How the IPCC Learned To Love The Apocalypse Touting Solutions They Concede Won’t Work In The Real World And Are Detrimental To The Environment
However, many of the references cited in Chapter 20 of the IPCC’s AR5 Final Report expose the fact that the aforementioned “solutions” to the Climate Armageddon prophesied in the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers” report DO NOT WORK in the real world. For example, the reference “The Challenge of Sustainability in the Politics of Climate Change: A Finnish Perspective on the Clean Development Mechanism” was cited four times for Chapter 20 of the Final Draft of IPCC WGH AR5 Report Climate-Resilient Pathways: “Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development”.
“Given these weaknesses, it remains contestable whether this narrow and nationally focused techno-economic EM approach is a valid political strategy for an industrialized country like Finland towards an international climate policy instrument such as the CDM. Indeed, the Finnish eco-modernist reading of the CDM leaves open the very question of sustainability since its fundamental dimensions remain marginal in the techno-economic frame.”
Many plant species used for biofuel emit more isoprene—an ozone precursor—than the traditional crops they are replacing. A modelling study now indicates the potential for significant human mortality and crop losses due to changes in ground-level ozone concentrations that could arise from large-scale biofuel cultivation in Europe. These findings suggest that biofuel policies could have adverse consequences that should be evaluated alongside carbon-budgeting considerations before large-scale policies are implemented
“Moreover, the fact that currently available institutional arrangements that attempt to combine mitigation and sustainable development (such as CDM) are not achieving win-win goals indicates the need for rapidly developing means for evaluating, changing and improving current policy instruments and mechanisms(Dovers and Hezri, 2010).