prasad1
Active member
I know there are people who disbelieve science, scientist, and English media.
This post may not be for them.
Pledges by nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases not sufficient to stop temperature from rising
Few economists are as versed in the global diplomatic effort to combat climate change as Nicholas Stern of Britain.
So it was particularly distressing to hear him say, at a debate in New York a few weeks ago, that the international effort to achieve a worldwide climate agreement in Paris next December is already falling short on its most critical goal. The various pledges by nations to cut their emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, he noted, will not be enough to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising beyond the level scientists consider the tipping point to devastating environmental disruption.
Professor Stern does not call this “failure.” At least emissions will be lower than without a deal. And he expects the agreement to include a mechanism to review progress every few years, so countries might ramp up their efforts to cut emissions as needed. “This is very much worth having,” he said.
................................
Devastating consequences
Climate change is tougher. For one thing, it will be more costly for a country to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. The benefits will be shared by the entire world. Moreover, the threshold for devastating consequences is uncertain. For many, the optimal strategy will be to lie low and reap the gains as so-called free riders. While countries might cooperate if they were absolutely certain of the tipping point that led to catastrophe, climate science doesn’t work like that.
Climate deal badly needs a big stick
This post may not be for them.
Pledges by nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases not sufficient to stop temperature from rising
So it was particularly distressing to hear him say, at a debate in New York a few weeks ago, that the international effort to achieve a worldwide climate agreement in Paris next December is already falling short on its most critical goal. The various pledges by nations to cut their emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, he noted, will not be enough to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising beyond the level scientists consider the tipping point to devastating environmental disruption.
Professor Stern does not call this “failure.” At least emissions will be lower than without a deal. And he expects the agreement to include a mechanism to review progress every few years, so countries might ramp up their efforts to cut emissions as needed. “This is very much worth having,” he said.
................................
Devastating consequences
Climate change is tougher. For one thing, it will be more costly for a country to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. The benefits will be shared by the entire world. Moreover, the threshold for devastating consequences is uncertain. For many, the optimal strategy will be to lie low and reap the gains as so-called free riders. While countries might cooperate if they were absolutely certain of the tipping point that led to catastrophe, climate science doesn’t work like that.
Climate deal badly needs a big stick
