read the entire paper<<

Like the Observer?

I’ve just read the whole paper and it seems well balanced.

I would suggest you do the same PF, but I think it’s beyond your mental capacity at your stage of life.

Well if it isn’t the Observer’s twin brother. Your problems must run in the family.

so when are you going to follow through on your threat to CS pf ?

don’t forget what he told you – “stay away from him & his family”

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

>>very helpful for those not bothered to read the entire paper<<

Like the Observer?

I’ve just read the whole paper and it seems well balanced.

I would suggest you do the same PF, but I think it’s beyond your mental capacity at your stage of life.

Well if it isn’t the Observer’s twin brother. Your problems must run in the family.

Did you read the whole paper PF? simple yes or no will do. And anyone else.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

I’ve just read the whole paper and it seems well balanced.

I would suggest you do the same PF, but I think it’s beyond your mental capacity at your stage of life.

Well if it isn’t the Observer’s twin brother. Your problems must run in the family.

so when are you going to follow through on your threat to CS pf ?

don’t forget what he told you – “stay away from him & his family”

What threat is that Observer? Hope your fertile imagination is not getting away from you again?

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

I’ve just read the whole paper and it seems well balanced.

I would suggest you do the same PF, but I think it’s beyond your mental capacity at your stage of life.

Well if it isn’t the Observer’s twin brother. Your problems must run in the family.

Did you read the whole paper PF? simple yes or no will do. And anyone else.

As soon as you see the poster’s name is The_observer, plus climate. You automatically know it will be denialist propaganda, so like everyone else, I sensibly switch off.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Well if it isn’t the Observer’s twin brother. Your problems must run in the family.

so when are you going to follow through on your threat to CS pf ?

don’t forget what he told you – “stay away from him & his family”

What threat is that Observer? Hope your fertile imagination is not getting away from you again?

CS is well aware of it.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Well if it isn’t the Observer’s twin brother. Your problems must run in the family.

Did you read the whole paper PF? simple yes or no will do. And anyone else.

As soon as you see the poster’s name is The_observer, plus climate. You automatically know it will be denialist propaganda, so like everyone else, I sensibly switch off.

But you see it’s not denialist propaganda. If you dont read it you will never know, so drop out of this thread promptly.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

so when are you going to follow through on your threat to CS pf ?

don’t forget what he told you – “stay away from him & his family”

What threat is that Observer? Hope your fertile imagination is not getting away from you again?

CS is well aware of it.

I told you, PF has dementia

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

What threat is that Observer? Hope your fertile imagination is not getting away from you again?

CS is well aware of it.

I told you, PF has dementia

I think he’s just a denier.

Or maybe pf believes there’s nothing wrong with telling someone you hate that you’ll be around their way soon &
you’ll be dropping in on them

Obs, if it makes you feel any better: there is zero chance that i am going to be dropping in on you.

dv said:

Obs, if it makes you feel any better: there is zero chance that i am going to be dropping in on you.

LOL

The_observer said:

dv said:

Obs, if it makes you feel any better: there is zero chance that i am going to be dropping in on you.

Some of you might benefit from this being dropped on you

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

so when are you going to follow through on your threat to CS pf ?

don’t forget what he told you – “stay away from him & his family”

What threat is that Observer? Hope your fertile imagination is not getting away from you again?

CS is well aware of it.

Well CS is a bigger liar than you, which is saying something.

large image is large

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

What threat is that Observer? Hope your fertile imagination is not getting away from you again?

CS is well aware of it.

Well CS is a bigger liar than you, which is saying something.

So I am more obnoxious than Permeate_Free and CS is a bigger liar than Observer.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

CS is well aware of it.

Well CS is a bigger liar than you, which is saying something.

So I am more obnoxious than Permeate_Free and CS is a bigger liar than Observer.

Should be able to apply some logic to that and get next years cup winner :)

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

Did you read the whole paper PF? simple yes or no will do. And anyone else.

As soon as you see the poster’s name is The_observer, plus climate. You automatically know it will be denialist propaganda, so like everyone else, I sensibly switch off.

But you see it’s not denialist propaganda. If you dont read it you will never know, so drop out of this thread promptly.

I’ve been reading it for years and basically it is all the same…..distorted information, lies and total rubbish.

dv said:

large image is large

Yes sorry

The_observer said:

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

CS is well aware of it.

I told you, PF has dementia

I think he’s just a denier.

Or maybe pf believes there’s nothing wrong with telling someone you hate that you’ll be around their way soon &
you’ll be dropping in on them

Thought he might like to shout me a beer like he has with everyone else. I did say ‘might’ (got to be careful of your distortions Observer).

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

CS is well aware of it.

Well CS is a bigger liar than you, which is saying something.

So I am more obnoxious than Permeate_Free and CS is a bigger liar than Observer.

Got it in one.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

What threat is that Observer? Hope your fertile imagination is not getting away from you again?

CS is well aware of it.

Well CS is a bigger liar than you, which is saying something.

are you denying pf that after you trolled & trawled through hours or posts & found an entry by CS being somewhat derisive towards you that you quoted & responded to CS that you would be in his area soon & you would be dropping in to taste some of his beer?

because I’m not the only one who read it.

Morrie knows how you operate

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

jjjust moi said:

I told you, PF has dementia

I think he’s just a denier.

Or maybe pf believes there’s nothing wrong with telling someone you hate that you’ll be around their way soon &
you’ll be dropping in on them

Thought he might like to shout me a beer like he has with everyone else. I did say ‘might’ (got to be careful of your distortions Observer).

it was a threat, pure & simple.

I think you’re a stalker pf

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

CS is well aware of it.

Well CS is a bigger liar than you, which is saying something.

are you denying pf that after you trolled & trawled through hours or posts & found an entry by CS being somewhat derisive towards you that you quoted & responded to CS that you would be in his area soon & you would be dropping in to taste some of his beer?

because I’m not the only one who read it.

Morrie knows how you operate

There was no doubt in my mind that it was a veiled threat.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

CS is well aware of it.

Well CS is a bigger liar than you, which is saying something.

are you denying pf that after you trolled & trawled through hours or posts & found an entry by CS being somewhat derisive towards you that you quoted & responded to CS that you would be in his area soon & you would be dropping in to taste some of his beer?

because I’m not the only one who read it.

Morrie knows how you operate

Doesn’t worry me what you, CS or morrie think. What will happen, will happen.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I think he’s just a denier.

Or maybe pf believes there’s nothing wrong with telling someone you hate that you’ll be around their way soon &
you’ll be dropping in on them

Thought he might like to shout me a beer like he has with everyone else. I did say ‘might’ (got to be careful of your distortions Observer).

it was a threat, pure & simple.

I think you’re a stalker pf

Read it how you like, doesn’t worry me. No stalking involved though.

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Well CS is a bigger liar than you, which is saying something.

are you denying pf that after you trolled & trawled through hours or posts & found an entry by CS being somewhat derisive towards you that you quoted & responded to CS that you would be in his area soon & you would be dropping in to taste some of his beer?

because I’m not the only one who read it.

Morrie knows how you operate

There was no doubt in my mind that it was a veiled threat.

I’d be beefing up security if I was CS.

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Well CS is a bigger liar than you, which is saying something.

are you denying pf that after you trolled & trawled through hours or posts & found an entry by CS being somewhat derisive towards you that you quoted & responded to CS that you would be in his area soon & you would be dropping in to taste some of his beer?

because I’m not the only one who read it.

Morrie knows how you operate

There was no doubt in my mind that it was a veiled threat.

Who cares? CS maybe.

The_observer said:

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

are you denying pf that after you trolled & trawled through hours or posts & found an entry by CS being somewhat derisive towards you that you quoted & responded to CS that you would be in his area soon & you would be dropping in to taste some of his beer?

because I’m not the only one who read it.

Morrie knows how you operate

There was no doubt in my mind that it was a veiled threat.

I’d be beefing up security if I was CS.

I think he already has.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

jjjust moi said:

There was no doubt in my mind that it was a veiled threat.

I’d be beefing up security if I was CS.

I think he already has.

He may have informed the police???

He may think you’re all talk???

CS should consider the precautionary principal in this instant???

What’s it like pf ? being such a dick I mean???

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I’d be beefing up security if I was CS.

I think he already has.

He may have informed the police???

He may think you’re all talk???

CS should consider the precautionary principal in this instant???

What’s it like pf ? being such a dick I mean???

Apart from you and possibly CS, who cares?

I think T_o is stubbornly wrongheaded on climate change, but PF is a genuine bunnyboiling lotuseater.

dv said:

I think T_o is stubbornly wrongheaded on climate change, but PF is a genuine bunnyboiling lotuseater.

Thanks dv. I notice you never consider new information that contradicts your preconceived convictions. Therefore, so much for your scientific world view. You are not worth worrying about dv.

You are not worth worrying about dv.

when you have said that to just about everyone on this forum it looks a little trite.

ChrispenEvan said:

You are not worth worrying about dv.

when you have said that to just about everyone on this forum it looks a little trite.

No I only say it to DO’s dummies, which also includes you.

PermeateFree said:

No I only say it to DO’s dummies, which also includes you.

As always everyone else is in the wrong.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

No I only say it to DO’s dummies, which also includes you.

As always everyone else is in the wrong.

No just dummies like you.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

No I only say it to DO’s dummies, which also includes you.

As always everyone else is in the wrong.

No just dummies like you.

How quickly do you alienate people in the real world? Must be tough having no friends.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

As always everyone else is in the wrong.

No just dummies like you.

How quickly do you alienate people in the real world? Must be tough having no friends.

I certainly don’t seek bible bashing dummies like you that’s for sure.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

No just dummies like you.

How quickly do you alienate people in the real world? Must be tough having no friends.

I certainly don’t seek bible bashing dummies like you that’s for sure.

Since when have I been a bible basher?

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

You are not worth worrying about dv.

when you have said that to just about everyone on this forum it looks a little trite.

No I only say it to DO’s dummies, which also includes you.

So does this mean I am one of DO’s dummies?

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

How quickly do you alienate people in the real world? Must be tough having no friends.

I certainly don’t seek bible bashing dummies like you that’s for sure.

Since when have I been a bible basher?

Your self-righteous preaching from the Victorian Outback.

:)))

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

You are not worth worrying about dv.

when you have said that to just about everyone on this forum it looks a little trite.

No I only say it to DO’s dummies, which also includes you.

So does this mean I am one of DO’s dummies?

What do you think? I’m sure you are going to tell me.

I notice you never consider new information that contradicts your preconceived convictions.

———————-

From you that is classic.

jjjust moi said:

I notice you never consider new information that contradicts your preconceived convictions.

———————-

From you that is classic.

Yes, very true though.

ChrispenEvan said:

ABSTRACT
The goals and objectives of ‘climate stabilization’ feature heavily in contemporary environmental policy
and in this paper we trace the factors that have contributed to the rise of this concept and the scientific
ideas behind it. In particular, we explore how the stabilization-based discourse has become dominant
through developments in climate science, environmental economics and policymaking. That this
discourse is tethered to contemporary policy proposals is unsurprising; but that it has remained
relatively free of critical scrutiny can be associated with fears of unsettling often-tenuous political
processes taking place at multiple scales. Nonetheless, we posit that the fundamental premises behind
stabilization targets are badly matched to the actual problem of the intergenerational management of
climate change, scientifically and politically, and destined to fail. By extension, we argue that policy
proposals for climate stabilization are problematic, infeasible, and hence impedemore productive policy
action on climate change. There are gains associated with an expansion and reconsideration of the range
of possible policy framings of the problem, which are likely to help us to more capably and dynamically
achieve goals of decarbonizing and modernizing the energy system, as well as diminishing
action on climate change. There are gains associated with an expansion and reconsideration of the range
of possible policy framings of the problem, which are likely to help us to more capably and dynamically
achieve goals of decarbonizing and modernizing the energy system, as well as diminishing
anthropogenic contributions to climate change.

full abstract

Thanks CE, Looks like it is a realistic review of the current situation, with positive proposals for improving the situation.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

No I only say it to DO’s dummies, which also includes you.

So does this mean I am one of DO’s dummies?

What do you think? I’m sure you are going to tell me.

I don’t imagine dv cares very much about it.

The suggestion that he is a DO’s dummy is ludicrous.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

So does this mean I am one of DO’s dummies?

What do you think? I’m sure you are going to tell me.

I don’t imagine dv cares very much about it.

The suggestion that he is a DO’s dummy is ludicrous.

Technically, he is a subcrontracted dummy but that is only for tax reasons.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

ABSTRACT
The goals and objectives of ‘climate stabilization’ feature heavily in contemporary environmental policy
and in this paper we trace the factors that have contributed to the rise of this concept and the scientific
ideas behind it. In particular, we explore how the stabilization-based discourse has become dominant
through developments in climate science, environmental economics and policymaking. That this
discourse is tethered to contemporary policy proposals is unsurprising; but that it has remained
relatively free of critical scrutiny can be associated with fears of unsettling often-tenuous political
processes taking place at multiple scales. Nonetheless, we posit that the fundamental premises behind
stabilization targets are badly matched to the actual problem of the intergenerational management of
climate change, scientifically and politically, and destined to fail. By extension, we argue that policy
proposals for climate stabilization are problematic, infeasible, and hence impedemore productive policy
action on climate change. There are gains associated with an expansion and reconsideration of the range
of possible policy framings of the problem, which are likely to help us to more capably and dynamically
achieve goals of decarbonizing and modernizing the energy system, as well as diminishing
action on climate change. There are gains associated with an expansion and reconsideration of the range
of possible policy framings of the problem, which are likely to help us to more capably and dynamically
achieve goals of decarbonizing and modernizing the energy system, as well as diminishing
anthropogenic contributions to climate change.

full abstract

Thanks CE, Looks like it is a realistic review of the current situation, with positive proposals for improving the situation.

LOL

glad you enjoyed the paper I provided a link to rev.

you did you read the entire paper didn’t you?

in any case glad I could be of assistance