[clive milne]

Hi Renato,
Irrespective of climate sensitivity to CO2 (which we all agree is not zero) the real concern is avoiding the point at which feedback mechanisms become self reinforcing. Now let us assume that climate sensitivity to CO2 was half what has been accepted to date, let us also make the assumption that our economies remain tied to carbon intensive energy sources (as the lobby groups influencing the debate in the public arena hope to be the case) simple mathematics can be used to predict the amount of additional time this gifts us before the denouement of modern civilization. With 2.8% pa growth in the energy sector, halving climate sensitivity with a magic wand buys us at most an additional 25 years until we face the same problem.

The 'business as usual' policy has only one mathematically possible outcome and it is a train wreck. The only question remaining is how much track we have left and how much momentum we will be carrying when we get there.

I really don't understand why avoiding that outcome by changing the way we collectively structure the energy basis of the global economy is anathema to anyone considering the alternative. The only logical assumption I am left with is that either those people making the decisions are not logical, there is a false premise in my argument (or theirs) or that they have no interest in the long term viability of the operating system of this planet and by extension, have no thought for the living things that depend upon it. The evidence I see with my own eyes suggests that the latter option most likely encapsulates the truth of the matter.