> The economic models that are used to inform climate policy currently contain
> an unhealthy dose of wishful thinking. Technologies that remove carbon dioxide
> from the air are assumed in the models that avoid dangerous climate change
> but such technologies do not yet exist and it is unclear whether they could be
> deployed at a meaningful scale.

> But it is hazardous to rely on science fiction in the development of the scenarios
> that are used to inform policymakers. To include scenarios for avoiding dangerous
> climate change that employ entirely speculative approaches seems reckless in the extreme.



The BAU crowd will be hitting the panic button in order to get this smothered
before it is repeated and heard by the populous ... and before people start to
ask "WHY IS THIS BEING IGNORED FOR THE SAKE OF GREED?" ...

> Since (2000), however, the new study finds that the motion shifted sharply
> and now the North Pole is moving towards the U.K. and Europe.
> The motion has also sped up, though it still isn't very large.
> The movement towards Canada was at around 7 to 8 centimeters per year,
> Adhikari said, and the movement towards the U.K. is now about 16 to 18 centimeters
> per year.

Although the amounts are small (tens of centimetres per year), the fact that
the change was sudden rather than gradual and that, in addition, the rate has
increased 100% in this new direction is genuine cause for concern.

The rotation of the planet is is an energy balance on a scale that is almost
literally incredible - hard to comprehend or believe when you see the numbers
turned into everyday terms.

For this immense balancing act to change direction *and* magnitude so suddenly
(effectively instantaneous in geological terms) is every bit as worrying as the
degree to which, e.g., krill & low order fish are being driven to extinction by human
action. The difference is that the latter can be controlled by controlling human action
(although I'll admit that it's unlikely that any political body will even attempt - much
less succeed - at doing so) whereas the former has such inertia that it is really
mind-blowingly beyond the scope of human remediation.

It's not just that the goal-posts change, it's the entire playing field that is moving.

There will be progress - hopefully lots of it - in both conservation/efficiency and
replacement of fossil fuel with renewable (electric) energy but it will take a couple
of major catastrophic events followed by brutal & unwelcome changes before
enough people actually get the message of how *necessary* and *urgent* this
transition really is.

Even then, there will always be the rich ("I will do it wastefully because I can"
and the ignorant ("Don't wanna 'cos Freedumb!" around to prevent 100% ever
being reached.

Unlike the Med, the Channel is pretty easy to cross and that will be what
happens (it already does to a certain extent but that is kept pretty quiet).

Of course, when that happens there will be a serious backlash against anyone
attempting to get in - no "wet foot dry foot" law for the UK - and that could
easily spread to friction/antagonism to "suspected illegal immigrants" who are
already in the country ... not a good thing at all as it will lead to a seriously
polarised community - anyone not speaking English (especially if non-white)
will become a target.

I don't want to live in a Fortress Britain run by fascists ("V for Vendetta",
"Children of Men" and such like) any more than I want the current situation
to get any worse by opening the doors any wider.

The only thing that is keeping the migrant camps in France is the money that
the UK is paying France and that is only acceptable because we are in the EU.

There is a purpose-built camp next to the main site and the option to
go to other accomodation centres elsewhere in France.

The main site is not being dismantled, only the ad-hoc "extension" to it:
> The French government initially announced its plan to dismantle the southern
> part of the camp — closer to the highway — in early February.
> Migrants in that section would attempt to jump on trucks crossing through
> the Chunnel, despite barbed wire set up to protect the road.

Note how even the "activists" in that area (who conveniently write in
English so that tossers like USAToday can understand) admit the problem:

Population: 3455
Elderly: 13
Women:169
Children:445
Men: 2841
Families: 145

(Edited as can't get the image to show but it's the fourth in the page
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/01/french-riot-police-teargas-jungle-calais-camp-evictions)


If it were 145 families, that would be one thing - protect them & help them.
145 families plus any unaccompanied women? Sure - the women are in most danger.

145 families plus ~2700 single men? Fuck off.


Between the dipshit Brit who said
> "We should open borders and let everybody in the United Kingdom"

and the Afghan who said
> "I will just keep trying to reach England”

... it's hard to keep sympathy for the minority who are real refugees in the
face of the violence, abuse & general behaviour of the majority who are not.

As a species, we are transfixed by the spectacle, by the weirdness and the
"WTF? Haven't seen that before?" nature of events and get so engrossed in
merely watching that we don't pay attention to the danger.

In that video, one rabbit was smart and went to ground on seeing the stoat.
The other was doing the equivalent of sitting on the couch, eating popcorn
and watching the entertainment right up to that "Oh F*ck" moment.

> Nature: "Current models of climate economics assume that lives in the future
> are less important than lives today, a value judgement that is rarely scrutinized
> and difficult to defend..."

Personally, I'd take it further still (yet still be accurate):

"Current models of climate economics assume that lives in the future
are less important than short term profits today."

Thanks for posting that article.

It actually applies to your previous sentence:
> The world economy and society would utterly collapse without airplanes.

Neither the "world economy" nor "society" depend on airplanes.

Planes make some aspects more convenient (for sure) but "depend"? Not so much.

Here in England, we have had two absolutely delightful "collapses" since 2000
as a result of a) the terrorist inspired US flight shutdown in September 2001
and b) the Eyjafjallajökull inspired European flight shutdown in April 2010.

Both caused inconvenience to a small (globally microscopic) subset of the world's population
(mostly through people being stranded and unable to fly *back* to their homes).

Both caused clear & quiet skies of a nature that had simply been unimaginable by many
people prior to the events.

Neither caused the world economy to crash.

Neither caused global society to collapse.

In fact, I'd love a similar "collapse" like that every year.



If you want to introduce it in a gentle way rather than the big bang shutdowns
of the above, simply tax the ******* fuel for planes at the same rate as the
European governments do for car fuel and ramp up the tax annually until the
aircraft industry goes the way of the buggy-whip makers.

That will make for a "soft landing" that should assure even you of the fact that
air travel is, has been, and will always be a luxury, not a necessity (and certainly
not something that is critical to holding up the world economy or society).

It's about as useful as Punxsutawney Phil - nobody in power is affected by it
and anyone who is influenced by it is powerless to do anything about it.

Still, symbolism still has a place in human society so I have no problem
with it being kept (along with its annual rituals) and revered as a semi-religious
artifact for the modern world.

That's a shorter summary of his words:

> The fourth industrial revolution will enable firms to extend the use-cycle of assets
> and resources, increase their utilization and create cascades that recover and
> repurpose materials and energy for further uses, lowering emissions and resource
> loads in the process. In this revolutionary(*) new industrial system, carbon dioxide
> turns from a greenhouse pollutant into an asset, and the economics of carbon
> capture and storage move from being cost as well as pollution sinks to becoming
> profitable carbon-capture and use-production facilities.

(*) "revolutionary" = "non-existent and totally infeasible fantasy of a"


> The growth of “the human cloud” may end regular employment, with pensions and benefits

Glad that they put that bit in to keep everyone happy.


Fuck all economists with a spiked pole then burn the bastards in combined heat & power
plants (so they can actually contribute to the public good - for the first time in their lives).