Not exact matches
But the question remains whether or not it will in practice be less costly than some of the other less exotic
specific actionable proposals made to
date (i.e. at a cost of less than around $ 16 trillion for 0.5 degC
warming theoretically averted
by year 2100) or more costly
by at least one order of magnitude.
Since the figures show that it would cost around $ 2 quadrillion to theoretically avert 0.5 degC of global
warming by year 2100 (as compared to an absurd but less exorbitant $ 16 trillion for other
specific schemes proposed to
date), and in view of the other reservations stated
by me and others here, I think we can lay this idea to rest.
The ethical basis for why national INDCs should specify; (a) the number of tons of ghg emissions that will be reduced
by implementation of the INDC
by a
specific date, (b) the
warming limit and associated carbon budget that the nation's INDC is seeking to achieve in cooperation with other nations, (c) the equity principles assumed
by the nation in determining the fairness of its INDC, and (d) for Annex 1 nations, emissions reductions that will be achieved
by the INDC from 1990, a common baseline year.