Chat with 100 girls online sexy dating personals
An edited transcript of our conversation follows, with occasional editorial comments in [brackets]. Its third, “optimum” scenario, which maxes out all available technologies, accelerates drawdown.] So all these models we see in the popular press, the ones that hit, for example, 80 percent carbon reductions by 2050 — none of those actually reach drawdown? And not only that, they’re about energy — they’re all energy models. It’s extremely important that we [get to 100 percent renewables], but to put all of it on energy ...For the record, explain the term “drawdown.” Drawdown is the point in time when greenhouse gas concentrations peak in the atmosphere and begin to go down on a year-to-year basis. There’s an assumption that if you get 100 percent renewable [energy], you basically have a hall pass to the 22nd century. [ has seven categories of solutions: energy, food, women and girls, buildings and cities, land use, transport, and materials.But even then, the number one solution is educating girls and family planning. We took the numbers from other agencies — from World Bank, WHO, IPCC. You get carbon capture in plant life where you couldn’t before.What they are is the delta between the median high population projections of the UN in 2050 and that reduction alone. It has to work first, and then has to be affordable. You can’t achieve drawdown unless you sequester [carbon], but right now the only way we know how to do it in a reliable way is photosynthesis. It could be agriculture, could be perennial, could be afforestation, could be a combination. The main one you call the “plausible scenario.” We modeled the solutions, we scaled them in a rigorous but reasonable way, as they’re all scaling now, using other literature to predict. That’s why we had the coming attractions; it’s unrealistic to think that this is our portfolio for the next 30 years. That’s why the next book is important — one out of five or six of these [future solutions] is really going to make a difference.
But it is the 1.1 billion fewer people that is doing the carbon work? Are there other benign ways of influencing population growth that you considered? Every carbon number [in the book] is peer-reviewed data. How big a role does carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) play in your schema? Our models include a lot of things that were excluded from other models. It’s given passing reference, but hasn’t been given much credibility by the IPCC. It is conventional wisdom that we don’t have any hope on climate change unless we get serious about it — go on war footing.We don’t use anecdotal data, or “we think,” or “we’re seeing.” Everything is peer reviewed. They don’t include, for example, farmland restoration — over a billion hectares of abandoned land all over the world. That seems difficult to do without the US federal government. The rest of the world doesn’t take him seriously on this stuff.If there’s no peer-reviewed data, we can’t model it. We know how to regenerate that, using animals, using cover, using no-till. First of all, let’s be honest: The US has never led in this area. When they’ve tried on an executive level, they’ve never been supported by Congress. I don’t want to in any way whistle past the graveyard of the enormous damage and harm President Trump can do, in terms of security and war and suffering. There’s also a “coming attractions” category of not-yet-commercialized technologies, but they are not included in the scenarios.] How did the book get started?I hadn’t thought about solutions much until I saw the wedges, in 2001.