cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/20740784

Amid all the bad climate news flowing out of the Trump administration, you might have missed a quiet new consensus congealing in think tanks and big business. The targets set out by the Paris climate agreement, they argue—to limit global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)—are a lost cause. It’s time to prepare for a world warmed by at least three degrees Celsius.

Owing to “recent setbacks to global decarbonization efforts,” Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a research report last month, they “now expect a 3°C world.” The “baseline” scenario that JP Morgan Chase uses to assess its own transition risk—essentially, the economic impact that decarbonization could have on its high-carbon investments—similarly “assumes that no additional emissions reduction policies are implemented by governments” and that the world could reach “3°C or more of warming” by 2100. The Climate Realism Initiative launched on Monday by the Council on Foreign Relations similarly presumes that the world is likely on track to warm on average by three degrees or more this century. The essay announcing the initiative calls the prospect of reaching net-zero global emissions by 2050 “utterly implausible.”

archived (Wayback Machine)

Related: Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?

(Previous climate models have underestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and the climate’s sensitivity to rising carbon dioxide levels.)

  • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It is kind of funny how much of the Trump administration’s agenda makes sense if you’re a “climate realist” preparing America to rule the new three degree world.

    Annex Canada and Greenland? Sure, as the world gets warmer and Arctic resources open up we’re going to want those.

    Tariffs to help American manufacturing? Famines and natural disasters are going to wreck world economies and scramble supply chains, so we need to be able to make it on our own.

    Brutal immigration enforcement and performative cruelty towards migrants? The climate crisis is going to drive climate refugees north from Latin America at levels never seen before. We want migrants to be afraid to come to the United States. And we want Americans to hate migrants so they’ll be on board with turning them away.

    (Same with cutting Social Security and Medicare and public benefits - we won’t be able to afford those luxuries in the coming crisis, so let’s get America used to the idea of not having them.)

    More oil and gas and fossil fuel production? Why not? We’re preparing for the climate crisis, and other countries are not - the faster the climate changes, the more of an advantage we’ll have.

    Even the fucking lumber emergency is understandable - if you think most of America’s forests are going to burn down in the next few decades anyway, the rational thing to do is salvage as much usable wood as you can before the forest fires get really bad and you lose that resource entirely.

    I don’t think Trump would come up with this on his own, but “the world as we know it is ending and strong men must now make hard choices to save civilization” is exactly the narrative techbros like Musk would cream their jeans over. I wonder if Peter Thiel got into ecofacism in the last few years.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Indeed that is not an unreasonable conclusion and I assume the Trump administration has at least a few advisers that are thinking exactly like that.