Comments on: Hansen: Yankee Ticket Prices and Fossil Fuels http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/10/hansen-yankee-ticket-prices-and-fossil-fuels/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:49:54 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Kiashu http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/10/hansen-yankee-ticket-prices-and-fossil-fuels/#comment-10759 Kiashu Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:02:43 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/10/hansen-yankee-ticket-prices-and-fossil-fuels/#comment-10759 There's are two problems with H&K's analysis or informal scenario, which are simply, 1) They suppose that we go sick burning through all our oil and gas, yet have restraint with coal; this is inconsistent. Either we're able to have restraint with <i>all</i> fossil fuels, or with none. It's like expecting a mining company to stop letting mercury into the groundwater while happily letting arsenic into it. It just doesn't make sense. 2) They suppose a massive global programme of reforestation. However, it's notable that deforestation has been an issue looked at internationally for 50 years, compared to the mere 20 of climate change; yet still nearly a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to deforestation. When we're not even able to stop deforestation, it seems foolish to rely on being able to reforest. Since restraint in coal use and massive reforestation are key to keeping total emissions below a level giving us 1,000ppm, and indeed to achieve the 425ppm aimed at by H&K, I don't find their scenario plausible. Desirable, absolutely. Plausible? Not so much. There’s are two problems with H&K’s analysis or informal scenario, which are simply,

1) They suppose that we go sick burning through all our oil and gas, yet have restraint with coal; this is inconsistent. Either we’re able to have restraint with all fossil fuels, or with none. It’s like expecting a mining company to stop letting mercury into the groundwater while happily letting arsenic into it. It just doesn’t make sense.

2) They suppose a massive global programme of reforestation. However, it’s notable that deforestation has been an issue looked at internationally for 50 years, compared to the mere 20 of climate change; yet still nearly a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to deforestation. When we’re not even able to stop deforestation, it seems foolish to rely on being able to reforest.

Since restraint in coal use and massive reforestation are key to keeping total emissions below a level giving us 1,000ppm, and indeed to achieve the 425ppm aimed at by H&K, I don’t find their scenario plausible.

Desirable, absolutely. Plausible? Not so much.

]]> By: IANVS http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/10/hansen-yankee-ticket-prices-and-fossil-fuels/#comment-10755 IANVS Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:38:28 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/10/hansen-yankee-ticket-prices-and-fossil-fuels/#comment-10755 Joe, Don't know where to stick this (actually I do), but I just learned of the ICECAP website http://icecap.us/index.php where a bunch of denier/delay "experts" http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts are disseminating disinformation about AGW & ICE http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths . Joe,

Don’t know where to stick this (actually I do), but I just learned of the ICECAP website http://icecap.us/index.php where a bunch of denier/delay “experts” http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts are disseminating disinformation about AGW & ICE http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths .

]]>