Chapter 1. The carbon emissions curve is exponential. What does that mean, and what observations or implications do the authors draw from it?
When they say that the carbon emissions curve is exponential, it means that they are “the type of curve you get when the more of something you have, the faster that something grows” (p. 56-57). The emissions curve will continue to grow as long as we keep adding to it over time. This means that the only successful way to stop it would be to stop adding to it. However, as the authors mentions “Exponential curves can’t go on forever. They get steeper and steeper until eventually, something has to give” (p.57). Meaning we either run out of fossil fuels, or we use so much that we end up killing the earth …show more content…
The amount of fossil fuels that can be viably extracted and processed depends on many factors leaving “energy experts to differentiate oil, coal and gas resources” in reserves. These reserves are broken down in proven reserves, probable reserves, and possible reserves, all of which probably exceed the guesses being made. Meaning, “that the world has far more fossil fuels than it can safely burn”. This is even greater if you include “all the tar sands, heavy oil, kerogen, shale gas, coal-bed methane, and other unconventional sources are included”. Leaving us to tackle the problem of leaving “most of the world’s fossil fuel reverse in the ground” and deliberately bringing about “the peak of fossil fuels”.
Chapter 5. Top-down approaches haven’t been effective. What are the reasons why is there such a clash between developed and developing countries over emissions …show more content…
The first of these is the idea of historical responsibility. “The richest countries tend to have burned far more fossil fuels per sermons in previous decade and centuries than power nations did”. Given this, many nations feel like it is the richest countries that need to make the biggest changes when it comes to the emission levels. The second reason for the clash between developed and developing countries is that these richer countries “are in a better positions to develop and fund the new technologies needed to replace fossil fuels. Third, when measuring the carbon footprint of imported and exported goods, “rich countries account for less than half of the total”, while “swiftly rising emotions from China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and other emerging economies” are contributing higher rates of emissions. All of this leads to rich countries refusing to “commit to ambitious cuts unless emerging economies also make meaningful pledges” and “the emerging economies [saying] they wont make ambitious commitments until the rich countries show more
When they say that the carbon emissions curve is exponential, it means that they are “the type of curve you get when the more of something you have, the faster that something grows” (p. 56-57). The emissions curve will continue to grow as long as we keep adding to it over time. This means that the only successful way to stop it would be to stop adding to it. However, as the authors mentions “Exponential curves can’t go on forever. They get steeper and steeper until eventually, something has to give” (p.57). Meaning we either run out of fossil fuels, or we use so much that we end up killing the earth …show more content…
The amount of fossil fuels that can be viably extracted and processed depends on many factors leaving “energy experts to differentiate oil, coal and gas resources” in reserves. These reserves are broken down in proven reserves, probable reserves, and possible reserves, all of which probably exceed the guesses being made. Meaning, “that the world has far more fossil fuels than it can safely burn”. This is even greater if you include “all the tar sands, heavy oil, kerogen, shale gas, coal-bed methane, and other unconventional sources are included”. Leaving us to tackle the problem of leaving “most of the world’s fossil fuel reverse in the ground” and deliberately bringing about “the peak of fossil fuels”.
Chapter 5. Top-down approaches haven’t been effective. What are the reasons why is there such a clash between developed and developing countries over emissions …show more content…
The first of these is the idea of historical responsibility. “The richest countries tend to have burned far more fossil fuels per sermons in previous decade and centuries than power nations did”. Given this, many nations feel like it is the richest countries that need to make the biggest changes when it comes to the emission levels. The second reason for the clash between developed and developing countries is that these richer countries “are in a better positions to develop and fund the new technologies needed to replace fossil fuels. Third, when measuring the carbon footprint of imported and exported goods, “rich countries account for less than half of the total”, while “swiftly rising emotions from China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and other emerging economies” are contributing higher rates of emissions. All of this leads to rich countries refusing to “commit to ambitious cuts unless emerging economies also make meaningful pledges” and “the emerging economies [saying] they wont make ambitious commitments until the rich countries show more