Study on the future cost of global warming

[Ahmed]

Why limit yourself to 2 factors when the problem is multifactorial? And the "ifs" are not of great interest: if the CO2 did not absorb in the infrared, there would be a problem of a too cold climate! If the oil was abiotic and came out of the magma, there would be a problem of destruction of the biosphere, as with fossils ...

[sen-no-sen]

why consubstantial?
si the CO2 did not absorb in the infrared, there would be a resource problem but no climate
si the oil was abiotic and came out of the magma, there would be a climate problem and no resources.
They are two different problems, and in addition anticorrelated (the earlier there is a depletion problem, the less there is a climate problem).

It is normal to consider them separately, and more precisely to ask the question: is the amount of fossils beyond which the RCA is really dangerous lower or higher than the amount of economically extractable fossils?

most people think the answer is "inferior", but the concern is that when you ask them if they know these two values, in fact they don't know.

If my aunt had one we would call him my uncle ... with if we can do the whole story again.

The fact is that C02 is a greenhouse gas and that oil is not abiotic (unless we demonstrate that like climatologists, geologists are in their turn charlots!).
These are not different problems since one is at the origin of the other and the quantity of resources present is capable of altering the climate.
Also like the very well pointed out Ahmed, in the context of an alternate reality where its two parameters would be distinct this time, we would end up with other problems ... the blue planet would not be blue and we would not be there to procrastinate.

[ABC2019]

I know it's contrafactual, but it's just to illustrate that the problems are not necessarily linked, it's a coincidence that they are

and you don't answer the only important question

is the amount of fossils beyond which the RCA is really dangerous lower or higher than the amount of economically extractable fossils?

depending on your answer, one of the two problems doesn't matter.

[sen-no-sen]

is the amount of fossils beyond which the RCA is really dangerous lower or higher than the amount of economically extractable fossils?

If I rephrase because this question does not seem very clear to me, you would like to know if the cost of phasing out fossil fuels would be higher or lower than the risk posed by climate change? In short, the benefit / risk of decarbonization?

[ABC2019]

is the amount of fossils beyond which the RCA is really dangerous lower or higher than the amount of economically extractable fossils?

If I rephrase because this question does not seem very clear to me, you would like to know if the cost of phasing out fossil fuels would be higher or lower than the risk posed by climate change? In short, the benefit / risk of decarbonization?

not exactly. The risk benefit of decarbonization obviously depends on the objective you set for yourself in the amount of carbon extracted. No one is arguing, for example, that all fossils should be wiped out by next week, which means that the cost of such a measure is considered far too high compared to the benefit of stopping the growth entirely. CO2 now. In principle, we can therefore calculate this risk benefit as a function of the quantity of carbon that remains to be extracted, and determine for what amount it is maximum. In principle, it is always this amount that we should adopt as a target for the future.

My question is to know if this optimal value is lower or higher than the value of the fossils that one would extract on economic criteria, without worrying about the CO2 (for example if the CO2 did not absorb in the infrared).

And the consequences of the answer to this question are important, because if it is lower, it makes sense to limit the production of fossils below the value that we could extract, and if it is higher, well it is. no need to ask the question since the depletion of fossils will be sufficient to limit the total production to suboptimal values.

[humus]

If I rephrase because this question does not seem very clear to me, you would like to know if the cost of phasing out fossil fuels would be higher or lower than the risk posed by climate change? In short, the benefit / risk of decarbonization?

not exactly. The risk benefit of decarbonization obviously depends on the objective you set for yourself in the amount of carbon extracted. No one is arguing, for example, that all fossils should be wiped out by next week, which means that the cost of such a measure is considered far too high compared to the benefit of stopping the growth entirely. CO2 now. In principle, we can therefore calculate this risk benefit as a function of the quantity of carbon that remains to be extracted, and determine for what amount it is maximum. In principle, it is always this amount that we should adopt as a target for the future.

My question is to know if this optimal value is lower or higher than the value of the fossils that one would extract on economic criteria, without worrying about the CO2 (for example if the CO2 did not absorb in the infrared).

And the consequences of the answer to this question are important, because if it is lower, it makes sense to limit the production of fossils below the value that we could extract, and if it is higher, well it is. no need to ask the question since the depletion of fossils will be sufficient to limit the total production to suboptimal values.

It is a logic to which I cannot subscribe.
The carbonaceous fossils will decline, it is an undeniable fact.

The peak of conventional oil has passed.
Yet the demand for fossils is only growing.
These 2 trends show that there is going to be a problem.
Prudence would require getting rid of carbonaceous fossils.
You might as well do it as soon as possible because it will take time.
Continuing to use fossils as if nothing had happened is simply irresponsible since we are 100% dependent on them for everything to do with our lives, even for cremation and the last trip on the little gray bus.

[humus]

I see as you do, except that the climate, although secondary, is far from negligible. Currently it is still fine, but it will get worse:
Water stress, reduced harvests where we are used to cultivating.

it's catastrophic speech used over and over in which you believe by dint of having heard it

And there would be no substance of truth?
The heavily populated Mediterranean basin, has its agriculture which is doing wonderfully?
In our region, yields stagnate, probably soon a peak more than an "eternal" plateau. (Depletions and climate)
Southern Europe has no doubts about the consequences of global warming, but perhaps they are more concerned?

Food production has grown steadily, and there is still ample room to grow it given the low yield and inefficiency of many parts of the world - and in this regard, removing fossils would be much more damaging. for agriculture than the RC

No doubt the food production has not stopped growing macroscopically, but observe the signs of food stress in hot and densely populated regions.
Global warming will not have its final value until 20 years after emissions cease. But we always and always more.
You reason on a current climate whereas it is in full transition and will turn everything upside down: agriculture and place of life.
We're not going to stop broadcasting overnight.

In fact, I do not identify any area of ​​society where the removal of fossils would not have far more serious consequences than those of RC that it is supposed to avoid.

That's right, remove all the fossils immediately and it's the cataclysm, while the RC is macroscopically bearable.
Since these resources are going to decline, it would be advisable to anticipate a less dependent way of life, rather than stupidly continuing to use fossils without asking any questions.
"Without asking any question" which in addition to the depletion, will open a much more critical RC.
Do not forget that when it comes to climate and CO2, the time between action and the perception of the consequences is about 20 years.
Today we have the climate resulting from emissions until 2000. However, we continued to measure CO2 and emit more and more.

[ABC2019]

If I rephrase because this question does not seem very clear to me, you would like to know if the cost of phasing out fossil fuels would be higher or lower than the risk posed by climate change? In short, the benefit / risk of decarbonization?

not exactly. The risk benefit of decarbonization obviously depends on the objective you set for yourself in the amount of carbon extracted. No one is arguing, for example, that all fossils should be wiped out by next week, which means that the cost of such a measure is considered far too high compared to the benefit of stopping the growth entirely. CO2 now. In principle, we can therefore calculate this risk benefit as a function of the quantity of carbon that remains to be extracted, and determine for what amount it is maximum. In principle, it is always this amount that we should adopt as a target for the future.

My question is to know if this optimal value is lower or higher than the value of the fossils that one would extract on economic criteria, without worrying about the CO2 (for example if the CO2 did not absorb in the infrared).

And the consequences of the answer to this question are important, because if it is lower, it makes sense to limit the production of fossils below the value that we could extract, and if it is higher, well it is. no need to ask the question since the depletion of fossils will be sufficient to limit the total production to suboptimal values.

It is a logic to which I cannot subscribe.

Of course, yes, you subscribe to it, like everyone else, even if you do like M. Jourdain by doing prose without knowing it. In everything you do, there is an underlying cost benefit assessment. For example by using the internet, or by traveling, you make an implicit assessment that the benefit for you is greater than the cost, even if it contributes to CO2.

The carbonaceous fossils will decline, it is an undeniable fact.

The peak of conventional oil has passed.
Yet the demand for fossils is only growing.
These 2 trends show that there is going to be a problem.

obviously there may be a problem. Aging also causes problems. The point is not to avoid problems, but to minimize them.

Prudence would require getting rid of carbonaceous fossils.


You might as well do it as soon as possible because it will take time.

well no - as soon as possible, that would be to stop everything now, and nobody asks that, because we know that the cost would be too high.

So the optimum is not "as soon as possible", but as soon as possible taking into account the costs that this causes, which amounts to what I say: there is an optimum, which corresponds to a certain quantity of fossils that one allows oneself to extract, which is not zero - and therefore which has a certain optimal value.

Continuing to use fossils as if nothing had happened is simply irresponsible since we are 100% dependent on them for everything to do with our lives, even for cremation and the last trip on the little gray bus.

in this case it is not necessarily a good idea to accelerate their decrease, before having found how to replace them.

[ABC2019]

That's right, remove all the fossils immediately and it's the cataclysm, while the RC is macroscopically bearable.
Since these resources are going to decline, it would be advisable to anticipate a less dependent way of life, rather than stupidly continuing to use fossils without asking any questions.
"Without asking any question" which in addition to the depletion, will open a much more critical RC.

you don't realize that what you are describing is a situation where an action (decreasing fossils) and its opposite (increasing them) each have a downside. Which is in fact a generic situation in reality: for example stopping eating is not good, and overeating is not good either.

In this case; the solution is to seek the optimal path which minimizes the disadvantages: for example determining a "good" calorie intake - but which obviously will not prevent you from dying one day.

It's the same with fossils, and even if you don't agree, like I said, it's still what you apply in your everyday life.

[humus]

not exactly. The risk benefit of decarbonization obviously depends on the objective you set for yourself in the amount of carbon extracted. No one is arguing, for example, that all fossils should be wiped out by next week, which means that the cost of such a measure is considered far too high compared to the benefit of stopping the growth entirely. CO2 now. In principle, we can therefore calculate this risk benefit as a function of the quantity of carbon that remains to be extracted, and determine for what amount it is maximum. In principle, it is always this amount that we should adopt as a target for the future.

My question is to know if this optimal value is lower or higher than the value of the fossils that one would extract on economic criteria, without worrying about the CO2 (for example if the CO2 did not absorb in the infrared).

And the consequences of the answer to this question are important, because if it is lower, it makes sense to limit the production of fossils below the value that we could extract, and if it is higher, well it is. no need to ask the question since the depletion of fossils will be sufficient to limit the total production to suboptimal values.

It is a logic to which I cannot subscribe.

Of course, yes, you subscribe to it, like everyone else, even if you do like M. Jourdain by doing prose without knowing it. In everything you do, there is an underlying cost benefit assessment. For example by using the internet, or by traveling, you make an implicit assessment that the benefit for you is greater than the cost, even if it contributes to CO2.

The carbonaceous fossils will decline, it is an undeniable fact.

The peak of conventional oil has passed.
Yet the demand for fossils is only growing.
These 2 trends show that there is going to be a problem.

obviously there may be a problem. Aging also causes problems. The point is not to avoid problems, but to minimize them.

Prudence would require getting rid of carbonaceous fossils.


You might as well do it as soon as possible because it will take time.

well no - as soon as possible, that would be to stop everything now, and nobody asks that, because we know that the cost would be too high.

So the optimum is not "as soon as possible", but as soon as possible taking into account the costs that this causes, which amounts to what I say: there is an optimum, which corresponds to a certain quantity of fossils that one allows oneself to extract, which is not zero - and therefore which has a certain optimal value.

Continuing to use fossils as if nothing had happened is simply irresponsible since we are 100% dependent on them for everything to do with our lives, even for cremation and the last trip on the little gray bus.

in this case it is not necessarily a good idea to accelerate their decrease, before having found how to replace them.

Well we fall back into the caricature, there is no desire to understand the meaning of my words, good day.