DiscussMormonism.com

EAllusion wrote: It did so in a report attempting to justify freezing Obama fuel standards by arguing reduced carbon emissions from this action will just be a drop in a bucket. The "drop in the bucket" logic relies on assuming that the rest of the planet takes no action and catastrophic warming is therefore inevitable.

EAllusion wrote:The Trump admin released a report predicting a 7 F / 4 C degree warming by the turn of the next century assuming no course correction. That's well within the range of catastrophic change. It did so in a report attempting to justify freezing Obama fuel standards by arguing reduced carbon emissions from this action will just be a drop in a bucket. The "drop in the bucket" logic relies on assuming that the rest of the planet takes no action and catastrophic warming is therefore inevitable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 11163cfe55

DarkHelmet wrote:Trump will be dead long before any catastrophic warming occurs. Why should he care?

EAllusion wrote:The Trump admin released a report predicting a 7 F / 4 C degree warming by the turn of the next century assuming no course correction. That's well within the range of catastrophic change. It did so in a report attempting to justify freezing Obama fuel standards by arguing reduced carbon emissions from this action will just be a drop in a bucket. The "drop in the bucket" logic relies on assuming that the rest of the planet takes no action and catastrophic warming is therefore inevitable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 11163cfe55

5.4.1.1 Global Carbon Budget

In response to public comments received on prior NHTSA EISs, the agency has considered the GHG impacts of its fuel economy actions in terms of a global carbon “budget.” This budget is an estimate for the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 that can be emitted to have a certain chance of limiting the global average temperature increase to below 2°C relative to preindustrial levels. IPCC estimates that if cumulative global CO2 emissions from 1870 onwards are limited to approximately 1,000 Gigatonnes (Gt) C (3,670 Gt CO2), then the probability of limiting the temperature increase to below 2°C is greater than 66 percent (IPCC 2013b).28 It should be noted that since this report was published, various studies have produced estimates of the remaining global carbon budget; some estimates have been larger (Millar et al. 2017) and others have been smaller (Lowe and Bernie 2018). These estimates vary depending on a range of factors, such as the assumed conditions and the climate model used. Because of underlying uncertainties and assumptions, no one number for the remaining global carbon budget can be considered definite.

Using the IPCC estimated carbon budget, as of 2011, approximately 51 percent, or 515 Gt C (1,890 Gt CO2), of this budget had already been emitted, leaving a remaining budget of 485 Gt C (1,780 Gt CO2) (IPCC 2013b). From 2011 to 2015, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, cement production, and land-use change totaled approximately 50 Gt C (183 Gt CO2), leaving a remaining budget from 2016 onwards of 435 Gt C (1595 Gt CO2) (CDIAC 2016). Under the No Action Alternative, U.S. passenger cars and trucks are projected to emit 23 Gt C (83 Gt CO2) from 2016 to 2100, or 5.2 percent of the remaining global carbon budget. Under Alternative 1, this projection increases to 25 Gt C (91 Gt CO2) or 5.7 percent of the remaining budget.

The emissions reductions necessary to keep global emissions within this carbon budget could not be achieved solely with drastic reductions in emissions from the U.S. passenger car and light truck vehicle fleet but would also require drastic reductions in all U.S. sectors and from the rest of the developed and developing world. In addition, achieving GHG reductions from the passenger car and light truck vehicle fleet to the same degree that emissions reductions will be needed globally to avoid using all of the carbon budget would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to substantially move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically practicable.

honorentheos wrote:What surprised me were the number of participants whose view was humans would develop tech to solve the problem once it got serious enough to be profitable to address.