SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
Alan
Posts: 9805
Joined: December 19th, 2001, 4:01 am
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 12:10 am

carbon capture:
 
User avatar
trackstar
Posts: 26770
Joined: August 28th, 2008, 1:53 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 1:00 am

Carbon capture, but not sequestration!  :D

Part of the original vision on that process is here:

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - COP3 Kyoto 1997

Believe it or not, some of the draft text in certain technical subsections is mine, but no, I am not pulling an Al Gore here, and I did not write the entire Protocol myself. 
 
User avatar
katastrofa
Posts: 8168
Joined: August 16th, 2007, 5:36 am
Location: Alpha Centauri

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 1:44 am

Those who write the "fine print" take full responsibility, trackstar.
I watched a nice British comedy yesterday: Sightseers. One of the characters says "Murder is green". After Kyoto there were wars in Albania, Kosovo, Congo, Yemen, ..., and many more, but that's not in the protocol - ? Anyway, re the Swiss carbon-capture plant, isn't it easier to plant a forest?
 
User avatar
trackstar
Posts: 26770
Joined: August 28th, 2008, 1:53 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 2:51 am

It was more than fine print, but saying all career diplomats, negotiators, or techno-bureaucrats are useless, or worse, evil people who bring death and destruction to less developed countries is like saying that all quants are responsible for the Global Financial Crisis, or all traders are BSDs, or all hedge fund managers are greedy, ruthless people. 

Best to see it from the center of the storm, the back room negotiations, the trading floors.  

Then you have some sense of what really goes on.

Anyway, forests are certainly wonderful, but the problem is what is happening nearby the emitters and the time to grow or regrow the amount of acreage needed for an uptake that is adequate for the source(s) of the emissions.  Indonesia is one example of this problem.  Also there is discussion of whether the boreal forests can continue to absorb as much as they have in the past and whether tropical forests, which may absorb more, can make up the difference.

Here is an article about that:  NASA Finds Good News on Forests and Carbon Dioxide - December 29 2014
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 8:21 am

Carbon capture, but not sequestration!  :D

Part of the original vision on that process is here:

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - COP3 Kyoto 1997

Believe it or not, some of the draft text in certain technical subsections is mine, but no, I am not pulling an Al Gore here, and I did not write the entire Protocol myself. 
I'm impressed
 
User avatar
trackstar
Posts: 26770
Joined: August 28th, 2008, 1:53 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 10:29 am

Well, thank you.  The whole Trump v Paris Agreement had me thinking back more than I normally do.

But Kyoto had "no teeth", which was the only way to get it ratified by anybody - my work was on crafting carefully negotiated language and very deep arguments that went on all night between the US, EU, the G77 and China ultimately drove word choices. In the end it was a framework, as it says, pointed towards mechanisms for further action and negotiations and the UN can't enforce anything anyway.

The Prez does not seem to understand how ratification of global agreements works.  However, the industry response has been very interesting - here we are nearing the 20th anniversary of Kyoto.
Last edited by trackstar on June 7th, 2017, 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 10:56 am

kyoto of course was never ratified by the US because of the requirement that treaties must be approved by a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate.

Obama avoided all that with Paris by pretending it wasn't a treaty and therefore did not need to be ratified by the Senate.
 
User avatar
trackstar
Posts: 26770
Joined: August 28th, 2008, 1:53 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 11:14 am

What do you think will happen next?
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 11:28 am

your guess is probably better than mine, but mine would be that paris will go ahead without the US, just as kyoto went ahead by the US, and that, just as with kyoto, the US will actually cut emissions by more than a lot of the parties to the treaty

if you're following the other threads,  trump is proposing building a huge solar array on the mexican border, which would have a significant impact on US emissions, but it needs to be funded by congress
 
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 11:34 am

Anyway, re the Swiss carbon-capture plant, isn't it easier to plant a forest?
I'm not sure the planet has enough tree-compatible surface area to solve it this way. We'd need about 6.5 billion hectares of new forest (i.e., converted currently non-forested land into forest).

Moreover, unless the biomass is harvested and sequestered, the system reaches an equilibrium after some number of years or decades (depending on the species and growing conditions).

But it certainly could help!
 
User avatar
outrun
Posts: 4573
Joined: April 29th, 2016, 1:40 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 11:44 am

Back in the days there weren't wood eating bacteria and fungi, and so we ended up with coal in the ground. Nowadays when a tree drops it will get digested and converted back to CO2.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 7th, 2017, 3:59 pm

Back in the days there weren't wood eating bacteria and fungi, and so we ended up with coal in the ground. Nowadays when a tree drops it will get digested and converted back to CO2.
Worse, decaying vegetation is sometimes converted to methane which is about 30X worse than CO2.

I'm skeptical of that explanation of coal. Fungi seem to have first appeared extremely early in evolution -- long before land plants appeared. I thought coal came from built-up peat in wetlands that was subsequently covered in sediment and then carbonized by heat and pressure.
 
User avatar
trackstar
Posts: 26770
Joined: August 28th, 2008, 1:53 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 8th, 2017, 8:29 am

Last night I heard Ban Ki-Moon (former Secretary General of the UN) speak at the "Seat of Dumbness" Club and he noted that it will take 3.5 years for the US to complete its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

That brings us to November 2020, which is sure to be an exciting time if we are all still here by then. (e.g. NK does not try to send someone an ICBM for Christmas next year.)
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

June 8th, 2017, 9:12 am

indeed, which returns us to the constitutional question, is it a treaty or not, and if it's an executive order, does one president have the right to tie the hands of his successor?

The U.S. can’t quit the Paris climate agreement, because it never actually joined
under the US constitution, treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 supermajority in the senate. Obama claimed that it was not a treaty and therefore did not need to be ratified. No other country seems to have taken this approach: those countries which require ratification under their laws all did so, except for the US
There's a school of thought that, rather than withdraw, Trump should submit the Paris accord to the senate for ratification, where it will fail to be ratified.
But even in this view, if Obama was within his rights to treat it as a non-treaty, Trump would be entirely within his executive rights to interpret it differently — as a treaty requiring Senate consent, which has not even been sought yet.
and looking at what other countries have done,
Countries seem invariably to have accepted the agreement as a treaty that requires going through their internal treaty-ratification processes, typically submission to the legislature. Countries from the United Kingdom to China to Jamaica have ratified it through their legislatures. So has Brazil, Japan, the Philippines and Australia. In the latter, the question of whether it was a binding international accord requiring submission to Parliament received some discussion, and a parliamentary analysis concluded it was a “major treaty” that needed to be submitted.
I know of no country that has taken the U.S. approach. All countries seem to understand that ratification requires using the domestic procedure for ratifying treaties.
If you accept Obama's position that this is a "sole executive order" (SOE), then the withdrawal provision raises constitutional issues because it limits the powers of his successor. If a president can do something by executive order, then his successor should be able to undo that same something by executive order.
A extended withdrawal period in a SOE would allow one president to unilaterally pre-commit his successor and limit the latter’s powers. Moreover, the four-year period does not appear accidental, but rather, designed to limit Trump’s ability to exit: If he does not do so now, his potential successor will have the ability to cancel the withdrawal before it takes effect.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Re: Global Warming - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

July 3rd, 2017, 4:54 pm

stephen hawking is a warmer
Hawking attacks Trump: US president will cause ‘250 degree temperatures - like VENUS’
"Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.”
obviously, none of us want "a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid," any more than we want everest to be underwater or palm trees at the south pole.
And none of this would have happened if we'd voted for hillary
Image
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On