[dohboi]

Yeah, I always figure that all these numbers are optimistic.

But if you have links or references to specific passages of those works that I can use, I my be able to convince others of the same.

[Revi]

2 Degrees C? Fugeddaboudit!

According to Kevin Anderson it would take an 80% drop in FF use effective immediately.

What do you think the chances are?

[AgentR11]

AND of course thats also assuming every country meets its voluntary targets. Judging from the way almost every nation failed to keep their targets under the voluntary Kyoto Accord---thats highly unlikely.

My understanding of the Paris commitments, is that some countries stated their CO2 emissions as per unit of GDP, while others gave it as a direct measurement. This means growing countries intend to greatly increase their CO2 output, ie India and China; and folks keep leaving out Russia, its like they're purposefully blind, singing la-la-la while someone is trying to read emergency crash landing procedures.

China can build an unlimited number of coal fired generators East of Baikal, in Russia. UNLIMITED. This will cause Russia to break their commitment, but there's no cost to breaking those commitments, and there's no longer any substantial response we can make to Russia. This gets China under their target, gets their smog problem moved, and gets Russia more tied into the Shanghai / Yuan system. There is zero reason to not anticipate this result in the models. Yet folks just blithely type in the commitments and say wooppiee, under 3's not so bad...

Under 3 is bad, and its also no where near under 3. China should be treated in models as if they'd made no commitment, intend to achieve at least 5% growth each year, and will be building hundreds of new, coal fired generators using the cheapest cost per mw design they have. No one in Moscow will give a hoot about smog East of Baikal. Ok... well maybe it'd make for some buried article in Videmosti.. on Friday... over a holiday.

Russia's not all bad though, they're big into building Nuclear Power and have the most modern plant designs to work from. These are in addition to coal, not generally replacing coal...

[Revi]

I just hope they can do something. Any deal would be better than Copenhagen. We'll see, but if they don't do anything there's always Peak Oil to the rescue. Maybe peak oil could turn out to be the thing that saves humanity. Wouldn't that be an interesting twist? If emissions are reduced drastically because the downslope of the peak is much steeper than the upslope it might keep us under the 3 degrees we all agree is the best case scenario out of this conference.

[Subjectivist]

I don't think peak oil will do much, for too many tons of coal and billion cubic feet of natural gas yet to burn.

[Newfie]

2 Degrees C? Fugeddaboudit!

According to Kevin Anderson it would take an 80% drop in FF use effective immediately.

What do you think the chances are?

Right. And 80% drop, or even substantially less, would kill the global economy. As the climate change talks progress the EU today dropped its prime lending rate to a NEGATIVE. That means the bank will pay to loan you money. This in an effort to breath life into the stagnating EU economy.

Simply put.....economic growth and sustainability are diametrically opposed goals. You can not logically support both.

No one (any country) is talking about the desirability of decreasing growth or even de-growth, therefore no one has yet come to grips with reality. At least in public.

[kiwichick]

and I can't think of many countries trying to stabilize their human population

even China has paused/stopped? it's one child policy

if every one had the consumption of the average European , the planets sustainable population would be approx. 2 billion

does that mean we are effectively saying that billions of people will have to remain in poverty?

[dohboi]

" I can't think of many countries trying to stabilize their human population"

??

Lots of countries are trying to do this. I don't know of any countries trying to increase their population, at least not as a stated goal, except maybe North Korea. But that used to be a standard goal for most countries.

Good point about consumption, though.

[kiwichick]

@ d

which countries are saying to their citizens " Stop at 2 " India perhaps , or at least some of it's individual states.

any others?

[Newfie]

From what I know it is the exact opposite. What I frequently hear are complaints that the populations are not growing fast enough to support economic growth. Especially Japan and many Western European nations.

That is a lot of the argument for accepting refugees into Germany, they need to bolster the work force with low paid workers to pay for the social services of the citizens.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html ... -5712.html

America's economic growth is hovering around 2 percent, public debt is $16 trillion and rising, and job creation and labor market participation remain low. Embracing a more flexible legal immigration system can dramatically improve this situation. This paper describes the link between economic growth and immigration, the need for policy change, the misguided history of America's political opposition to immigration, and a rational immigration policy.

http://fortune.com/2014/11/20/japan-imm ... n-economy/

Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, says no. He argues that Japan is in a depression, driven primarily by its quickly shrinking population. Government funds are tied up taking care of the the nation’s elderly, and there’s no room for serious stimulus to drag it out of this slump............
As Weinberg writes, “Japan needs more people and less debt.”

http://fortune.com/2015/09/08/germany-migrant-crisis/

Some anti-immigration groups argue foreigners are a drain on a country’s economy, as they seek to avail themselves of government services before contributing to the state themselves. But Germany has a long history of outsiders representing a net positive for the country’s economy. The 6.6 million people living in Germany with foreign passports paid $4,127 more in taxes and social security on average than they took in social benefits in 2012–generating a surplus of 22 billion euros that year, according to one report. German officials are hopeful that, in the long run, this summer’s new flood of refugees could result in a similar economic gain.

[dohboi]

which countries are saying to their citizens " Stop at 2 "

K, that is neither the only nor the most effective way to 'try to limit population growth.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/13/world ... wanted=all

Other countries:

Iran

Iran has succeeded in sharply reducing its birth rate from the late 1980s to 2010. Mandatory contraceptive courses are required for both males and females before a marriage license can be obtained, and the government emphasized the benefits of smaller families and the use of contraception.

But lately they do seem to be going other direction.

Harsher measures:

Uzbekistan

It is reported that Uzbekistan has been pursuing a policy of forced sterilizations, hysterectomies and IUD insertions since the late 1990s in order to impose population control

But I concede your general point that population control doesn't seem to be a major focus of many governments, and I am surprised to see, upon further research, how many countries are indeed trying to encourage higher birth rates. A sad spectacle indeed.

[Newfie]

Sad indeed. As we have more and more folks we also consume more and more. A vicious cycle.

[kiwichick]

@ newfie

+1

[onlooker]

So true over consumption and overpopulation reinforce each other.

[ralfy]

and I can't think of many countries trying to stabilize their human population

even China has paused/stopped? it's one child policy

if every one had the consumption of the average European , the planets sustainable population would be approx. 2 billion

does that mean we are effectively saying that billions of people will have to remain in poverty?

That will be difficult if much of the wealth of those who are not poor consists of money, as the value of such can only be maintained through increased sales of goods and services to most. And that means less poverty is required.

[ralfy]

" I can't think of many countries trying to stabilize their human population"

??

Lots of countries are trying to do this. I don't know of any countries trying to increase their population, at least not as a stated goal, except maybe North Korea. But that used to be a standard goal for most countries.

Good point about consumption, though.

It's possible that stabilization for several countries involve greater prosperity leading to lower birth rates, but greater prosperity may also lead to higher consumption, either for the same countries or for developing markets through increased sales of goods and services.

[Plantagenet]

I don't know of any countries trying to increase their population...

You live in one.

The US native born population has been at ZPG for decades. The US population would be pretty stable if not for massive illegal immigration and substantial legal immigration. The decision made by the TPTB in DC to allow massive immigration into the US is also a a decision to increase the population of the US.

[ennui2]

Simply put.....economic growth and sustainability are diametrically opposed goals. You can not logically support both.

Which is the core of AGW denial.

If there were actually a way to address AGW proactively that didn't require huge sweeping sacrifices, then there's be far less denial. Denial is really not so much a rebuke of the science as it's a fear of what dealing with AGW would do to the inviolable American way of life.

Nobody will ever cop to it, but that's what it is. It's "don't tell me I have to drive less and turn down my thermostat and stop buying Strawberries over the winter."

While I appreciate bright-greenies making it sound as if renewables can offer a 1:1 substitute to keep BAU running, I don't think it's realistic.

[onlooker]

That is it in a nutshell what Ennui stated. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. To deal with AGW we must curtail fossil fuel use it is as simple as that. Their is no way around it, their are no fancy or clever shortcuts period. Yet as Americans are fond of saying "the American way of life is non-negotiable." I may add that China and India have not made things better by hitching themselves to the economic growth and fossil fuel dependent bandwagon. For those of us who have extensively looked at all these trends, the overwhelmingly clear conclusion is we are headed for a major roadblock/collapse. Limits to Growth has always been right to the extent of the dynamics involved and their logical denouement.

[SeaGypsy]

Must happen, as a lived experience, does not at all mean will happen. In fact we will continue growing use of FFs at increasing total rates for the foreseeable, because the people the decision makers listen to will keep saying, we must.