jsteinhardt comments on I need to understand more about... - Less Wrong

5 Post author: DilGreen 07 October 2010 09:15AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (15)

Comments (15)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: jsteinhardt 08 October 2010 06:14:54AM 0 points [-]

I'm curious as to why people don't think policy to ameliorate climate change is reasonable. While governments are often disappointing, Paul Krugman at least seems to think that significant progress can be made to make global warming palatable at a reasonable cost (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?_r=1).

Disclaimer: I know little about climate change, but my impression was that Krugman is competent at his job.

Comment author: saturn 09 October 2010 12:28:06AM -1 points [-]

What would it take to level off the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm)? That level supposedly would keep global warming just barely manageable at an increase of 2 degrees Celsius. There still would be massive loss of species, 100 million climate refugees, and other major stresses. The carbon dioxide level right now is 385 ppm, rising fast. Before industrialization it was 296 ppm. America’s leading climatologist, James Hansen, says we must lower the carbon dioxide level to 350 ppm if we want to keep the world we evolved in.

The world currently runs on about 16 terawatts (trillion watts) of energy, most of it burning fossil fuels. To level off at 450 ppm of carbon dioxide, we will have to reduce the fossil fuel burning to 3 terawatts and produce all the rest with renewable energy, and we have to do it in 25 years or it’s too late. Currently about half a terrawatt comes from clean hydropower and one terrawatt from clean nuclear. That leaves 11.5 terawatts to generate from new clean sources.

http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Saul+Griffith#climate_change_recalculated_3

Comment author: jsteinhardt 09 October 2010 11:21:56PM -1 points [-]

James Hansen, who is quoted in that article, claims that "changes needed to reduce global warming do not require hardship or reduction in the quality of life, but will also produce benefits such as cleaner air and water, and growth of high-tech industries" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#cite_note-53). I remain very confused as to why everyone seems convinced that stopping climate change is a hopeless cause.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit