A strong argument is made against excessive reliance on successful implementation of “negative emissions.” Kevin Anderson, who has said this all along, is one of the authors. Their main argument is that a sense of optimism toward the future of negative emissions, which is so far lacking a tangible foundation, tends to weaken the sense of an urgent need to cut today’s emissions at an uncomfortably fast pace, a pathway having more certainty of success. As it happens, there is a large industry involved in the research and testing of various carbon capture projects that requires a high level of funding, mostly from public sources. That group depends on maintaining a level of future optimism that could easily slide toward exaggeration, but who can really make a correct judgment? Is it possible to give 100% support to both sides of endeavor? If not, which would you choose?
Find a pharmacy online and make sure they have an address & phone number should you have a problem need to get in viagra no prescription canada touch & only pay through secure payment methods. Thus ‘stress’ has both psychological and biological connotations. uk viagra online For secretworldchronicle.com sildenafil levitra all men suffering from impotence, Kamagra represents a significant investment. You will notice your overall mood has improved and your relationship will be stronger as well. secretworldchronicle.com generic cialis from canada
—–
The need to decarbonize heat, and its problems. We hear much about progress made toward decarbonizing electric power and transportation, but not so much about heat for homes and other buildings. This story tackles the problem from a UK perspective, suggesting various approaches but concluding that the best answers are not yet clear. The need is unavoidable under the zero emissions format, and much time will be required for deployment.
—–
What permafrost thawing is doing to cities in the far north. The problem is especially vexing for a number of Russian cities that are way to the north, where everything seems vulnerable and remedies are extremely costly.
—–
Reductions in the cost of grid-scale solar electricity continue to amaze. One result is that new coal-fired power plants, already beleaguered by cheap natural gas, are no longer competitive in most places and cannot attract financing without hefty government subsidies.
—–
Is there going to be a meaningful carbon tax in the US? According to this report taken from a hacked email, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager feared that endorsing a carbon tax would be “lethal” to her campaign. She has certainly not promised to push for one, and in any case as president would need full backing in the Senate. The global picture is not much different, again for lack of public interest and the general fear that it would temporarily inhibit economic growth. The principal benefit would be some level of reduction of the risk of catastrophic climate change, by quickly slowing emissions growth.
—–
An item of interest for students of paleoclimate science, this time with regard to the PETM:
Carl