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.
I don’t imagine it mentions that less than 1% of world energy is provided by wind and solar, several percent by hydro and biomass. Or that over 90% of the world renewables budget goes on wind and solar.
But, probably does promote wind and solar as the champion performers among renewables. :-/
If sea levels rise a meter or more by 2100 the billion dollar resort dicaprio is building in Belize will be awash or underwater .
Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation: I would like to see it’s and Leonardo DiCaprio stock holdings.
Shouldn’t it be Leonardo DiCaprio Most Scientific Foundation?
Recommendation #1: Take away Leonardo’s private airplane jaunts to Timbutu and back.
Once California goes 100% renewable energy sources, there won’t be enough energy to produce movies, he’s dooming his own industry to the dust bin. Good for him, I won’t ever watch another one of his movies any way.
I agree with many others that have already commented here that once all the doomsayers give up their other worldly possessions, that the common man can’t afford, than I will start to believe they are serious. Doesn’t mean that I will will change my mind on Human Induced Climate Change, it’s all natural. The hubris is strong in this rabble!!!
We have to achieve the 5 Year plan! Climate madness is a joke stacked on a parody wrapped in satire. We see the humor in what others see as a personal defining cause. It’s like Leo and others went to a Marx Brothers movie and decided to base their lives on it’s premise. The climate spoof like the plot in a comedy is secondary to it’s purpose. Can we see Leo champagne glass in hand jetting over the huddled masses freezing through a brown out.
I support taxing all non-essential (actors) earners being taxed down to the average per-capita income.
Leonardo, the global temperature has dropped about 0.6C since Feb. 2016. Catastrophe is a little bit farther away now. That should ease your mind a little bit.
Yeah, yeah. Or rather, no, no. But it used to be the case that the, equally totally arbitrary, number of +2.0 °C was the number below which we could put our feet up and get on with life, concerning ourselves with real problems. Whenever something turns out to not be a problem or sign of approaching doom, then the goalposts seem to get moved. Strange, that.
We already are with a BAU approach, or at least that is clearly the best we’ve found so far. Unless you prefer Venezuela…
It isn’t a problem, and no we didn’t. Most if not all of that warming is natural warming as we came out of the little ice age, which is also considered to have been very beneficial for humans and agriculture.
This foundation claims to have spent 2 years doing research, only to come up with the same old same old canards. What a complete waste of money.
“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.”
Boom! There it is, right off the bat – three huge Climate Lies, all couched within the Biggest Lie of all time. I guess if you’re going to lie, lie big – in fact, the bigger the better. Goebbels 101.
If you use enough ellipses, Leonardo actually sounds sensible:
“If our world warms past 1.5 °C… why not manage…? We are resilient. We can adapt.”
The world, as he said, has in fact warmed about 1.0C past the not-really-pre-industrial 19th century, and has done so not only without any visible harm but concurrent with a massive and continuing capitalism and fossil-fueled improvement in the standard of living beyond the dreams of past ages. In industrialized nations, we have never been *less* vulnerable to the vagaries of climate, which has never produced constant temperatures or failed to produce extreme weather events.
The idea that going beyond 0.5C of further warming — half as much as we’ve already experienced with no noticeable ill effects — leads to our life “profoundly changing for the worse” isn’t remotely supported by the impact literature, such as it is. What’s actually projected is that future generations far richer than ourselves will be slightly less wealthy than they would have been in a society where magical unicorns provide the power that fossil fuels does for us. The only thing on the table with the potential to profoundly change our lives for the worse is extreme climate mitigation policies or geo-engineering attempts gone wrong.
” The only thing on the table with the potential to profoundly change our lives for the worse is extreme climate mitigation policies or geo-engineering attempts gone wrong.”
BINGO!
The only REAL “climate change” related catastrophe will be if these idiots get their pet “policies” introduced. All pain, no gain, economically destructive and far worse than useless even IF the BS “climate science” was right (and it’s NOT).
“Its robustly modelled scenarios indicate how to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2050, globally and across ten geographical regions.”
Um….wait….I am pretty sure AOC stated we only have 12 years left….don’t these people talk to each other?
I seem to remember us only having about 10 years left about 20 years ago, or something like that. Clearly, this is a sales/snow job, not remotely related to reality or ACTUAL “science.”
After the 12 years when we’re still using plenty of fossil fuels and putting plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere and nothing dramatic has happened (AGAIN/YET), the goalposts will simply be pushed out another 10 or 12 or however-many-sounds-sciency years.
It’s kind of like that old joke – “I went to the doctor and he said I only have 6 months to live.” “I told him I couldn’t pay his bill and he said “I’ll give you another 6 months.””
Eulogy For Roger Andrews
by Francis Menton
“…To figure out how much storage capacity you would need for some jurisdiction to get through a year with nothing but wind and solar power sources, it takes quite a bit of data accumulation and detailed work. But it does not take any advanced math — just simple arithmetic of the type you learned in elementary school. You need to find data on the total electricity used in that jurisdiction over the course of a year; data on the capacity factor over the course of a year of existing wind and solar sources; and data on a day-by-day history of generation and consumption, so that you can run cumulative surpluses and deficits for different times of the year. Just this past November, Andrews did exactly this detailed work for the two cases of Germany and California. The conclusion in the cases of both Germany and California was that it would take approximately 25 TWH (that’s “terawatt hours” — trillions of watt hours) of storage to get through a year. Using optimistic battery prices of about half the current market, Andrews was then able to put a cost on this endeavor: about $5 trillion for one set of batteries for either Germany or California. I reported on this work in the post titled “How Much Do The Climate Crusaders Plan To Increase Your Costs Of Electricity — Part III” on November 29, 2018…”
AND I’ll bet that still doesn’t include allowance for batteries to be insufficiently charged when needed, for losses in capacity over time, due to cold temperatures, etc. ad nauseum. Not to mention their ACTUAL (as opposed to “projected” useful life and the cost of wholesale REPLACEMENT on a CONTINUAL basis.
LMFAO. Might as well try to run you car with Duracells.
“Science is showing us the way forward,”
Right, “science” says a world wide socialist government is the way forward.
This constant conflating of science and politics is dragging down the reputation of science in the minds of average people.
“Pseudo-science is showing us the way BACKward.”
There, fixed it for ’em.
So, CO2 is 100% responsible for the warming from the bottom of the Little Ice Age?
Thank you CO2.
Of course much of that warming occurred long before CO2 levels started rising. But when you are doing propaganda, facts don’t matter.
This study was put together by Leading scientists. Arent they always Leading scientists? Never seen a report by Following scientists. Always leading types. Every one of them. What a profession.
I mean, I do wonder where diCaprio’s next World Cup party will be held and how all his friends will get to the event.
Of course, in 2014, I’m sure all the attendees were living in Rio so there were no travel emissions and the yacht was solar powered. Right?
http://www.celebsonyachts.com/leonardo-dicaprio-holds-world-cup-party-on-the-5th-largest-superyacht-in-the-world/
All Hail Climate Ambassador Leo ‘chinook’ diCaprio!
(Calgarians will recognize that moniker).
Yeah – here’s how you do it:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=logans+run+carousel#id=1&vid=26cdec26ae1c48ac8ad2da3f5f586ea5&action=click
For those who haven’t found the book yet, it is available for free in PDF or ePub formats at Springer’s website. You can search for the title and select the source at springer.com. It appears to be modelling run amuck.
not much fun at World Economic Forum in Davos 2019:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=wthcXIP6DdCakwX01KLoBw&q=not+much+fun+at+World+Economic+Forum+in+Davos+2019&oq=not+much+fun+at+World+Economic+Forum+in+Davos+2019&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
As even the” Warmers ” now agree that the MWP did actually happen, even if they pretend despite the world wide facts that it was only a local thing. . Now consider this, as it got colder the temperature would have dropped say 2 degrees C., so at the end of the 300 year Little Ice Age, about 1880 , it would be reasonable to expect the temperature to rise about 2 C degrees.
So what do we have , why about .7C from that date. . So we can expect about 1.3 C more to bring us back to what it was during the MWP.
So why all of this talk about if it goes past a mere .5C the world as we know it, will come to a end.
Does that mean that anywhere in the world before moving either North or South, we should obtain permission for such a journey. . Sounds like the old USSR, where they had internal passports.
Here in Australia we can and do travel from say Hobart, a cold place to live in, its as far South as you can go before Antarctica. , to Cairns which is almost on the Equator. While initially as one gets off the plane, the heat is hot, we do survive it.
Perhaps the warmer s should be told that humans evolved in Africa, and therefore we can and do handle heat. We will complain of course, and air conditioners are nice, but we would survive without them.
If the Green “Scientist would leave their air conditioned offices, fossell fuelled of course, and go to the hotter parts of the world, they might stop worrying about a half a degree Celsius increase.
MJE