Democrats do not even know how to do a regular recovery, based on the state of their states and cities, and are often no allowing any sort of economic recovery to occur, locking people and businesses down all over the place, yet, they want a “green recovery”
The amount of carbon dioxide that we can still emit while limiting global warming to a given target is called the “remaining carbon budget,†and it has become a powerful tool to inform climate policy goals and track progress towards net-zero emissions targets.
This carbon budget is like a fixed financial budget: there is a cap on total allowable expenses over time, and excess spending in the near term requires deceased spending in the future. Similarly, the remaining carbon budget is a fixed total quantity of future emissions that is small enough to limit global temperature increases before they exceed our climate targets.
Scientists’ estimates of the remaining carbon budget vary widely. Studies often use different approaches or even definitions of what the carbon budget represents. This can involve different treatment of how greenhouse gases other than CO2 contribute to climate change, or the incomplete representation of some processes, such as the role of aerosols in climate change.
If all climate cultists gave up all, or at least most, use of fossil fuels, they could solve this. They don’t even have to give up their entire carbon footprint, just reduce it by, let’s say, half, which, in America, would still be higher than in most 3rd world nations.
We developed a a new way to generate a better estimate of the remaining carbon budget for the 1.5C limit of the Paris Agreement that integrates all major sources of uncertainty. Our results suggest that even if the growing list of countries committing to 2050 net-zero emissions targets reached their goals, we would still deplete the 1.5C remaining carbon budget more than a decade too soon.
Remember, 1.5 was never the goal of Paris, the number was 2C, and, despite hearing that Paris was historic Warmists immediately started agitating about 1.5C.
At the peak of global lockdowns in April 2020, daily CO2 emissions decreased by almost 20 per cent relative to the same period in 2019. These insights can inform how COVID-19 recovery investments could be used to drive emissions further downward.
The largest relative decreases in emissions came from reductions in road transport, such as commuting by car, and air travel. Although we are all suffering from the loss of in-person interactions, we have also learned a lot about how to convene meetings, presentations and collaborations online. While individual mobility will rebound as lockdowns ease, our crash course in remote working and learning means that we may not need to return to pre-COVID-19 travel levels.
The least they could do was just come out and say they want people locked down and unable to travel anywhere.
Emissions from industry and power generation did not decrease as much, in relative terms. This points to the need for systemic changes in technological infrastructure to unlock the potential for lower-carbon economic activity.
And they want to screw with the power at the place you’re being locked down. Not their own, of course, just yours.
Governments around the world are spending unprecedented amounts to support and reinvigorate national economies. We must actively pursue this opportunity for a green recovery and avoid investing in infrastructure and industries that will lock in future CO2 emissions. Yet the COVID-19 stimulus packages announced so far are “missing the opportunity,†according to the UN Environment Program’s adaptation report released last week.
Let the UN lock themselves down. Let the climate cultists lock themselves down. Let them do all the crazy things themselves. Leave the rest of us out of their cult. And, it’s still disgusting that these doomsday cultists want to take advantage of people’s deaths, sickness, and misery, of losing their businesses, losing family members and friends, to push their cult.
Teach I don’t think immediately giving up all fossil fuels is the best answer
It would totally crash our economy
Far better would be a way for everyone in the USA to have the govt pay carbon offsets
The current price would be about $150 that would make the USA carbon neutral
Teach do you think that $150 would qualify as a skyrocket ? Or just a little bottle rocket ?
Hairy is pretty generous with other people’s money.
After 10 months of COVID lockdowns and the total destruction of 1/2 the small businesses in the USA, NOW Hairy pretends to be worried about the economy. New Battle cry of the left “Keep polluting. It’s for the economy. Just pay your indulgences”.
Too bad the left is all about forcing others to do what they want. A free society could let people who really care about a 1.5 degree potential temperature increase at some unknown future date could lives their lives and charitably give to that cause, while everyone else would be free to live their lives as it other things in the real world are more important than things they cannot change. Kind of like the Paris accords that force the USA to transfer wealth while allowing China and India to keep on polluting for free.
The warmunists said:
You mean, economies that they shut down and critically injured in a vastly overreaching response to COVID-19?
But, we’ll see, won’t we? Surely the warmunists will be able to buffalo a country or three into adopting their ‘green’ ideas for rebuilding, and then we’ll see how strong and robust their new economies are.
The Hirsute One wrote:
That would depend, I suppose, on the launching pad from which it would start.
$150 is roughly $3 per week, $2.885 per week to be more precise. A gallon of 1% milk has been $1.29 at the Kroger on Bypass Road in Richmond, Kentucky, for several weeks now, so I’ll use that number. $2.885 per week is slightly more than two gallons of milk for the kids every week. Perhaps for the esteemed Mr Dowd and the Hirsute One, that’s nothing, but as I look at some of the homes in eastern Kentucky, homes that ought to be condemned but still have people, still have families, living in them, it occurs to me that two gallons of milk per week is a pretty significant thing.
That’s a huge problem for the left: they claim to be oh-so-supportive of the poor, but they don’t know one f(ornicating) thing about what it’s like to be poor, the struggles through which the poor have to go to survive. What, $150 per year? Piffle! say the left, that’s nothing.
The Federal Reserve reported, in 2019, before the Democrats trashed our economy, that 40% of Americans don’t have $400 in the bank for emergency expenses. Yet here you are, blithely waving off an additional $150 in costs, because you don’t know one f(ornicating) thing about poverty!
I’m not poor now, thanks to my wife’s and my own hard work, but I grew up poor. One winter, the water pipe in our basement froze and burst, and we didn’t have the money to get it fixed. (This was when I was in high school, and didn’t know how to fix things myself.) We went without running water for two months because my mother did not have the money to call a plumber. I had to shower in the high school gym. With my bedroom being in the attic, I had to piss out the dormer window, onto the roof and into the gutter, and pooping meant at school or church. The basement had a dirt floor, and I assume that’s where my mother and sisters went; it was one of the things a teenaged boy didn’t really want to know.
We lived in town; no outhouse was available. Fortunately, there were no houses across the street, where the ground gave way to a small ravine, or that urinating out the front dormer window wouldn’t have worked.
I know about being poor, and yet I know about people who’ve had it worst than we did. You don’t know [insert slang term for feces here].