benjhm

Maybe so. But can anybody tell us, what fraction of this big sum is private wealth, rather than government assets ? If it includes items like mansions in london and french riviera the value could be much less in a fire-sale - only so many sheikhs to take over, and they might get worried too. So the "local rich" might hope to pick up bargains.

What are we waiting for ?

I guess - coordination among the western governments - as if only some participate, those that don't might gain from future investments from bullying autocracies. Also, there may be reciprocal losses whose impacts would be unbalanced.
But it seems to me the risks of setting such precedent are far outweighed by the risk of increasing irrelevance for our democratic values in a world of increasing autocracy, if we let p***n and team get away without paying for such destruction.
Maybe there is some way to do this incrementally, to provide more motivation to depose the tsar, stop, and quit, sooner rather than later?

It's working really smoothly now, thankyou for your efforts.

Saudi Arabia has had an active delegation at every IPCC meeting over three decades - no excuse to be unaware, they always manage to scrape as close as possible to rejection from the process. By the way we misrepresent by saying "Saudi Arabia" - petro-dollars are only existential for an autocratic government (similar applies to gas-putin) - Arabian population would benefit from less climate change (their region will approach uninhabitable in summer - pity COP was not in July - note how they moved world-cup).

2100 is within lifetime of kids today. You need to go to at least 2150 to stabilise temperature, and 2300 to have a chance of stabilising sea-level rise. Lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is over 100 years. Demographic inertia works on similar timescale. For such reasons my interactive model goes to 2300. IPCC made projections to 2100 since 1990, stuck with this tradition due lack political consensus. Laws of physics not necessarily convenient for mass human psychology.

Should be so, hope you are right (didn't find rates in the pdf). However, these are all temporary, can change a lot on the timescale of such investment. I recall Brazil had a development bank with special rates to get around this problem, but that way is potential source of corruption. Chinese economy is also unstable. Need a risk model. Although not perfect foresight - that's only a concept of IAMs - real investment made by people acting on promising trends then retiring.

Does the atmosphere really feel the difference, whether that flying circus of COP diplomats settle on "down" or "out", except for the impact of planes and hotels for 80,000 people gathering to debate four characters ? Sure, it sends some signal for investment, for those who follow the herd rather than work it out for themselves. I'd say the quantitative NDC targets - next round is due by COP30, and their implementation matter more.
As for the problem of unanimity, indeed it’s crazy - always has been - I remember the absurd discussions about draft rules of procedure back at COP2. So maybe better start by reforming or replacing UN (the time is ripe, given obvious failure in recent conflicts) - on basis that power is rooted in citizens, excluding autocracies where it comes from oil revenue. So if there's no phase-out - it’s not yet climate breakdown, but it could be UN breakdown.

I agree about that too - and think about how to model these power dynamics. Maybe you're suggesting (by this + posting the original) that we influence politics more by emphasising the crisis, regardless of the shape of that curve of increasing impacts. Such logic could also justify why they like to run high scenarios in ESMs. This doesn't convince people like me, but I know my way of thinking is not so typical, so maybe you are right.
Otoh there are some influential people, especially those who trust black boxes of economic optimisation models (there's another recent thread about that), for whom the lack of such info could effectively provide an excuse for delayed action.

Good, it's a useful step, although if they only have to get sheeple to opt-in once, that probably wouldn't be hard.
By the way, algorithms not all bad - Lemmy has some, with good use of logarithms, you can improve on github.

Levelized using which interest / discount rate ? As I understand, wind-power has recently been hit by high interest rates (which is relatively worse for renewables with high capital outlay yet low running costs).

Yes. Its mere existence is progress, albeit painfully slow (recall the 100bn promised at COP15 was only reached last year). USA and some others were fundamentally opposed to the principle of any kind of reparation for loss and damage. Now the fund exists, it’s easier to negotiate higher contributions in return for some other action, step by step, without re-opening the big legal consensus process. Also, the higher the relative contributions to emissions, and the further we pass 1.5ºC, the more pressure to pay for the damage - this is a useful feedback.

Not only Dubai - Brazil wants to show how green it is and shift to renewables, yet at the same time to become a mega oil exporter, drilling deep below the salt. And this is not new - I remember they had similar a contradiction during Lula's previous term too.
Maybe this doesn't matter, beyond wasted effort, if there's nowhere left to sell oil. However I suspect their plan is that Africa will be the big market (look at the demographics).