Well well well, the Dicaprio Foundation gives birth to something.~ctm
Public Release: 5-Feb-2019
New open-access book presents 2 years of research on how to best tackle climate change and its negative effects, funded by the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation as part of its new One Earth initiative
Springer
In October of 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its starkest warning yet: The consumption of fossil fuels, the reckless destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems, and the release of powerful greenhouse gases have already caused around 1.0 °C of warming above preindustrial levels.
“Science is showing us the way forward, but you do not need to be a scientist to understand that climate change is the defining issue of our time. If our world warms past 1.5 °C, our way of life will profoundly change for the worse. Why not manage the transition in a way that is orderly and equitable? Human beings caused this problem, but with our vast knowledge and ingenuity, we can also fix it. We are resilient. We can adapt. We can change,” writes Leonardo DiCaprio in the foreword to the newly published book funded by his foundation. Published by Springer as an open access resource, Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals is freely available and can be read here.
Based on state-of-the-art scenario modelling, the book provides the vital missing link between renewable energy targets and the measures needed to achieve them. Its robustly modelled scenarios indicate how to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2050, globally and across ten geographical regions. Therefore, it clearly demonstrates that the goals of the Paris Agreement are achievable with current technology, and are beneficial in economic and employment terms.
The research presented in the book provides a ground-breaking new framework by offering a feasible roadmap for achieving–and surpassing–the targets set by the Paris Climate Agreement. The findings are the result of two years of research and modelling by leading scientists from the University of Technology Sydney, the German Aerospace Center, and the University of Melbourne, and were funded by the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation as part of its new One Earth initiative.
The book is an essential read for anyone who is responsible for implementing renewable energy or climate targets internationally or domestically, including climate policy negotiators, policy-makers at all levels of government, businesses with renewable energy commitments, researchers and the renewable energy industry.
The lead author is Dr Sven Teske, Research Director of the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS-ISF). Dr Teske has 25 years’ experience in technical analysis of renewable energy systems and market integration concepts. He was also authoring a chapter for the IPCC Special Report Renewables. Together with his international research team, he presented his ground-breaking new framework from this book at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
###
From EurekAlert!
Sven Teske (Ed.)
Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals
Global and Regional 100% Renewable Energy Scenarios with Non-energy GHG Pathways for +1.5°C and +2°C
2019, ISBN 978-3-030-05843-2 (Open access book, you can download it for free on springerlink.com)
Also available in hard cover 978-3-030-05842-5 (coming soon)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
”…you do not need to be a scientist to understand that climate change is the defining issue of our time…’
——
‘..you are not a real scientist if you believe that climate change is the defining issue of our time…’
– There, fixed!
It could be argued that is it defining since combatting the great myth will end our techological progress, end our good standard of living, end capitalism, end the western economies and probably end a lot of people’s lives.
Sad but true, but let’s leave ‘scientist’ out of it – (F@ascist is more precise I guess…..)
They should have titled their book: ‘It’s Worse Than We Thought! Send Money Immediately To Avoid Climageddon!’
“We can change,” writes Leonardo DiCaprio”
Why don’t you show us all what that looks like, Leo.
Hmmm…Lets see…
Living in a small enough house that it can be heated by body heat alone…
Walking to work…
Walking to shopping…
Not flying anyplace anymore…
Zero plastics…
Zero rubber…
Zero synthetics…
Zero wood burning…
Zero private automobile ownership (beyond the Golf Cart)…
Zero private jet ownership!!!
Zero private plane ownership…
Zero trucking products around the nations…
Zero anything that unreliable electricity can’t produce, heat, transport…
……
‘It could be argued that is it defining since combatting the great myth will end our techological progress, end our good standard of living, end capitalism, end the western economies and probably end a lot of people’s lives.’
Behavior-based extinction.
“…you do not need to be a scientist to understand that climate change is the defining issue of our time.”
But not being one helps.
Don’t trust anything climate-related that claims to be ‘robust’.
Don’t trust any climate related claims that aren’t observable.
Don’t trust any climate related claims if it has the “EurekAlert” tag attached to it.
Just chisel their blatant lies into their tombstones as epitaphs and lock them away until they need them. Make sure such things are never forgotten.
That’s a lot of climate hucksters wearing white coats and celebrities to cater for, but at least it’s creating jobs. Something DiCraprio probably never had.
I’d guess that it just contains a series of advertising pitches for various renewable energy schemes with all the downsides left out.
It’s a manual for building the successor to the Spruce Goose.
Unfair comparison. The Spruce Goose flew, albeit briefly.
“Well well well, the Dicaprio Foundation gives birth to something.”
Let’s hope Leo DiCaprio has that climate baby in New York State ….
https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/andrew-cuomo-signs-bill-updating-new-yorks-abortion-law/
Let’s be reasonable, now. What could possibly be more credible than a Leonardo DiCrapio eBook publicized by EurekAlert! ?
Thank you Leo! Thank you! You are the savior of The Planet!
Ein Volk, One Earth, Ein Führer!
And then there’s AOC’s Green New Deal……
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/04/green-new-deal-fossil-fuels-1142544
And there’s Scientology behind DiCaprio …
Yeah he and Danny Boyle are personally responsible for trashing the island Ko Phi Phi Leh after the movie The Beach…
Gotta fix theses pesky chinooks in Alberta cos thats what Leo thinks is global warming.
If I could get a free copy of the book I,d review it. Until then Ican only agree with Steven Wilde.
I heard they had -40 in Edmonton the other day.
Obviuosly predicted by climate models.
Warmer winters in Edmonton equate to -40 temps.
Making anything less efficient makes us poorer. Always will. Employing more people to do the same thing is less efficient and so makes us poorer.
So the claims are simply false. We cannot move to 100% renewables without becoming much poorer and without increasing in unemployment.
Maybe we should because Climate Change will make us poorer than not moving now, but to claim we can change without losing wealth is to be an economics-denier.
They forgot to mention that Teske is a Greenpeace activist.
Thank you Essen, an important detail to know. This activist also seems to have spent 25 years studying how to integrate renewable energy into, presumably, the real world. So, 25 years of failure judging by the absurd costs and zero worthwhile results then.
“Dr Teske was the Renewable Energy Director at Greenpeace International for 10 years. Where, Sven was the project leader for five editions of the World Energy Scenario “Energy [R]evolution: A sustainable World Energy Outlook”.
Sven represented the renewable energy program of Greenpeace International at the UNFCCC Climate Conferences from November 1994 (COP 1 in Berlin) until December 2014 (COP 20 in Lima / Peru).
“The consumption of fossil fuels, the reckless destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems, and the release of powerful greenhouse gases have already caused around 1.0 °C of warming above preindustrial levels.”
Preindustrial levels? That was the time of a cold period, the so-called little ice age.
Do the climate alarmists want that we return to such a period?
How about the majority of warming since preindustrial times has been a rebound from the Little Ice Age. It can’t be plausibly explained by anthropogenic CO2, so they also have to invoke “the reckless destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems”.
As it becomes more obvious that CAGW science is bunk, the claims become more extreme.
State-of-the-art + robust = BS
There! The new climate change formula.
+10
You beat me to it.
‘ the release of powerful greenhouse gases have already caused around 1.0 °C of warming above preindustrial levels.’
around 1degC since pre-industrial times? aleady?
And has anyone actually noticed?
Yes! More and better crops to start with.
Human Beings on this planet are aware of the problem that climate change faces. With the awareness of its impact, technology has to be adopted to curb this menace. We need to check our daily activities ranging from consumption of natural resources, saving the waste or recycling it and various other small things it can be taken care will have a profound impact on mitigating the climate change.
https://www.meetingsint.com/conferences/blockchain
“Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals”…. What would they be? The total destruction of industrialized Western civilization?
Venzuala should give you a snapshot of their objective.
Sean Penn would be proud.
So they have created faster BS , not better , just faster
Capitalism is the road to Socialism. Communism is Socialism in a hurry.
The quick elimination of fossil fuels is really impossible for political reasons, geoengineering and new technologies can be a temporary solution. The phasing out of fossil fuels will be done gradually, but this alone would not be a fast enough process.
malkom700 …at 1:22 am
The quick elimination of fossil fuels is really impossible for political reasons, geoengineering and new technologies can be a temporary solution…
Solution? A solution implies that there’s a problem. Well there is a problem alright, it’s the people who think we can power the world’s economy with wind mills, solar panels, and squirrel cages.
Wind mills, solar panels, and squirrel cages are not new technologies.
Name these “new technologies” you speak of, more importantly name how close they are to being usable.
Really, I just want to believe they will be useful. Fortunately, I am not personally against interest.
The elimination of fossil fuels (quick or not) is impossible for economic reasons.
Impossible if human life is to be saved. Ecoloonies want to kill ppl.
…. true, so why don’t they just do it then. Themselves, one by one.
The quick elimination of fossil fuels is really impossible for political reasons, geoengineering and new technologies can be a temporary solution
a temporary solution to a non-existent problem. Prove the problem is 1) real and 2) something man can do anything about (with no assertions of things not in evidence).
Sorry Mr. DiCaprio, I can’t really comprehend how and why :
“If our world warms past 1.5 °C, our way of life will profoundly change for the worse. ”
Would you care to explain ?
What I know however is that, unless obviously cold is the new hot, freezing rain can lead to cancellation of birth certificates.
I’ll consider global warming if Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore, Obama, Ocasio, and all Dem members of Congress agree to:
a) never again fly in an airplane
b) never again ride in an internal combustion engine car
c) pay full price for any electric car they might use (no subsidy)
d) charge said electric car with solar panels. No hooking up to the grid to charge
e) live in ONE house or apartment of 1600 sq ft or less ( to reduce their footprint)
f) set the air conditioning for 85F.
Only then will I consider global warming.
I still wouldn’t as the facts are not there.
After they do the above I’ll consider global warming….
OK, I’ve considered it and now I’m going to do nothing.
Which is exactly what China, India, and the global climate change crowd are doing. Why are THEY doing nothing themselves? Cause it’s about wealth redistribution. And as any true socialist will tell you the leadership is more equal than others.
He did say consider, not agree.
Considering it doesn’t mean agreeing with it after consideration.
Bottom line: If they want people to take what they say about global warming seriously, they first have to live like it’s as serious as they claim. If they’re not walking the walk why should anyone listen to them talking the talk?
an addition to point d): solar panels that have been manufactured with renewable energy (e.g. other solar panels), delivered by solar panel charged electric trucks, themselves manufactured in solar panel run factories… ad nauseam (you get the idea)
A good science fair analysis project -show if it a solar panel can actually be manufactured using solar energy in a sustainable process. Unfortunately, the conclusion I think won’t be liked by the judges, teachers, etc.
https://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises
This the best short article regarding Paris, but also Kyoto and countless other “agreements”.
“This didn’t work in Kyoto, it didn’t work in Copenhagen, it hasn’t worked in the 18 other climate conferences or countless more international gatherings. The suggestion that it will make a large difference in Paris is wishful thinking.”
“Wishfull thinking” is very mildly put. I have no words for it.
“asinine assertion.”
“Based on state-of-the-art scenario modelling,”, more often known as “computer-based guesswork”!
I’ll give di Caprio his due — whether he is a nincompoop or not he is putting his money where his mouth is and I don’t see any evidence that this is self-aggrandisement on his part. Unlike some we could name.
All we need is someone to sit him down and join up the dots for him and he might end up spending his money more productively. And where he leads others would almost certainly follow.
Tax right-off !
Or still a fraction of what he spends on travelling on his private jet .
He’s not spending his money. He’s spending OPM (other peoples’ money) that is raised by the foundation. He may have provided a slight bit of seed capital, but I’d bet you a dollar that he’s now billing the foundation and/or the foundation’s paying for a great deal of his expenses associated with the foundation.
In a nutshell, it’s just another scam.
As soon as he has his private jet and yacht crushed into scrap ‘for the good of the earth’, I’ll believe he’s sincere. That’s not selling them, that’s destroying them so that they cannot further ‘pollute’ the earth with CO2.
” We are resilient. We can adapt.”
— Except to a 1.5 degree increase in the average global temperature… To that we can’t adapt. We’re not resilient enough. I mean, there aren’t even roads going into the parts of Canada where farmland could otherwise be developed.
If “pre-industrial” is taken as around 1800 or so, the warming to date is little more than recovering from the cold climate of the LIA. All beneficial.
Even a 2 degree C rise (3.6 F) in the 300 years from 1800 to 2100 means about a degree F change per human lifetime, essentially imperceptible. History has shown that society has easily (eagerly?) adapted to that, and created the highest living standards ever.
Infrastructure depreciates. Over the next century, we will have to replace almost everything, whether the climate changes or not. Most things wear out in a lot less than a century. Even now, the average American relocates several times in their lifetimes.
In places where the population is increasing, new roads will get built.
” If our world warms past 1.5 °C, our way of life will profoundly change for the worse”
The temperature warms by around 10 degrees C or more during the course of each morning between sunrise and midday and life continues. The daily maximum also increases by 10 degrees C or more over a 3 month period from the end of winter to summer and life continues. The annual range of maximum and minimum temperatures at any given place on the earth’s surface can vary by up to 60 degrees C over a 6 month period and life continues.
Despite these facts, we are told that a 1.5 degree rise over 100+ years will wipe out all life on earth. And, if you consider that we are already 2/3 of the way to 1.5 degree C and the biosphere, human population and food production has all increased significantly during this initial 1 degree warming, the real alarmist story is that a further 0.5 degree warming spead over the next 30-50 years will wipe out all life on earth, including the bits that increased during the initial 1 degree warming.
Good job guys !
In the current situation, the situation needs to be realistically assessed. The right does not believe the leftist scientists, it is understandable. It is therefore necessary to examine what consensus exists between right-wing scientists. So those whom anonym would ask would also indicate their political orientation.
The right doesn’t beleive a scam that has no data behind it.
The right also notices that many of those who are pushing the scam have been vocal in their desire to use the scam to promote socialism.
Does this mean that the right does not dare to know the opinion of right-wing scientists? Today we know only the opinion of right-wing trolls.
In true science, opinions don’t matter (just look at the scientific method, no where in it will you find a step labeled “opinion”). What matters is data and evidence.
It’s a fundamental mistake. In the current situation there is no need for any evidence, only one percent probability, so much danger.
In the current situation, the situation needs to be realistically assessed.
good luck with that.
It is therefore necessary to examine what consensus exists
consensus is politics, not science. you are already barking up the wrong tree for any kind of realistic assessment.
Probably still blames global warming for the iceberg that sank the Titanic….
Does the book mention banning private jets and private yachts? IF they’re serious about reducing CO2, how about starting there?
I would love to see some group push for banning them, as I suspect that all of this concern about CO2 would rapidly disappear as the uber wealthy push back on losing their expensive toys which have gigantic carbon footprints.
… and add in that no private house/condo/apartment can be larger than 1000 square feet, which probably larger than most housing in the pre-industrial revolution.
Actually, small jets are not as inefficient as most people imagine. 20pmpg is possible, which at 400mph or more is actually quite remarkable. Provided they use the full seating capacity, anyway. If it’s one guy in a 10-seater, then yes, that is wasteful at 2mpg.
Yachts, well, depends on how they are operated. In principle a displacement hull boat is a very efficient vehicle for its capacity. Not so using a planing (speedboat) hull though. A true sailing yacht (which is often not what’s meant by ‘yacht’ in this context) is a very efficient vehicle even when partly engine propelled.
If you take the latest passenger aircraft such as the 737Max/A321Neo/787/A350 then the MPG per passenger mile is usually a lot better than 120 (gallons per passenger mile) . An aircraft also needs no infrastructure requiring continual maintenance such as roads or railways between airports. If the need for travel is accepted, then air travel is the most economic/efficient in terms of energy use when the journey exceeds ~500miles.
An aircraft also needs no infrastructure requiring continual maintenance such as roads or railways between airports.
Not exactly true, it has an infrastructure, just of a different kind – a network of radar and air traffic control towers particularly in more heavily flown airspaces (such as over major metropolitan areas)
Not to mention runways (thick enough to take thee weight of fully loaded planes taking off and landing) and airline terminals (including massive parking facilities) occupying huge amounts of land and which ARE infrastructure requiring continual maintenance.
And…
“MPG per passenger mile is usually a lot better than 120 (gallons per passenger mile)”
WHAT?!
“Based on state-of-the-art scenario modelling”?
No such thing!
“One Earth initiative”
There you have the intent, clearly stated. One earth. One race, one government. Globalism.
Nothing to do with protecting plants and animals.
Anti-diversity.