Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
RCP 8.5 "assumes the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion)
|
That's less than double, and it's almost doubled in my lifetime, during most of which had China enforcing a one child policy.
Quote:
|
, the lowest rate of technology development,
|
Rate of technology development is not intrinsically tied to reduction in pollution. New technologies can be very polluting. Cryptocurrency, for example, only increases pollution. Cell phones (and, heck, pretty much every consumer product) have moved more toward disposability with every generation. If they make the phone so that it can last a week on a single charge, that energy efficiency is offset when you throw it in the trash after its nonreplaceable battery dies (or, worse, when the new model comes out).
As likely as not, especially in the context of everything else in the model.
Quote:
|
a massive increase in world poverty,
|
That was in the summary of the article, but wasn't mentioned in the body.
Quote:
|
plus high energy use and emissions."
|
check and check.
This paragraph exemplifies the objection to 8.5, in my view:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by judithcurry.com
RCP8.5 assumes no decarbonization of world power sources from new technology (e.g., solar, wind, fission, fusion) or regulations to reduce not just climate change but also air pollution and toxic waste. Although possible, how likely is this? For example, use of solar and wind is skyrocketing as these technologies improve.
|
Hopefully, yeah, but when the discussion is whether or not to push renewables and environmental regulation, at least one of the models ought to assume we don't. Otherwise it's just "we don't need to do it because the future people in the model will do it for us."