Reactions to a New Plan for CO2 Progress - NYTimes.com
[Robert Socolow of Princeton]...the goal of the paper I have just written is to “restart” the discussion of climate change, which, as I see it, is on the verge of disappearing from view...In short, I see us losing at least a decade (the minimum time for a discarded priority to make a comeback), unless we find creative ways to reengage the public.
...We are losing the argument with the general public, big time. I am addressing the next few years, and I am asking how we can get the general public to take climate change seriously. This is not where any of us in 2004 thought the argument would be in 2011.
...I think the climate change activists, myself included, have lost the American middle, and I’m trying to say that this loss can be explained and maybe even undone.
Just read through the NYTimes article with Socolow and I noticed this excerpt which seems to say that without a technological revolution, the real cost to GDP will possibly be a magnitude or more greater than the 1 to 2 % of GDP cost that has been mentioned:
"I also think that you found the Achilles heel in David’s discussion: his suggestion [of a cost of] 1 to 2 percent of GDP for making deep cuts in global emissions. The 1 or 2 percent is only (remotely) plausible if there is a thorough-going technological revolution–one that allows huge scale-ups of carbon-free technologies at low cost. Without such a revolution the costs of deep cuts in global emissions will be prohibitive, possibly an order of magnitude greater."
Post a Comment