Active Entries
- 1: Huh
- 2: Clarke Award Finalists 2006
- 3: New to me
- 4: Pilot confounds Hegseth effort to address Social Security, Housing Crisis
- 5: Two unrelated articles
- 6: Basilisk edited by Ellen Kushner
- 7: Ion-Pedestrian collision
- 8: Books Received, July 12 — July 19
- 9: Young People Read Old Nebula Finalists: Red As Blood by Tanith Lee
- 10: Checking in on Our Old Friend, Barnard’s Star
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 06:26 pm (UTC)For example US greenhouse gas emissions have been dropping for the last seven years, with it now being below 1995 levels despite there being more Americans and a larger economy. To be totally fair this is due in part to a lousy economy, but that is not the whole story. It is also due to the massive increase in natural gas use, to the point where it is displacing the much worse coal. I think even if the economy had been rescued by a Keynesian style stimulus that we would still be below peak emissions of 2005.
Essentially flat emissions by the worst per capita polluter are emphatically not good enough, but I think this points to the potential for real improvements in the future when all the potentially useful innovations are considered. I think there will be significant problems due to climate change we have already locked in and that they will also be overcome through trade and planning while the world transitions to a less carbon intensive economy. I predict that by 2050 that world carbon emissions will be lower than 1990 levels despite more of the world enjoying a middle class lifestyle.
I think climate change will be bad, but not disastrous.