'Moore's Law' For Carbon Would Defeat Global Warming (technologyreview.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: A streamlined set of goals for reducing carbon emissions could simplify the way nations approach the quest to reduce human impact on the planet. A group of European researchers have a refreshingly straightforward solution that they call a carbon law -- or, as the Guardian has coined it, a "Moore's law for carbon." The overarching goal is simple: globally, we must halve carbon dioxide emissions every decade. That's essentially it. The rule would ideally be applied "to all sectors and countries at all scales," and would encourage "bold action in the short term." Dramatic changes would naturally have to occur as a result -- from quick wins like carbon taxes and energy efficiency regulations, to longer-term policies like phasing out combustion-engine cars and carbon-neutral building regulations. If policy makers followed the carbon law, adoption of renewables would continue its current pace of doubling energy production every 5.5 years, and carbon dioxide sequestration technologies would need to ramp up in order for the the planet to reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century, say the researchers. Along the way, coal use would end as soon as 2030 and oil use by 2040. There are, clearly, issues with the idea, not least being the prospect of convincing every nation to commit to such a vision. The very simplicity that makes the idea compelling can also be used as a point of criticism: Can such a basic rule ever hope to define practical ideas as to how to change the world's energy production and consumption? The study has been published in the journal Science.

Comments

It Doesn't Work That Way

[Anonymous Coward]

Moores law for transistors works with roughly the same amount of investment each year. This doesn't work in many other areas. You can't double clean energy production every 5 years without doubling the investment.

Good grief

[SlaveToTheGrind]

It really doesn't take much to get published in Science these days, does it?

Re: The climevangelists are busy today

[firewrought]

An evangelist speaks from emotional fervor based on tradition. A climatologist speaks from disciplined scientific enquiry. Tell me, are you being paid to shitpost, or do you do it out of sheer paranoia?