A Planetary Crisis Is A Terrible Thing to Waste by Christian Schwägerl: Yale Environment 360
One example is per capita CO2 emissions. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a conservative politician, has just publicly endorsed calculationsYale Environment 360: Christian Schwagerl
by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research that show how much we overdraw our global CO2 budget. According to the institute, beginning today the average human being must not emit more than 2 tons of CO2 per year in order to avoid dangerous global climate change. But the average Chinese citizen is emitting 4 to 5 tons per year, the average German 11 tons, and the average American more than 20 tons. That means we’re overdrawing our CO2 budget by a factor of 2 to 10.
Christian Schwägerl is an environmental journalist who has reported on science and public policy for two decades and is author of the book The Age of Men, published in German under the title Menschenzeit by Riemann/Random House.
Posts
3 comments:
Another loser associated with that colossal fraudulent enterprise, the Potsdam Institute.
How Merkel could have been taken in by this scam is a mystery; I hate to think psychosis or hitting a crack pipe. She holds a PhD of physical chemistry and is no Dumb Bunny, she is doing her political Party no favors supporting this global fraud and she is doing her Country even less good.
Merkel has not generally been just another Euro political pinko of the French style (who essentially supported Al Gore just to spit on George Bush), and I have no explanation
We are only allowed to produce 2 tons/human per year to avoid disaster, but the Chinese rising economy does 4+/person, and the First World between 11 & 20/person.
So to avoid disaster we have to reduce our lifestyle to 1/2 of the Chinese, and 1/5 of Germans and 1/10 of Americans ... for fossil fuel consumption.
And this will happen a) without much cost, and b) without problems in cold climates, and c) without economic shutdown, and d) without global coercive enforcement, and e) because people will agree to it.
What mental space do such warmist/social theorists live in?
This would achieve what the environmental movement dreams of, all of us living short, brutish lives in poverty. That is, a return to nature, with none of the hated SUVs or modern technologies that make life livable.
The scientific conclusion involved is risible. A huge body of high quality peer reviewed data complete refutes AGW.
Post a Comment