4 ms·

The article argues that the models are still using baselines from the 90s, while the world as it is today has already made significant progress toward decarboni

The article argues that the models are still using baselines from the 90s, while the world as it is today has already made significant progress toward decarbonizing industry. Therefore the projection are far more onerous than they should be.

mymythisisthis 4y ago
We're probably using more carbon now, then in the 90s. You have to look at the total carbon output of the world.
- taeric 4y ago
  Not the point. We use less carbon today than the scenarios looking forward to today did. Such that our path forward does not start from where many models assume. Yes, you have to look at the whole picture. But you also have to look from where you are. Not where someone else thought you could be. Right?
  - joshspankit 4y ago
    I mean, yes it’s important to base science on reality. But also: if we take drastic action “wrongly” and the end result is a healthier plant? I’m good with that.
    - taeric 4y ago
      I mean, sorta? I mostly agree, but that is what I'm asking. I'm reminded of folks that were against LED lightbulbs because folks could just turn off their lights a few hours earlier. Not only would that have been a drastic change in behavior, it is comically incomparable in impact. To get the same impact, you would have to turn off your lights basically all day to get close to the same change. Such that sometimes we do have much better levers than previous drastic changes could have even dreamed of achieving. As such, it really depends on the drastic action. For the most part, I don't see how aggressive goals for electric vehicles is harming folks. So if that is what we are looking at, fully back on board with you. With a major caveat of not liking fear mongering. Honesty of where we are is important for its own reasons. Trust in future plans, at the least.
      - joshspankit 4y ago
        We’re on the same page with all your points. Agree agree agree.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
taeric 4y ago
I get that, but how much more? And what is the reason for the error? That is, are the models bad, or the scenarios? The models don't control the inputs, after all. If it is just the inputs are different from actuals, that is very different from the outputs are wrong

mymythisisthis 4y ago

We're probably using more carbon now, then in the 90s. You have to look at the total carbon output of the world.

taeric 4y ago
Not the point. We use less carbon today than the scenarios looking forward to today did. Such that our path forward does not start from where many models assume. Yes, you have to look at the whole picture. But you also have to look from where you are. Not where someone else thought you could be. Right?
- joshspankit 4y ago
  I mean, yes it’s important to base science on reality. But also: if we take drastic action “wrongly” and the end result is a healthier plant? I’m good with that.
  - taeric 4y ago
    I mean, sorta? I mostly agree, but that is what I'm asking. I'm reminded of folks that were against LED lightbulbs because folks could just turn off their lights a few hours earlier. Not only would that have been a drastic change in behavior, it is comically incomparable in impact. To get the same impact, you would have to turn off your lights basically all day to get close to the same change. Such that sometimes we do have much better levers than previous drastic changes could have even dreamed of achieving. As such, it really depends on the drastic action. For the most part, I don't see how aggressive goals for electric vehicles is harming folks. So if that is what we are looking at, fully back on board with you. With a major caveat of not liking fear mongering. Honesty of where we are is important for its own reasons. Trust in future plans, at the least.
    - joshspankit 4y ago
      We’re on the same page with all your points. Agree agree agree.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

taeric 4y ago

I get that, but how much more? And what is the reason for the error? That is, are the models bad, or the scenarios? The models don't control the inputs, after all. If it is just the inputs are different from actuals, that is very different from the outputs are wrong