,
23 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
For… reasons… I am reading a 1983 EPA report titled “Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming?” and it is inCREDible.
Stunning consistency since then: “Current estimates suggest that a 2 degrees C increase could occur by the middle of the next century… 5 degrees C increase by 2100”
Stunning consistency since then: “Current estimates suggest that a 2 degrees C increase could occur by the middle of the next century… 5 degrees C increase by 2100”
“political institutions stressed"
WHERE HAVE I HEARD ALL THIS BEFORE
“Many have dismissed it as too speculative or too distant to be of concern. Some assume that technological options will emerge to prevent a warming or, at worst, to ameliorate harmful consequences."
“Many have dismissed it as too speculative or too distant to be of concern. Some assume that technological options will emerge to prevent a warming or, at worst, to ameliorate harmful consequences."
The report authors modeled out various policy maneuvers and tested whether they could delay the 2-degree warming threshold. What did they find? Reader, you will be shocked:
Are we 100% sure that climate scientists from 2019 didn’t travel back in time to 1983 to write this?
“Scrubbing CO2 emissions from power plants is of limited effectiveness and prohibitively expensive."
“Scrubbing CO2 emissions from power plants is of limited effectiveness and prohibitively expensive."
Oh my god even they even mention geoengineering! And… they sound pretty much like a lot of people sound today, outside of the “great cost” bit.
Among the recs is the need to “accelerate and expand research on improving our ability to adapt to a warmer climate.” They write that “a key element of this research must be developing regional climate scenarios…”
More than half of US states CURRENTLY lack an adaptation plan.
More than half of US states CURRENTLY lack an adaptation plan.
“…sooner than most of us would like to believe."
Oh my god I’m gonna start punching walls.
“In the minds of many, concern about these changes far outweighs the remaining uncertainties surrounding their exact nature and timing."
“In the minds of many, concern about these changes far outweighs the remaining uncertainties surrounding their exact nature and timing."
There’s a quaint degree of optimism in this, like in 1983 there was still an assumption that the world might act in rational fashion. I mean, the Stern report was 2006, and that didn’t exactly spurn dramatic action.
[bobby knight throwing a chair.gif]
I don’t like where this is heading.
Ugh they even predicted where the deniers would pick everything apart, why am I doing this.
Interesting. They found that even a worldwide tax on fossil fuel use wouldn’t change energy use much and wouldn't delay the 2 degree mark by more than a handful of years; my guess is because they didn’t anticipate just how far the costs of solar and wind power would fall?
BUT GUESS WHAT AN ACTUAL BAN ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD DO!
The lowest temp line on here is the “no shale, no coal” option, which, hey, good idea, 1983 scientists.
Ok I REALLY don’t like where THIS is heading
So you’re saying if we manage the science and the international agreement then we’re on our way? Hm.
LOL OKAY SURE
“In general, environmental issues have not readily produced an international consensus.”
Ah. Well. Yes.
Ah. Well. Yes.
This cost estimate for solar geoengineering is equal to around $52 billion per year in 2019 dollars! That’s amazing — most estimates now peg it somewhere from $1-5 billion/year.
“ouR fInDingS CAll FoR aN ExpEdiTIous reSpONSe"
Okay well that was fun, here’s the report’s last line about “soberness and a sense of urgency” along with just a random news story from today, no real connection.
