DearDr Burns
Thankyou for the link to the clarification by MIT’s Dr Reilly of his2015
statement about the Paris Accord that “those pledges shave 0.2 Cof warming if
they’re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessedwould have been
the case by extending existing measures [due to expire in 2020]based on earlier
international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun,”
I do not see how mystatement that “all Paris commitments would only
reducewarming by 0.2 degrees” mischaracterises Dr Reilly’s point. “All Paris
commitments” mean those newly madein Paris. They do not include theprevious
commitments or possible future commitments that Dr Reilly cited in
hisexplanation that emission reduction efforts could be greater than just the
Parispledges.
RobertTulip
From: Wil Burns <williamcgbu...@gmail.com>
To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 11 June 2017, 23:01
Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering fears make scrutiny of ocean seeding test
vital | New Scientist
While I won't wade into the OIF controversy (at least right now), I think it's
important to note that Robert's characterization of the MIT study's conclusions
about the impacts of the Paris Agreement is, in itself, a mischaracterization.
See:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/08/trump-used-our-research-to-justify-pulling-out-of-the-paris-agreement-he-got-it-wrong/?utm_term=.f70b18f5c27a.
Donald Trump cited this study as one of his justifications to withdraw from
Paris, and I thought the researchers did an excellent job of explaining why
this interpretation was incorrect.
Moreover, the stocktaking and review provisions of the Paris are designed to
ensure that the level of Party commitments increase over time (see,
particularly, Arts. 4(3), 4(9) and Art. 14, so taking a snapshot of what
Nationally Determined Contributions will yield by 2100 based on current NDCs is
misleading. I also don't think it makes sense for the geoengineering community
to denigrate Paris as a justification for geoengineering. wil
| Dr. Wil Burns
Co-Executive Director, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, School of
International Service, American University |
| 650.281.9126 | w...@feronia.org | http://www.ceassessment.org | Skype:
wil.burns |
2650 Haste St., Towle Hall #G07, Berkeley, CA 94720| View my research on my
SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=240348 |
On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:49:04 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/ article/2133372- geoengineering-fears-make-
scrutiny-of-ocean-seeding- test-vital/https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
