Re: Reuters: "World refiners are CLOGGED with oil"
Posted: Fri 09 Jun 2017, 14:07:15
Drawdown; Skeptics
Several commenters were dismissive when I brought up the Paul Hawken edited book Drawdown. Here is a link and some excerpt from an interview with Hawken. This should answer some questions, and perhaps get some of you interested. You may also understand why I was so enthusiastic about the inclusion of farming, gardening, and food.
Don Stewart
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... nge-ranked
And so I finally decided to do Drawdown: name the goal and then map, measure, and model, see if it’s achievable. And away we went, for almost three years, with 70 Drawdown research fellows from 22 countries and six continents.
Because that’s what you hear from Charles Ferguson, Al Gore, [Jeffrey] Sachs, or Christiana Figueres. They’re all saying the same thing. It’s understandable — 62 percent of the [greenhouse gas] molecules up there came from fossil fuel combustion, so you just invert it, right? It makes sense. It just doesn’t work out that way.
But even then, the number one solution is educating girls and family planning.
Every carbon number [in the book] is peer-reviewed data.
In the process of covering land use, we had to identify what had actually been studied. So we have 22 land-use solutions. We’re splitters, in order to get accurate data.
By the way, we’re doing D2 — Drawdown Two. And it’s all coming attractions that weren’t in D1 — 60 more of them, things that are nascent, on the horizon or just below the horizon. They are game-changers, a lot of them. Some of them will fail. It’s hard to say which will or won’t.
David Roberts
I guess what trips me up is that the scenario you’re calling “plausible” involves reductions in carbon that most modeling outfits would characterize as wildly ambitious.
Paul Hawken
Our models include a lot of things that were excluded from other models. One is land use. It’s given passing reference, but hasn’t been given much credibility by the IPCC.
They don’t include, for example, farmland restoration — over a billion hectares of abandoned land all over the world. We know how to regenerate that, using animals, using cover, using no-till. Is there a transition cost? Yeah. But it’s a big sink.
Several commenters were dismissive when I brought up the Paul Hawken edited book Drawdown. Here is a link and some excerpt from an interview with Hawken. This should answer some questions, and perhaps get some of you interested. You may also understand why I was so enthusiastic about the inclusion of farming, gardening, and food.
Don Stewart
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... nge-ranked
And so I finally decided to do Drawdown: name the goal and then map, measure, and model, see if it’s achievable. And away we went, for almost three years, with 70 Drawdown research fellows from 22 countries and six continents.
Because that’s what you hear from Charles Ferguson, Al Gore, [Jeffrey] Sachs, or Christiana Figueres. They’re all saying the same thing. It’s understandable — 62 percent of the [greenhouse gas] molecules up there came from fossil fuel combustion, so you just invert it, right? It makes sense. It just doesn’t work out that way.
But even then, the number one solution is educating girls and family planning.
Every carbon number [in the book] is peer-reviewed data.
In the process of covering land use, we had to identify what had actually been studied. So we have 22 land-use solutions. We’re splitters, in order to get accurate data.
By the way, we’re doing D2 — Drawdown Two. And it’s all coming attractions that weren’t in D1 — 60 more of them, things that are nascent, on the horizon or just below the horizon. They are game-changers, a lot of them. Some of them will fail. It’s hard to say which will or won’t.
David Roberts
I guess what trips me up is that the scenario you’re calling “plausible” involves reductions in carbon that most modeling outfits would characterize as wildly ambitious.
Paul Hawken
Our models include a lot of things that were excluded from other models. One is land use. It’s given passing reference, but hasn’t been given much credibility by the IPCC.
They don’t include, for example, farmland restoration — over a billion hectares of abandoned land all over the world. We know how to regenerate that, using animals, using cover, using no-till. Is there a transition cost? Yeah. But it’s a big sink.