Over The Counter Culture

Staring at the sun
Latest Posts »
Popular »
» Heating your home with a wood-fired boiler
» Lambeth Council to spin out services as co-ops
» The co-op
» On the Happiness of the Fat and the Bereaved
» Adam Curtis Greencine interview on media elitism, the US and the UK
» Last.fm is becoming a great big clever iTunes in the sky
» Open conversation online pays off
» Arsenal FC transfer budget to be cut ‘because of property market slowdown’
« Innovation – a subtle disease?
Travel bureaucracy: a nightmare »

How feasibly can we actually drop our global CO2 production?

I hate talking about global warming – its boring, cliche, and largely depressing, because any careful thinking about it invariably leads to the conclusion that the only true solution, if climate change models based on CO2 are correct, is a mass human extinction event, or exodus (to other planets); your child is a much greater environmental nightmare than your Hummer H2 is.

If our primary objective as a species is a global reduction in happiness and development inequalities, allowing global population growth to continue apace is totally counterproductive. And that’s a sad thought, and one that may motivate a global terrorism movement far worse than Al Qaeda.

But take a look at this graph (source: McKinsey). It estimates the cost and effectiveness of the various proposed things society can do to bring emissions down. On the left, the negative y axis values show that we save a lot of money and abate CO2 emissions, with certain strategies like insulating our houses and offices. To the right, expensive strategies. It’s clear from the graph that the real gains to be made (measured as progress along the x axis) are in this economically costly zone.

The worst part: even with all known strategies pursued, we still hit the dangerously (*according to current climate models) high levels of 450ppm by 2030.

image

I’d like to be able to play with the graph and generate data based on different population and oil price forecasts. Their assumptions aren’t clearly stated, disappointingly. This link offers a modest amount of skepticism regarding this graph, and highlights some further insights it gives us, alongside some auxiliary information about the bang-for-buck of different climate change prevention schemes.

Bookmark/Share:

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am and is filed under Musings, New science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Q dub
    You may find it interesting that economists have prioritized climate change as the least cost-effective global issue to pursue.

    See TED video:
    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lombor...
blog comments powered by Disqus
  • Home
  • About
  • List all posts
  • Current Reading
  • Search

Over The Counter Culture is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).