The new WGII report is out, and reading the SPM
it doesn't take long before I find something to disagree with: Meeting the objectives of
climate resilient development thereby supporting human, ecosystem and planetary health, as well as human well-being,
requires society and ecosystems to move over (transition) to a more resilient state
. Firstly the trivia: having to write "move over (transition)
" is horrible; get someone to sort out your flow. Disregarding that ugliness, there's the substance: is any kind of fundamental transition to a new state required? I doubt it; though all the words used are so vague that they could mean almost anything. Swapping out fossil fuel infrastructure for renewables/nooks doesn't really meet this description, no matter how much some people would devoutly wish it to be so.
It is kinda funny watching the IPCC folk saying "don't watch that war over there, watch our report on the long term future on the planet". If I were them I'd have delayed releasing it, but bureaucracy doesn't work like that.
* Greenhouse gases and “major questions”: Justices to hear argument on EPA’s power to tackle climate change - SCOTUSblog.
* I took the fundamental bit to be "reducing supply too fast will lead to bad price spikes", and I think that's correct; and I see a lot of env folk not understanding it. The rest, meh.