May 25, 2023Liked by Zeke Hausfather, Andrew Dessler
Really interesting, thank you. And encouraging too. This kind of thing - seeing that there is some change in the right direction - is important to communicate, especially when people are getting demoralised at the rate of progress. We are moving too slowly, but at least we can see the movement now.
This article says nothing about the human-caused INdirect emissions - the permafrost thaw, the methane emissions from growing tropical wetlands and Arctic wetlands... and nothing about the tipping points the IPCC keeps ignoring: The Amazon transition to savannah, the boreal forests turning to ashes, the rate-dependent tipping points such as the "compost bomb instability", and the social compounding tipping points, which affect the imagined techno-optimist scenario towards a wonderful future. The IPCC has a long record of having underestimated the damages of the near future (now the past) during its 33 years in existence. It's guided by the pro-growth economics paradigm within the IPCC (and people like economist Richard Tol and his outrageous disinformation on climate) and ignores the basic thermodynamics of civilization. Also, if you want to know how climate will change, don't follow supposed emissions numbers (which are widely acknowledged to be understated for political reasons from various governments), instead follow the Keeling Curve. It shows no change from its exponential form, and the annual increase of CO2 concentrations continues to be 2.5 ppm per year. I'm not impressed by this article.
Great article, thank you for sharing! It's good to see a little positivity in the numbers however I agree we still have a long way to go. Policymakers (and arguably the system policymakers work within) struggle to have scope for the impacts of long-term self perpetuating feedbacks in the climate system.
Great article. When you say emissions will remain flat with current policies, are you considering economic growth (people consuming more beef, a larger % of the population flying...)?
You can read this various ways. Maybe existing policies plus technological change means nothing else needs to be done. In other words, the optimal carbon tax is NOW zero. I don't see it that way. I'd say that existing policies and technological change have reduced the optimal carbon tax, hopefully by enough that politicians will not be too frightened to enact a net emissions tax. After all, we will still need to reduce CO2 concentrations when we reach zero net emissions.
Is there a graph similar to the total CO2 emissions figure but for CO2 equivalent? What I'm wondering.... could it be that CO2 emissions have flattened but CO2 equivalent has increased from natural sources of methane or carbon sinks now releasing carbon? Is that a reasonable question?
Really interesting, thank you. And encouraging too. This kind of thing - seeing that there is some change in the right direction - is important to communicate, especially when people are getting demoralised at the rate of progress. We are moving too slowly, but at least we can see the movement now.
Why do we pay more attention to emission estimates instead of a more direct measurement like the Keeling Curve?
What do you think about that : https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1689230854571053057 ?
This article says nothing about the human-caused INdirect emissions - the permafrost thaw, the methane emissions from growing tropical wetlands and Arctic wetlands... and nothing about the tipping points the IPCC keeps ignoring: The Amazon transition to savannah, the boreal forests turning to ashes, the rate-dependent tipping points such as the "compost bomb instability", and the social compounding tipping points, which affect the imagined techno-optimist scenario towards a wonderful future. The IPCC has a long record of having underestimated the damages of the near future (now the past) during its 33 years in existence. It's guided by the pro-growth economics paradigm within the IPCC (and people like economist Richard Tol and his outrageous disinformation on climate) and ignores the basic thermodynamics of civilization. Also, if you want to know how climate will change, don't follow supposed emissions numbers (which are widely acknowledged to be understated for political reasons from various governments), instead follow the Keeling Curve. It shows no change from its exponential form, and the annual increase of CO2 concentrations continues to be 2.5 ppm per year. I'm not impressed by this article.
Great article, thank you for sharing! It's good to see a little positivity in the numbers however I agree we still have a long way to go. Policymakers (and arguably the system policymakers work within) struggle to have scope for the impacts of long-term self perpetuating feedbacks in the climate system.
Great article. When you say emissions will remain flat with current policies, are you considering economic growth (people consuming more beef, a larger % of the population flying...)?
You can read this various ways. Maybe existing policies plus technological change means nothing else needs to be done. In other words, the optimal carbon tax is NOW zero. I don't see it that way. I'd say that existing policies and technological change have reduced the optimal carbon tax, hopefully by enough that politicians will not be too frightened to enact a net emissions tax. After all, we will still need to reduce CO2 concentrations when we reach zero net emissions.
Is there a graph similar to the total CO2 emissions figure but for CO2 equivalent? What I'm wondering.... could it be that CO2 emissions have flattened but CO2 equivalent has increased from natural sources of methane or carbon sinks now releasing carbon? Is that a reasonable question?
... unless the economy accelerates again.
And where's your methane measurements? That's going to be a lot more materially impactful in the real-world 21st century.
Great post Zeke.