<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none"><!-- p { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; }--></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>1. US carbon emissions dropped 11% between 2007 and 2013 largely due to a drop in energy consumption, not the rise in the use of natural gas that has been claimed.
<a href="http://www.afp.com/en/news/recession-not-gas-drove-drop-us-emissions-study">
http://www.afp.com/en/news/recession-not-gas-drove-drop-us-emissions-study</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. Renewable energy accounted for 70% of the new energy capacity in the US added in the first half of 2015. Renewables now constitute 17% of capacity, about double that of nuclear power. Coal accounts for 27% and is declining.
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/22/renewables-first-half-2015/">http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/22/renewables-first-half-2015/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>3. James Hansen and sixteen coauthors have published their paper on the dangers of 2C of warming. The document is half text (64 pages), ¼ references, and ¼ figures. The Abstract is on page 20061 (page 3 of the text). The concluding “Summary Implications”
section is on 20119-20122. <a href="http://climatecrocks.com/2015/07/23/wonk-alert-hansen-paper-now-online/">http://climatecrocks.com/2015/07/23/wonk-alert-hansen-paper-now-online/</a>
<br>
Kevin Trenberth rewards a reading of the paper with a critique of its weaknesses.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/study-predicts-multi-meter-sea-level-rise-this-century-but-not-everyone-agrees-45139">
https://theconversation.com/study-predicts-multi-meter-sea-level-rise-this-century-but-not-everyone-agrees-45139</a> Trenberth advises that the conclusions of the paper are too provisional to serve as a base for policy decisions. My reaction is that they
are less provisional and far more substantive than the base for a 2C “guardrail,” which is a politically derived position. At present we have no scientifically supported alternative to a target of 350 ppm of CO2 equivalent. The argument that the target is
politically difficult, that we must work backwards towards it by sequestering carbon while we cease emissions, is irrelevant. We must consider ourselves under that imperative target of 350 ppm until we achieve a firmer ground for revision, which may well
be stricter rather than more relaxed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>4. Tim Flannery understands that we will need to remove carbon from the atmosphere in order to stabilize the climate. Scalable and practical removal methods include biochar and chillers in the Antarctic which would provide frozen CO2 for storage there.
He suggests that the price we set on emitting carbon should be at least that of removing it. His “Atmosphere of Hope: Searching for Solutions to the Climate Crisis” is forthcoming. (Subsc. req.)
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/opinion/a-third-way-to-fight-climate-change.html?_r=0">
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/opinion/a-third-way-to-fight-climate-change.html?_r=0</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>5. Investors will suffer losses from fossil fuel holdings if emissions controls are enacted in Paris, but severe losses across the board if they are not.
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/24/investors-could-lose-42tn-due-to-impact-of-climate-change-report-warns">
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/24/investors-could-lose-42tn-due-to-impact-of-climate-change-report-warns</a>
</p>
</body>
</html>