You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Economics’ category.

I was updating the slides in an old presentation, and… time waits for no one.

The first image below is a screenshot from According to the “created” and “last edited” stats on my presentation, I must have captured the screenshot somewhere around early November 2009. (Click on the images themselves for easier reading, or, for the second one you can just click to the website itself.)



The folks have since updated the format of their site, so I decided to update that presentation slide as well.

Here is the new screenshot, taken today – mid-January 2011.


Our emissions over those 14 months have released about another 12 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere. (Or about 44 tonnes of CO2 for those that are more familiar with that metric).

But look at what’s happened to the implied “remaining time” and “required rate of change” numbers.

According to the “Trillionth Tonne” methodology and assumptions, to have a 75% chance of avoiding a 2° Celsius temperature rise, the “remaining time” before emitting that amount of carbon has been squeezed from both ends because we have not yet begun to reduce emissions. Back in late 2009 we still roughly had a leisurely 18 years, 10 months to achieve that rather ambitious goal. And to avoid ever emitting that amount, we needed a reduction rate of about 4.54% a year.

Now we have about 17 years, 4 months… and, or to avoid that we need to accelerate the reduction rate to about 4.84% a year.

Want a more “realistic” target? Ok, let’s gamble and relax the assumptions so that we would accept just a 50% probability we’ll avoid a 2° C temperature increase?

For that scenario, because of inaction over the last 14 months, our “time remaining” has been reduced by 2 years. From about 35.4 years initially, to about 33.4 years now. And, again, to avoid that eventuality we would now need to kick the reduction rate up a notch as well.

I was just struck that the two snapshots are real-life, real-time reminders that Figure 22 (below)  from the Copenhagen Diagnosis is not just an abstraction. It’s a reminder that we are painting a real curve now.


Time waits for no one. “We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now.”

Well, that’s all… just my little personal, real-time, tick-tock anecdote.

And here’s a “glimmer twins” song about all this stuff… (bonus – clever! – look for a “Tom Waits” cameo in the “Time Waits” video…)

“Yes, star crossed in pleasure the stream flows on by
Yes, as we’re sated in leisure, we watch it fly

And time waits for no one, and it won’t wait for me
And time waits for no one, and it won’t wait for me

Hours are like diamonds, don’t let them waste

Time waits for no one, no favours has he
Time waits for no one, and he won’t wait for me”

I want to draw attention to two books due out in March and April 2010, by Danny Harvey at University of Toronto:
Energy and the New Reality, Volume 1: Energy Efficiency and the Demand for Energy Services (March 2010 publication)
Energy and the New Reality, Volume 2: Carbon-Free Energy Supply (April 2010 publication)
Both are available in full as pre-publication downloads at the bottom of this page.
I had not realized Danny was working on these, and only became aware on the weekend at one of the Cafe Scientifique sessions here.

Update (Sept. 23/09): The “Planetary Boundaries” paper is now published in Nature. Full access and links to opinion and commentary here. David Roberts at Grist comments here. Carl Zimmer here.

Some interesting bits and pieces I bumped into that I didn’t see much in play elsewhere:

From the June 2009 Tällberg Forum, all of the talks are online. Of the few I’ve watched, I particularly enjoyed the following two.

First was a discussion and update on “Planetary Boundaries”. At the previous year’s session, a commitment was made to investigate key “planetary boundaries”, and initial contributors included James Hansen, Tim Lenton, Robert Costanza and others. Apparently there is an upcoming paper in Nature based on the nine identified “boundaries”:

Read the rest of this entry »