McKinsey 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero 6

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   JMG Posted 10:49 am
   29 Dec 2008

   PleaseCan you please stop suggesting that it's possible to "stabilize at 450 ppm"?  
   Shooting for 450 means rolling the dice that we don't melt the tundra and liberate the clathrates and reach 1000 or more in a hurry ....
   
   The 5% Project
   
   
   
   Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.

   Permalink

2. 

   Sharon Astyk Posted 2:06 am
   30 Dec 2008

   The key word here is "net."The difficulty with all of this, however, is the word "net" - ie, relying on later paybacks for current investment.  This is, broadly speaking, heartening, but there are real questions about what "net" paybacks will turn out to be.  For example, retrofitting industrial buildings with a five year payback is great...unless the industry goes under in 2 years.  An investment in home insulation with a net payback that assumes that I'll have an ongoing practice of heating whole house to fairly warm temperatures comes out rather differently when the utility company shuts off my deliveries of heating oil anyway and I'm heating my house with a single stove.  
   I don't disagree that there's value here, but I would be more impressed by analysis that took seriously the question of what the real impact of an extended and profound economic crisis will be.
   Sharon Astyk
   
   Sharon, with dirt under her fingernails.

   Permalink

3. 

   amazingdrx Posted 3:21 am
   30 Dec 2008

   Hate to say it"...rolling the dice that we don't melt the tundra and liberate the clathrates and reach 1000 or more in a hurry ...."
   I think the tipping point has been passed already, but no one is telling us about it.
   Ice melt/solar absorption increase feedback is ongoing too.  This is a vital factor in tundra and methane gydrete undersea ice melt.  Arctic sea temps soar as capping ice dissappears.  Tundra no longer pryectyed by snow is doomed to 24 hour solar heating in the arctic summer.
   Then there is firestorm GHG production/loss of bio-sequestration from burned forests.  Firestorms, man-made or accidental are just over the horizon.  Tornadic winds suck fuel into a firestorm, it's like a huge continuous fire powered tornado, or series of tornados along a fire front.
   This is why I think human weather intervention in the form of cloud formation will be necessary.  It could start as a fire fighting/prevention effort on the western US coast.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

4. 

   hapa Posted 7:02 am
   30 Dec 2008

   sharonby the time organized efficienservation measures reach the real planning stages we'll know better who's solvent and what assistance is right and good. now there's too much fog.

   Permalink

5. 

   biodiversivist Posted 3:07 am
   01 Jan 2009

   I have found several altered versions of this chart so it must be a work in progress. The details are educated guesses but the general idea is sound and that is what counts.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

6. 

   stopgreenpath Posted 5:22 am
   01 Jan 2009

   ah, but who will take on Big Energy to do it?The NY Times snuck in an important part of the "efficiency equation" on December 29.  Utilities have long lobbied HARD against efficiency mandates, rewards, incentives, assistance or otherwise, because they prefer "assistance with paying higher bills" for low income people to "eliminating the higher bills."  these are the fine folks who are in charge of both the point of use generation programs and the efficiency programs in our country - the UTILITIES - the people who have the most to lose.  who's gonna change that paradigm?  not their boyfriend Schwarzenegger!!
   story:
   http://tinyurl.com/83vd3m
   Money Quote:
   "Government aid for weatherization has been modest.
   Energy technology research competes for federal aid, said a spokeswoman for the Energy Department. Some states contribute their own money or divert federal money intended to help the poor pay their energy bills.
   But utilities that furnish electricity, natural gas and home heating oil have lobbied strongly for programs that provide money to help pay bills.
   Although Congress added $250 million to the original $227 million budget for weatherization in the current fiscal year, the number of people receiving weatherization aid is dwarfed by those receiving assistance in paying their energy bills.
   "You have six million families a year getting energy assistance, possibly eight million this year, and 150,000 getting weatherization," said Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, an organization of state officials."
   
   the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

   Permalink