Come on BC. :) Only one of the answers is even a possibility, #1.

#4 would at least be fun to watch.

Ok. We got an agreement.

For the accord to be as successful as it can be right now, several things need to happen. — Bitter Crank

We can do something, but we never won't do anything as drastic you mention. I think a lot will be done. Yet I haven't ever been a great fan of the idea "We are on the verge of everything collapsing to a Mad Max future", the "After us, the deluge"-future. Besides, Peak Conventional Oil has been already hit in 2005.

And as in the US just as in any other country, jobs and economic growth is more important than some climate change for the voters and hence for the politicians. Jobs for the young people simply are more important climate change. Perpetual Global economic stagnation or recession isn't a good mix with still increasing population. Perhaps for ISIS, but not for people in general.

A Hurricane or a draugh that devastates some country or another won't have a tag "I happened because of you didn't take Climate Change agreements seriously".

From what I understand, "Plan B", means wealthy countries outsourcing their carbon emissions to poorer countries which will simply report they failed to meet the standard. There are exemptions which allow the worse polluters to not be required to meet those limits for several decades. Finally, I heard that the US, for one, needs approval from the senate, which is highly unlikely so close to a major election.

From everything else I've studied on the issues, I think we are already past the point of no return. There would be nothing to prevent us from getting to 4C raise other than massive depopulation. As long as the population grows exponentially, so will energy requirements. There doesn't seem to be any viable alternatives apart from those who simply transfer the problem on someone else or require rare materials to produce.

The best way to stop population growth is to improve the living conditions of people. If people are more prosperous, they have less children. At least that has been the case in history.

Finally, I heard that the US, for one, needs approval from the senate, which is highly unlikely so close to a major election. — swstephe

The Paris agreement was structured so that it is not a "treaty" per se, and doesn't need Senate approval. What the Senate can do (along with the House) is fail to approve, block, and in all ways frustrate any Executive-requested funds to carry out the intent of the agreement -- especially appropriate funds to assist developing economies, approve tightened and tightening EPA rules on emissions, underwriting the costs of shifting from fossil fuel to solar/wind/nuclear, pass laws requiring reduced energy consumption, and so on and so forth.

The USA won't be the only developed country whose social, economic, and political system will have difficulty delivering. As I said, achieving the necessary reductions of CO2 emissions will be quite "onerous" (oppressively burdensome) and the consequences of failure won't be quite quick enough to provide the needed motivation.

Corporations (and their stockholders) are not capable of committing "hari kari" [Seppuku] for the good of the planet. Any reductions in energy usage require the implicit if not explicit consent and cooperation of the consumer, and 2 or 3 billion people living in developed economies aren't likely to consent and cooperate all together to the degree that is needed to prevent disaster. And the other 4 or 5 billion people that would like a better life aren't going to settle for nothing either.

I sadly conclude that the last gallon of oil will be sucked up and the last ton of coal will be dug up --regardless of consequences.

We can do something, but we never won't do anything as drastic you mention. I think a lot will be done. Yet I haven't ever been a great fan of the idea "We are on the verge of everything collapsing to a Mad Max future", the "After us, the deluge"-future. Besides, Peak Conventional Oil has been already hit in 2005. — ssu

No, I don't thing everything will "collapse to a Mad Max future" either. My expected scenario is that we will clumsily devolve into a dystopian future, over a period of time.

As for "drastic" -- success for the Paris Agreement requires and assumes a steady, continuous, and noticeable decline in fossil fuel use, that is steadily, continuously, and noticeably replaced by non-fossil fuel sources. Even if one is thinking of rather modest goals, the required "continuous and continuing progress" will be tough to pull off. No matter what a corporation, individual, neighborhood, city, county, state, or nation does, there will be continuous pressure to achieve the next goal. Falling behind means more difficult adjustments.

I can sign a 25-year lease for a dozen or so solar panels on a nearby solar farm. I then sell the solar generated power to the local electric company and get a guaranteed rate discount. The guarantee comes from a tax break for the electric company. The lease is transferrable, so if I die or move before 25 years is up, the break can be attached to the property sale.

The plan here is to replace fossil-fueled electricity, not to reduce energy use, per se. If I lived in a fully loaded mansion with a big power demand, I could lease maybe 250 solar panels. A factory might lease 1000 panels. The company here is small and can cover only a limited number of customers at one time. It needs to be ramped up a lot.

If this model worked, cities would be served by steadily enlarging rings of solar farms around the city. Electric cars could be recharged in this system, provided another company leased enough panels to power a large batch of charging stations.

Sounds like a great, obvious, and easy solution. But there are numerous uncertainties. The leasing companies don't have a long history. What happens if they dissolve in bankruptcy? What happens when or if the tax cut is eliminated? Can the power company, an essential intermediary, adapt to this new model? What about darkness? What about wind power? What about electrical storage? How much accounting complexity can this model tolerate?

This is just ONE of many fronts on a long battlefield.

The plan here is to replace fossil-fueled electricity, not to reduce energy use, per se. — Bitter Crank

What really will solve this is when renewable energy is simply cheaper than energy generated by fossill fuels. Just legislation and carbon taxes aren't the answer.

Something like the ITER project could be an answer (or what comes out of it or similar projects). That the US, Russia, China, India, South Korea and many EU countries are on aboard this tells that true international cooperation is possible.

I was just reading an article by a physicist who was saying that the ITER project was a waste of time and money that would be better spent on other technology. According to him, even if a reaction could be sustained, there would be no way to have any reasonable level of safety. If you think nuclear meltdowns are bad, wait until some plasma escapes and incinerates the neighborhood -- if you are lucky.

In general, I'm skeptical about technological solutions -- since it is subtly implied that technology is the cause. There are things that get people's excitement up, for valid reasons, but you always end up sacrificing something else. We end up in a kind of ecological/energy debt crisis and will always end up with some kind of austerity measures to pay off our debts.

I think a more reasonable plan would be to undo a lot of the damage that has been done. We could probably lower net CO2 emissions just by planting forests everywhere they could grow, restocking the oceans and replenishing aquifers. Then we have to make a lot of sacrifices on things we take for granted, like air and land travel and big houses in the suburbs. Even then, I'm afraid some processes, (like the melting of Greenland's glaciers), are already over the tipping point and won't slow down no matter what we do -- even if we all suddenly disappeared.

In general, I'm skeptical about technological solutions -- since it is subtly implied that technology is the cause. There are things that get people's excitement up, for valid reasons, but you always end up sacrificing something else. We end up in a kind of ecological/energy debt crisis and will always end up with some kind of austerity measures to pay off our debts. — swstephe

Yet technological advances do play an important role.

Let's just look at the US Oil production, just to give an example. The original Peak Oil of conventional oil production happened exactly when it was estimated (by those who came up with the term Peak Oil) and now conventional oil production is in the level of the 1930's production. Hence with no technological advances that would be the US production today (the gray).

See here US Oil Production

Why this is important is that basically this is the case in nearly every field... assuming there is substantial R&D. The higher the price of energy goes, the more exotic ways to produce energy are met. And when we are talking especially about oil, one should remember that it's not only used for energy (but a multitude of things starting from plastics).

Here are some estimated break even prices of Shale Oil deposits. Hence oil at so low prices will keep any new projects coming up online.

What do Saudi Arabia and several other countries in the Middle East have besides oil? — Bitter Crank

Lots of barbaric extremists who greatly contribute to our species being screwed, far more so than the earth changing a few degrees in my opinion.

The best way to stop population growth is to improve the living conditions of people. If people are more prosperous, they have less children. At least that has been the case in history. — ssu

People are good.

Energy use is expected to double by 2050, so renewables would have to do more than replace the current demand. They would also have to meet the demand of the developing world plus adding 2-3 more billion people.

There's some progress being made in the field of converting carbondioxide directly to fuels via catalytic processes. Feasible under lab conditions already but finding an abundant catalyst that's non-toxic and cheap... that's the difficult part because you need that to upscale the process to an industrial production.

Better than no Paris in plan B! :lol:

The climate change, the increase of atmospheric energy, is a small problem in the wider scope of fucking up nature. In the past, the Earth was once covered with ice all over, while there were times the Titanic could have gone anywhere safely (but the Hindenburg would have a bigger chance exploding). Nature can deal with climate change. It is the rate of the climate changing that is the killer. Though after Krakatau the climate temporarily changed in the wink of an eye. If the climate would changed instantly, nature would survive. But fucking up nature at the base will kill it. Species die out. Vegetation is destroyed. The human mamal is present in a magnitude like no other. Look here. The WWF's "extinction status" list.

The great barrier reef can't adapt to the fast increase in temperature. Even if the climate wouldn't change, the artificial order imposed on nature means that the natural order will reduce. Considering the ordering process as part of a closed system, the increase in order must be accompanied by a decrease in natural order, a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, although the θέρμη (therme meaning heat), and δύναμις (dynamis meaning power), or the related concepts ἐνέργεια (enérgeia, meaning activity), ἐνεργός (energós, meaning active), from ἐν (en, meaning in) + ἔργον (érgon meaning work), τροπή (tropė, meaning transformation), and ἐντροπή (entropė, meaning content) are somewhat difficult to pinpoint.

The increase in entropy to which nature is exposed seems to have consequences for the natural order within the order imposed. A natural order needs connections crossing the artificial boundaries imposed. Annihilate these connecting possibilities, of which the cage in which a single animal walks up and down restlessly is the ultimate example), isolate useful species in large monotone areas, and nature refuses to procreate, and/or species will go extinct.

"It's therefore, brothers and sisters, that I suggest to hold hands. Let's hold hands and humbly ask the Pristine Being, graciously we praise His Name, to let rain down a revenging rain of justified stoning on those mindlessly disturbing His Holy Order. Let's ask the Great Redeemer for true redemption. It is time we contemplate the True One and admit we have lost the Righteous Path, the straying from which can only be undone by directing, unconditionally and ruthlessly, our attention to the Anointed Light radiating from the imperative path of His Eternal Erect. Let's pray His Potent Ejaculate whipes away the wicked erect and ejaculate the deviant pagan has covered the Golden Ejaculate with."

Which shows itself in the reduction of bio-diversity.
There is an explosive increase of caged species for consumption and investigation on the one side, and an explosive increase of caged endangered animals on the other side. How do we restore the balance? There is a very simple way. Brothers and sisters let's hold hands! It's easy. The economic machine just has to be slowed down and cleaned up. Even a tiny increase in CO2 is enough to cause an enormous change in the weather, and a million butterflies flapping their wings in unison might even divert a hurricane. If we want nature to be still there in 200 years it is time to act. Or better maybe, stop acting too much. People tend to think more about the short term though. We have a marshmellow brains, while an acorn brain seems better suited to face the problem. Are we ants or grasshoppers? Ants plan for the future, but it's exactly the planning that fucked up nature. Should we just hop around like grasshoppers then?