Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Simon Hayhurst's avatar

"Governments may struggle to raise sufficient revenue to fund public services or counter rising inequality". Forgive me, but from what I can see the current US administration has absolutely no interest in either funding public services (certainly for the wider populace) or countering rising inequality.

Expand full comment
Johnny West's avatar

Michael L is very clever and presents a reasonable case - from a completely hidebound point of view which renders his conclusion unsafe. I'm surprised you can't see it (I'm surprised he can't see it too - not suggesting any bad intent or anything).

What is the one thing missing from the graph you posted? Emissions levels. His schema is plausible - as long as you ignore the factor of time.

The "no miracles needed" line is correct in such a narrowly strictly technical sense that it is effectively misleading in the real world. What do we think the timeline needed is to convert the green blocks on the right into already electrified (and this of course ignores the fact that the power source for the electricity needs to be converted too, since the graph is only dealing with electrification, not low carbon energy sources)? Net zero has now been roundly abandoned by policy makers so 2050 is out. 2055 then? 2060? What is that in terms of emissions? Another 1,200 to 1,500 gigatons at least, perhaps even 2,000 gigatons. That takes us - per IPCC - into 3 degree and above world. Where - again according to the established science - we simply don't know which feedback loops might kick in to take us further.

So let me reformulate: the no miracles needed trope is actually no _technical_ miracles needed.

But if you take that path you either have to swear off all the mainstream science about the relationship between emissions levels and global heating or... assume some other kind of miracle. Spontaneous adoption, massive enlightened self-interest promotion of renewables, proactive embrace of the Green economy at every level in the North, generous (and enlightened self-interest) redisribution of resources to the major energy growth regions...

A political-economic miracle.

How likely does that seem in mid-2025?

This is going to sound brutal, so take it as being said kindly :-) There's a super simple category error. The nice squares in squares graphics is / could plausibly be true in a way that's completely meaningless because it measures only _relatively_. Whereas the problem, emissions, is in _absolute terms_. The carbon budget is not scaled to GDP or the world population. Renewables grew 16% last year - fabulous! But irrelevant because fossil fuels grew by 2%... "Eventually" isn't good enough because we have no way of knowing if it is too late (as a side I note various people taking aim at non-linear representation of the crisis... and while it is true that is often presented simplistically... with its exhausting cycles of hope-failure-despair... it does *not* mean we can jump to the opposite simplification, that the entire system in fact is and will remain incremental... the increasing certainty in the science in planetary boundaries tells us that).

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts