Global Warming's New Math

[Monte Davis]

I don't think McKibben was saying "simple greed" at all -- rather, that the
cost of the transition to a lower-carbon energy economy is more front-loaded
than I, at least, had realized. Any firm commitment to stabilize and reduce
CO2 emissions worldwide means a big financial/economic hit *right now,*
because the future burning of so much coal/oil/gas still underground is
already baked into valuations. 

As for anger -- I associate that (and a carefree way with important facts)
much more with Wolf than with McKibben, but YMMV.   

Nor, of course, is the "greed" simple, if you follow through all the
ramifications of the cheap hydrocarbons we're addicted to. They enable, or
reduce the cost of, many many Good Things dear to even the greenest, so...
well, we have met the enemy and he is us. "Like an instrument installed,
wired by Them into our bodies as a colonial outpost," ya know?



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
Of Rich
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:11 PM
To: Monte Davis
Cc: Dave Monroe; pynchon -l
Subject: Re: Global Warming's New Math

Mckibben and co call it simple greed but is it really that simple? I don't
discount the aggressive obliviousness of the energy companies but surely it
seems our systems which are fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels  are not
so easily displaced. Forget the stock price for a minute; what about the
seismic shift on employment just to name one. How many us rely on oil for
our jobs. It's galling having to rely on bp to solve our problems but I
doubt naomi Klein or McKibben can solve it either. Their anger is noted;
give me something more useful to think about

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 22, 2012, at 2:31 PM, "Monte Davis" <montedavis at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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-n
> ew-mat
> h-20120719
>