I’m planning to host a Sustain What “room for agreement” conversation in January with some of the analysts conveying starkly conflicting explanations for alarming changes in insurance rates - or even insurance availability - for property in regions pummeled by extreme weather, fierce fires or coastal surges.
I remain flummoxed by how many folks do not understand the yin-yang of man made greenhouse gas emissions. The statement by Jones, "Both approaches fail to address underlying causes of the losses—emissions from the fossil-fuel industry and increased development in high-risk areas", suggests the emissions are somehow unrelated to the benefits we all get - electrical power, heat, transportation, etc. This means he fails fail to understand, or has chosen to ignore, the crux of the dilemma, what Roger has dubbed The Iron Law - "When policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time".
You can see the move to pragmatism in the recent position statement by Bill Gates and now Tom Steyer. This does not mean we do not have important work to get to cleaner energy and mitigate the long-term climate risks. It can be both. Also see Rogers recent post on extremes cost modeling and Nature magazines recent retraction of a flawed paper. I'd love to hear Dave Jones comments on that episode.
I remain flummoxed by how many folks do not understand the yin-yang of man made greenhouse gas emissions. The statement by Jones, "Both approaches fail to address underlying causes of the losses—emissions from the fossil-fuel industry and increased development in high-risk areas", suggests the emissions are somehow unrelated to the benefits we all get - electrical power, heat, transportation, etc. This means he fails fail to understand, or has chosen to ignore, the crux of the dilemma, what Roger has dubbed The Iron Law - "When policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time".
You can see the move to pragmatism in the recent position statement by Bill Gates and now Tom Steyer. This does not mean we do not have important work to get to cleaner energy and mitigate the long-term climate risks. It can be both. Also see Rogers recent post on extremes cost modeling and Nature magazines recent retraction of a flawed paper. I'd love to hear Dave Jones comments on that episode.
With you on these points. I got at the need to recognize the benefits of fossil fuels along with the costs in this section of a post a few years ago: https://revkin.substack.com/i/79692375/what-distinguishes-fossil-fuels-from-tobacco