From the introduction:
So, what seemed unreachable, may be reachable if the current commitments to reducing CO2 are upheld, according to one study.
That's good news and an encouragement to keep up the hard work of limiting our CO2 emissions.
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, of course. I'm just worried about all those poor people who can't afford the increased cost of electricity as we move from a reliable and cheap form of energy to the less reliable and more expensive renewables.
It doesn't worry me personally. The huge increases in electricity costs in Australia in recent years, due to an incompetent management of the transition from coal to wind and solar, will likely affect Australian exports of manufactured goods, and affect those who are close to the poverty line and who don't have solar panels on their roof, but I'm retired and I do have some government-subsidized solar panels on my roof with a very generous feed-in tariff which more than offsets the rise in electricity prices.
I'm all in favour of technological research and development. But I'm also in favour of increased efficiency and competent management. The 'scare' about CO2 levels could result in a lot of stupid decisions, and already has.
The confusion resulting from the description of CO2 as a pollutant, putting it in the same category as the unhealthy fossil fuel emission of sulphur dioxide, various nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, and particulate carbon, etc, will inevitably result in some wrong decisions.
If you see a coil of rope on the ground, and you imagine it's a poisonous snake, you could be in trouble. You might fall and break your ankle as you run away.
By the way, one of the reasons I referred to the article, is that it shows a degree of honesty from some of the contributors to the IPCC reports, that computer modelling has been wrong in the past. It's a pity Michael Mann can not be as honest.
