Comments on: Back to Square One? http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3924 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Steve Hemphill http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3924&cpage=1#comment-5612 Steve Hemphill Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:37:59 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3924#comment-5612 As Nosmo pointed out, there are many thresholds. In fact, there are billions. In fact, we don't even know where the "threshold to dangerous climate change" compares to its antithesis "threshold to dangerous lack of food supply enhancement" since millions die every year of food supply issues, and increasing the base of the food chain (CO2) increases food. As Nosmo pointed out, there are many thresholds. In fact, there are billions. In fact, we don’t even know where the “threshold to dangerous climate change” compares to its antithesis “threshold to dangerous lack of food supply enhancement” since millions die every year of food supply issues, and increasing the base of the food chain (CO2) increases food.

]]> By: Tom Rees http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3924&cpage=1#comment-5611 Tom Rees Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:19:23 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3924#comment-5611 How about 'preventing climate change from becoming too dangerous'? As a mission statement, it would be equally open to interpretation by all parties to mean whatever they like. But it would have the advantage of killing discussions like this one! How about ‘preventing climate change from becoming too dangerous’? As a mission statement, it would be equally open to interpretation by all parties to mean whatever they like. But it would have the advantage of killing discussions like this one!

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3924&cpage=1#comment-5610 Roger Pielke, Jr. Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:07:05 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3924#comment-5610 Steve- Thanks for commenting. But does it always have to be about Bush all the time? The (real) political reality is that any renegotiation of the FCCC will take more time than the 2 years leading up to the next election. Starting sooner rather than later would also ensure that it is an issue in the 2008 elections. And who knows, the next president may echo the Bush Administration's policies on climate change (compare 2004 Democratic positions). If the FCCC is indeed obsolete, then revising it should start right away. Steve- Thanks for commenting.

But does it always have to be about Bush all the time? The (real) political reality is that any renegotiation of the FCCC will take more time than the 2 years leading up to the next election. Starting sooner rather than later would also ensure that it is an issue in the 2008 elections. And who knows, the next president may echo the Bush Administration’s policies on climate change (compare 2004 Democratic positions). If the FCCC is indeed obsolete, then revising it should start right away.

]]> By: Steve Bloom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3924&cpage=1#comment-5609 Steve Bloom Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:40:31 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3924#comment-5609 And the point of such an exercise before Bush is gone would be...? Try to maintain some sort of connection to political reality, Roger. And the point of such an exercise before Bush is gone would be…? Try to maintain some sort of connection to political reality, Roger.

]]> By: Nosmo http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3924&cpage=1#comment-5608 Nosmo Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:17:38 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3924#comment-5608 "...the threshold of dangerous climate change." "dangerous" really needs to be defined. Statements like this are muct too subject to interpretation. There are many thresholds not one, and how dangerous each are is very much a value judgement “…the threshold of dangerous climate change.”

“dangerous” really needs to be defined. Statements like this are muct too subject to interpretation. There are many thresholds not one, and how dangerous each are is very much a value judgement

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3924&cpage=1#comment-5607 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:58:03 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3924#comment-5607 Coby- In principle such a substantive change would be more accurate. As I understand things changing the FCCC requires assent of the parties, and likely would require a reopening of the document to renegotiation. Maybe an expert in international frameworks can weigh in here ... Coby- In principle such a substantive change would be more accurate. As I understand things changing the FCCC requires assent of the parties, and likely would require a reopening of the document to renegotiation. Maybe an expert in international frameworks can weigh in here …

]]> By: coby http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3924&cpage=1#comment-5606 coby Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:37:50 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3924#comment-5606 Well, IANAL, but wouldn't a small change in the wording suffice? "Prevent as much dangerous change as possible" "prevent additional dangerous change". It was probably always an unfortunate mission statement as given the great uncertainty in projections and predictions maybe we were committed to dangerous change decades ago. Well, IANAL, but wouldn’t a small change in the wording suffice? “Prevent as much dangerous change as possible” “prevent additional dangerous change”.

It was probably always an unfortunate mission statement as given the great uncertainty in projections and predictions maybe we were committed to dangerous change decades ago.

]]>