Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
IEA Stokes Doubts Over World's Climate Fight
LONDON - The world will have to bet on extreme measures to avoid serious global warming, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday, adding to growing worries that governments have under-estimated the problem.
If the world carried on as normal without taking new steps to fight climate change temperature would rise in the long-term by up to 6 degrees. Above 2 degrees warming, "hundreds of millions of people would face reduced water supplies," and above 3 degrees food production worldwide would be "very likely to decrease," a U.N. panel of climate scientists said last year.(Photograph: David McNew/Getty images) The world will have to suck greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere
because it was too late to rely on gradual curbs in heat-trapping
greenhouse gas emissions, it said.
The energy adviser to 28 rich countries detailed two paths for limiting warming to 2 and 3 degrees Celsius respectively, which would both require huge annual investments to deploy fossil fuels alternatives.
"Both scenarios imply that net greenhouse gas emissions turn negative -- carbon absorption exceeds gross emissions -- towards the end of the century," said the IEA's set-piece annual energy report, published on Wednesday.
That could involve the deployment of an untested technique to pump underground carbon dioxide produced from burning vegetation, using carbon capture and storage, and by planting more forests, the report added.
If the world carried on as normal without taking new steps to fight climate change temperature would rise in the long-term by up to 6 degrees.
Above 2 degrees warming, "hundreds of millions of people would face reduced water supplies," and above 3 degrees food production worldwide would be "very likely to decrease," a U.N. panel of climate scientists said last year.
Limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees would be especially expensive because it would involve scrapping and replacing dirty power plants at a cost of about $3.6 trillion from 2010-2030, the IEA report said.
That compares with global efforts in recent weeks to shore up the world economy at a cost of about $4 trillion.
INEVITABLE
A view that more than 2 degrees of global warming is inevitable has gained ground.
Greenhouse gases are already at high enough concentrations in the air to stoke that amount of warming -- except that smoke and other pollution are blocking out the sun's rays, said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact research.
"This is masking two thirds of the global warming. We already have 2.4 degrees of warming in the system," he told Reuters on Tuesday.
On the positive side -- regarding the cost of the climate fight -- limiting greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels will also cut costly oil consumption.
Partly as a result of recent oil price rises, global spending on oil had quadrupled to 4 percent of global economic output (GDP) in 2007 compared to 1 percent in 1998, and that would rise to 5 percent, the IEA said.
"The only time the world has ever spent so much of its income on oil was in the early 1980s," the IEA said.
Another cost saving from the climate fight will be the avoided damage from droughts, floods and sea level rise, which British economist Nicholas Stern famously said could be 20 times the cost of curbing greenhouse gases.
"We start in a difficult place," Stern told Reuters on Tuesday. "The (pollution) in the atmosphere, give us time to bring that (CO2 in the atmosphere) back down to the kind of levels ... that are consistent with a 50/50 chance of holding the overall temperature increase to 2 degrees centigrade."
Additional reporting by Pete Harrison in Brussels; editing by James Jukwey
- Posted in
30 Comments so far
Show AllSchemes like cap and trade are neither fair nor effective to stop global warming. It is another fraud, another opportunity for tricky trading and enrichment of the inner circle.
Oil prices are not a good way to promote conservation either. I wonder how oil went from $140 a barrel to $60 a barrel in the last few months. Did the oil under the ground increase 233% ? Obviously this is another area controlled by speculation and manipulation, nothing like the outworn myth of supply and demand.
We have to move to solar, wind and other cleaner sources. We have to build more free public transportation. Individually and collectively, we have to be mindful of conservation and devise new ways to conserve. As the article points out, we are talking about spending hundreds of trillions, but this time it is for survival and improvement of the world.
Joe
Good comment. But I'd suggest we need a total commitment to energy self suffiency using all forms of energy in the short run.
The shorter the better :)
Joe
Even better comment!
Oil went from $147 to its current level for three primary reasons: First, the "Security Premium" was lifted when cleaar signals were sent by BushCo that it would not attack Iran. Second, the financial implosion forced many brokerages and hedge funds to dump their long investments in oil futures in search of liquidity, which is the same fundamental reason for the global stock market sell-off. Third, we have short-sellers capitalizing on the sell-offs and have helped to keep oil low for the time being. Currently, oil is way underpriced based on fundamental supply/demand. It should also be noted that the current US oil extraction rate is about equal to 1947 but with more than twice the populace; so, even a return to a 1947 level of economy is unlikely within the current economic paradigm.
Cap and trade concept was made up by the same people who bankrupted the financial firms. It is all a scam. Don't buy into this Ponzi scheme. A carbon tax is the only way Big Oil and Big Coal will realize that they must change.
What ever happened to peak oil?
Don't you know? Doesn't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_consumption#Demand_for_oil
It should be clearly evident by now how ALL argument for unbridled capitalism is leading us to hell, and putting the whole planet and entire human race at peril.
Shouldn't it be clear how a harmonic balance with nature and an equitable balance of priorities between common good and private good still requires beneficial and lucrative industry?
We do not need to exploit every resource and risk impending doom to be productive and happy and blessed.
It simply defies all common sense and reason that we have to wait for a disaster to unfold before we get smarter about these things.
Hi Jim--As reported here, oil peaked in 2006. There's much further discussion of the IEA's paper here.
Margalo
This is an important article, but unfortunately for Americans not translated into Fahrenheit. Most of the scientific articles and announcements even in US publications and news sites are not translated, probably deliberately, so Americans tend not to understand the gravity of the information.
1 Celsius degree = 2.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
The discussions always start with 2 degrees rise in earth warming, or 5.2F. This article posits 3 to 6 degrees of warming, which is 7.8 to 15.6F and quotes one expert as saying that clouds and smoke now protect us from the temperature rise we already have of 6.24 degrees Fahrenheit.
"If the world carried on as normal without taking new steps to fight climate change temperature would rise in the long-term by up to 6 degrees C. [15.6 degrees Fahrenheit]."
Thus, "Above 2 degrees C. [5.2 degrees Fahrenheit] warming, 'hundreds of millions of people would face reduced water supplies,' and above 3 degrees C. [7.8 degrees Fahrenheit] food production worldwide would be 'very likely to decrease,' a U.N. panel of climate scientists said last year."
No wonder the IEA says we must pump the carbon dioxide into carbon storage before we kill ourselves not with a bomb but with our own consumer excesses and unwillingness to treat the warming as an emergency and quickly convert to electricity from solar, wind, water, etc.
1 Celsius degree = 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit
1 C = 2.6 F is correct! I rechecked it and invite all to do the same.
Margalo
Overpopulation.
Overpopulation.
Worth repeating.
Overpopulation.
One child per family worldwide for a couple of generations.
http://www.repoweramerica.org/
Just a green revolution? We need a revolution, PERIOD.
Today it's green energy; tomorrow is no energy. Wake up, saps, the well is running dry, the county is broke, the spirit is gone and the leadership is truly Roman!
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
Overpopulation.
Anyone who practices home vinification recognizes that yeast happily double their population every two hours until they run out of grape sugar and fall to the bottom of the vessel, most of them deceased.
I think humanity is close to its final population doubling as it approaches 500 million metric tons.
Wow, I have 20 gallons fermenting next to my home office. You really called it. i will keep this in mind as a useful metaphor.
Peas,
Peat
Yeast cells in a test tube was a high school biology experiment I remember. Human ingenuity has kept us ahead of Malthus' math, but even he had no idea we were going to foul the nest with CO2.
Its quite a coincidence that we may have beat Malthus' math for the last time, fossil fuels that power our economy have peaked, and global warming is kicking in. Maybe the evangelicals are right. The end is near.
Peak Oil will take care of that. The die-off begins around 2020, only 11 years off. By century's end, world population will be down around 2 - 2.5 billion. It's a pity humans couldn't have seen it coming and chosen to live within their means, but they lacked the wisdom.
"Partly as a result of recent oil price rises, global spending on oil had quadrupled to 4 percent of global economic output"
Quadrupling of investment in unnecessary and catastrophically destructive industries. This is a crime of course to pile on top of the mountain of other crimes committed by the elites, including the Demoks, the ones who are in line to take over dictatorial power in Washington. Splendid, voters! You did gooood!
As important as conservation and alternative energy are, they are only secondary by comparison to population control.
This president has waged war against family planning and the eenvironment since his first day in office, when he essentially halted our international aid to these essential programs. Our planet can not sustain the current reproduction rates.
Bush’s contribution to over population, as well as his other enviromental crimes, have already caused immeasurable suffering & environmental damage to our planet. Until effective family planning programs can proceed without blockages from such irrational zealots guided by religious right radicals, starvation and environmental degradation from overpopulation can only worsen.
Little known, but interesting facts:
Half the mass of the atmosphere is at/below 18,000 ft. One mile is 5,280 ft.
About 7/8 of the mass is below 37,000 ft.
95% of weather occurs below 20,000 ft. Large t-storms rise to 40,000 ft.+/-
The temperature lapse rate of -2C/1000 ft gives us -57C at 37,000 ft+/-
When most people look at the sky they see an unimaginably large , "deep" thing, but consider: The runways at IAD and other major airports are 11,000 ft long. Most of us have seen such from the window as we travel. Google map 'em. Not too big, huh?
Most weather occurs w/in two runway lengths of the surface of the planet.
Three and a half lengths up the temp will kill you in a few seconds.
The average airline flight will burn 10,000 lbs of kerosene in the atmosphere per hour. Add in power plants, trucks, and boats, structural heating, etc. all going into three miles of air. Most people can see more than 3 miles from their homes, more like 10 miles on a clear day.
Our situation is fragile. We must change big time and soon.
cheers
Very interesting. I had not though about what an impact jet travel must have on our thin skin of atmosphere. Solar and wind are not easy fits to replace jet fuel, so here is another challenge for any clean energy project. Would this be a good place for judicious use of nuclear power, which normally I am loathe to consider? Or will we have to change our travelling ways?
In the meantime, we can do a little something to cut down on air travel by using local food and products to the extent possible. For vacation take the train. It is quite a treat to travel on this beautiful continent, and more business may help the trains to extend and improve routes.
Joe
"Above 2 degrees warming, "hundreds of millions of people would face reduced water supplies," and above 3 degrees food production worldwide would be "very likely to decrease," a U.N. panel of climate scientists said last year.
Limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees would be especially expensive because it would involve scrapping and replacing dirty power plants at a cost of about $3.6 trillion from 2010-2030, the IEA report said."
This article doesn't give much hope that people are willing to downsize their lifestyles. I know how hard it is to try to do this within a culture of expansion - which is world-wide.
While I hope we are smart enough to create technologies that will pull our chestnuts out of the fire, I am not putting all my eggs in that basket. I am still going to do what I can to consume less, however miniscule that effect is.
If for no other reason than for self preservation, individuals should be preparing themselves for potentially very hard times. We need to form communities in which we can give and get support. The days ahead will require that.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Peak Oil is not a theory.
The IEA has releaesd the official world oil depletion rate.
9.1% per year.
6% oil depletion was the recognised mark for a nightmare scenario that would cause the collapse of modern Western technological society.
It is now accepted by the oil industry itself that the year 'Peak Oil' happened was 2006. That means we went over the upside of the oil production bell curve three years ago. Peak oil theorists, including Matthew Simmons (a former oil company insider) said that 'Peak Oil' would only be recognised after we had pased the peak. Which we have.
As a result of the record high oil prices, people began defaulting on credit card payments and mortgages to pay their fuel bills, which in turn triggered the collapse of the banking/investment industy, causing the frantic bailout of companies 'too big to fail'.
The latest casualties are the car companies themselves, with GM on the verge of complete failure (and Ford and Chrysler are in the same sinking boat), which will ensure the erasure of 2.5 MILLION American jobs, from parts maufacture and car assembly line jobs to autobody repair, mechanics and store front retail car accesory jobs. Not to mention the impact of having all the households affected by the loss of those jobs, which will put an even greater strain on an already overloaded and weakend American economy.
There is an upside to all of this though.
With the demise of Western technological society, there will be fewer fossil fuel powered industries and vehichles. Over time, the problem will correct itself. The environment will be able to start regaining homeostasis.
Walk in peace.
According to Matthew Simmons, an oil business investment banker and author of Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, states that Peak Oil theory should actually be called Peak Oil Observation because in every field where oil extraction has risen, peaked and declined it has followed this bell shaped curve. Whether the peak is a smooth summit or a crown is of no matter. The extraction curve remains the same regardless of the well.
As master yoda has said, "there is no 'try', do or do not do"...
Regards,
Steve Jones
Mt Shasta, California
http://geocities.com/gwlinx
Once the oil's out, we'll be switching to growing plant oil and actually using it wisely.