Global Warming's New Math

[Monte Davis]

The core argument, without caveats and qualifications:

1) From Kyoto through Copenhagen, a 2 degree C. global increase has been
widely accepted as a threshold we really don't wanna cross;
2) We can calculate how much more fossil-fuel burning will get us there;
3) Current proven reserves held by energy co's and nation/companies are
about *six times* that  amount;
4) The stock price of energy companies (and the credit-worthiness of Saudi
Arabia, Venezuela, USA states fracking their shale, et al) is tightly
correlated with their reserves. Ergo, any combination of policies/actions
that would be effective in keeping the increase under 2 degrees would in
effect say to all those parties: "Five-sixths of that collective asset just
became worthless." (Yeah, I know, coal & oil & gas are also feedstocks for
polymers, fertilizers etc, but at this level that's a detail. Yeah,  I know,
CO2 capture & sequestration is possible -- but do the math, and it would
require infrastructure -- and expenditure -- on the same scale as all
today's pipelines and refineries and tankers and coal trains.)

Some of you are no doubt saying "duhh," but it snapped my head around even
though I've been reading McKibben & co for a long time. It's the difference
between a handwaved "the fossil-fuel industry can't keep growing in future
decades as it has for the last century or two"... and saying to that
industry, the world's largest: "five-sixths of the biggest asset investors
recognize in you *right now* is a mirage." That makes it much easier to
understand the fervor of denial.   



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
Of Dave Monroe
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:35 PM
To: pynchon -l
Subject: Global Warming's New Math

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-mat
h-20120719