Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiClimate Chaos Predicted by CO2 Study
World will have exceeded 2050 safe carbon emissions limit by 2020, scientists say
Scientists have calculated that the world has already produced about a third of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that could be emitted between 2000 and 2050 and still keep within a 2C rise in global average temperatures.
![[(photo: Greenpeace)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/toobigtofail_greenpeace.jpg "toobigtofail_greenpeace.jpg")
At the current rate at which CO2 is emitted globally - which is increasing by 3 per cent a year - countries will have exceeded their total limit of 1,000 billion tons within 20 years, which would be about 20 years earlier than planned under international obligations. "If we continue burning fossil fuels as we do, we will have exhausted the carbon budget in merely 20 years, and global warming will go well beyond 2C," said Malte Meinshausen of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who led the study, published in Nature.
"Substantial reductions in global emissions have to begin soon - before 2020. If we wait longer, the required phase-out of carbon emissions will involve tremendous economic costs and technological challenges. We should not forget that a 2C global mean warming would take us far beyond the variations that Earth has experienced since we humans have been around."
It is the first time scientists have calculated accurately the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that can be released into the atmosphere between 2000 and 2050 and still have a reasonable chance of avoiding temperature rises higher than 2C above pre-industrial levels - widely viewed as a "safe" threshold.
The scientists found the total amount of greenhouse gases that could be released over this time would be equivalent to 1,000 billion tons of CO2. This is equivalent to using up about 25 per cent of known reserves of oil, gas and coal, said Bill Hare, a co-author of the study.
The study concluded that the world must agree on a cut in carbon dioxide emissions of more than 50 per cent by 2050 if the probability of exceeding a 2C rise in average temperatures is to be limited to a risk of 1 in 4.
"With every year of delay [in agreeing on further cuts], we consume a larger part of our emissions budget, losing room to manoeuvre and increasing the probabilities of dangerous consequences," said Reto Knutti of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, a member of the research team.
Myles Allen of Oxford University said the total emissions of CO2 that have accumulated in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century are the really important figure for future climate change.
"Mother Nature doesn't care about dates. To avoid dangerous climate change we will have to limit the total amount of carbon we inject into the atmosphere, not just the emission rate in any given year," Dr Allen said.
26 Comments so far
Show AllThere is no consensus among scientists for the alarmists predictions. Note this correction by the NYT on a recent article that suggested otherwise.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/a-climate-correction/
"A front-page article and headline on April 24 reported that the Global Climate Coalition, a group that throughout the 1990s represented industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, knew about the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions could cause global warming but ignored it in a lobbying and public relations campaign against efforts to curb emissions.
However, the article failed to note a later version of the backgrounder that included language that conformed to the scientific advisory committee’s conclusion.... The amended version, which was brought to the attention of The Times by a reader, acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming.
What scientists disagreed about, it said, was “the rate and magnitude of the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ (warming) that will result."
Facts on the ground show that warming has exceeded consensus models every year since the first one was produced.
The warming is WORSE than conservative scientific models are predicting.
WORSE not better. MORE warming.
More arctic ice loss.
More habitat changes.
More global glacial losses.
More loss of ice from the West Antarctic Ice sheet.
More loss or ice from Greenland.
Don't believe me? Google:"faster than expected" and warming. It's all there.
The lies never stop. Billions of dollars of oil, gas and coal revenues are at stake.
Facts on the ground show that warming has exceeded consensus models every year since the first one was produced.
The warming is WORSE than conservative scientific models are predicting.
WORSE not better. MORE warming.
More arctic ice loss.
More habitat changes.
More global glacial losses.
More loss of ice from the West Antarctic Ice sheet.
More loss or ice from Greenland.
Don't believe me? Google:"faster than expected" and warming. It's all there.
The lies never stop. Billions of dollars of oil, gas and coal revenues are at stake.
We are doomed.
Not to worry.
Go shopping...
-30-
The really nasty greenhouse gas is methane from feedlot waste ponds and wetlands destruction. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and the atmospheric levels are rising faster. At some point methane releases can flip the climate regime into runaway global warming and then it's bye-bye humans.
Well, at least the coming nuclear war between India and Pakistan will hopefully cool things off a bit.
In the book EATING FOSSIL FUELS by Dale Allen Pfeiffer, he cites a scientific study by Giampietro and Pimental which found that the current US energy-input per food-calorie essentially means that it takes only twenty minutes of labor to provide most Americans with their daily diet - "as long as that labor is fossil fueled. Unfortunately, if you remove fossil fuels from that equation, the daily diet will require One Hundred and Eleven Hours Per Capita; that is, the current US daily diet would demand nearly three weeks of work from each American to produce the amount of food they eat EACH DAY!"
This is an obvious impossibility. These same authors place the maximum population of the US at a sustainable stable 150 million people or so. And a sustainable stable global population at less than 2 billion people. That is, we are already in massive global overshoot - by 5 billion people! And in fact we are in massive global overshoot on all fronts; food, energy, water, pollution, deforestation, species extinction, desertification, and on and on.
Even if we weren't in overshoot, birth control must stabilize populations now, and anyone against birth control must be treated as an Enemy of humanity and of life on Earth. For even if we fed everyone now, which we do not, what about when there are 9 billion, 12 billion, 24 billion? When there is no oil? When do you say enough? And how to care for at least these we have now?
Socialism may be the only way, as enormous numbers of people need to stand down from work that is damaging the planet and frankly useless in a lot of cases, but won't unless they can survive. And the capitalist pigs piling up loot only for themselves by nothing but money-shuffling-monte are actually damaging the earth, and are dangerous criminals. So the culture of life has to change to a more giving one to enable planetary survival. Or just start killing - like Rwanda. Knowing people though, I would bet on the latter. Nuclear winter, here we come.
Well, the planet does not care if there are humans on it or not. Life is just a thin veneer clinging to the rock of Earth. But humans care if there are humans, and care if life has goodness and promise instead of squalor and horror. In "The Olduvai Theory; Energy, Population and Industrial Civilization," its author Richard Duncan postulates the End of Industrial Civilization by 2030. Then the energy base dwindles and the full brunt of climate change will kick in, and destroy the last vestiges of the modern world. And what is left of humanity will go back to the caves. And forget all history. Let us work to not let this happen.
But we now seem damned if we do and damned if we don't. The Green Revolution was built on oil. And that is running low, and even if it is used, will create another big fat problem - desertification of the planet. Which means a whole lot of people are going to not be able to eat. And will die. One way or another.
The mother-earth-fuckers that have recently been in charge have left the next generation to be Generation Dead.
Carbon dioxide or no we already are receiving or creating more heat than the planet can dissipate. Since we cannot put up a planetary sun shade we have to limit the heat we produce. Instead of new heat sources we need to reduce sources. Our only choices are conservation and increased efficiency. Wind, solar, and wave add no heat to the environment, but the usage of that power does.
Move to town. Educate all kids. Give the suburbs to organic farmers.
http://freepublictransit.org
The suburbs (and cities) are going back to organic farmers. Some others and I are looking into this very thing.
Like all linear projections based on the very recent past, this should be evaluated not swallowed.
The decline of the global economy, which will continue well past 2020, with a smaller level of consumption each year, hopefully will affect that. I for one am grateful for every drop in the stock market, but more importantly in international trade, oil production, construction, etc.
"I for one am grateful for every drop in the stock market, but more importantly in international trade, oil production, construction, etc."
Good - I thought I was the only one.
It would be nice if the economy could decline in a linear fashion with just enough time for people to make adjustments. There is no precedent for this, however.
I try to do everything i can do, I use my battery-electric motor scooters and/or the bus for as much transportation as possible.
But my wife is shopping for a car, and I am unable to convince her to replace her old 1.6 liter, 2400 lb. Chevy Nova with something equal or smaller. She insists on something 2.0 liter or bigger, she wants "more car". Most dealers actually price the smaller cars higher too - or limit their supply.
Have you considered replacing your wife with a more economical model?
(Only kidding. Sort of.)
It is so frustrating when even our own family members won't listen to us on this subject, isn't it! But then again, prophets are without honor in their own countries (or families).
I have discovered the new ARPA-Energy agency's first submission request. If you have a transformational energy invention, a big one, you can submit an 8 page description starting on May 12.
I am preparing some submissions!!
All discussion of these sorts of issue "misses the forest for the trees".
The basic concept that few with the power to drive change will ever discuss, but one which promisses the key to resolving the survival of the planet's biospere and of humanity, is the over-population by our species of its living space, Earth. Until human populations are controlled, one way or another, all efforts at mitigating the effects of our fecundity will eventually be useless. The greatest barrier to recognizing this essential fact is the lack of education in the true sciences and the scientific method, and the resistance to giving rational thought dominance over mythology/religion and tribalism/nationalism.
I am not optimistic.
Reproduction (sex) is an instinct and procreation is nearly as strong. I don't want to live under a government that has enough power to dictate sterilizations, abortions, and infanticide, but it may be our only hope.
Tough choices? You bet. Want to make them or have them made for you?
Don't worry, the military will come to the rescue.
Next up: Remote sterilization.
Once again, it is economic growth, not population growth that is driving energy resource usage and GHG emissions. Under capitalism, population growth and economic growth have NOTHING to do with each other.
If the population of the earth were only 6 million insteasd of 6 billion, 5 million would still live in poverty, while the economic system would find a way for the remaining 1 million to consume 1000 times the energy resources of the actually existing 1 billion non-poor humans. To not understand this is to be ignorant as to the basic principles of capitalist economics.
These forces can be seen in the way most energy-efficiency gains eventually get nullified, and then more, by simply finding ways to use the efficient good or process more. For example, cars, aircraft, and air conditioning systems are much more energy efficient than the 1960's and 1970's but usage of resources has still gone way up as the more efficient cars are driven far more per year than the 1960's, air travel is far, far higher than the 1960's and thermostats are lowered to refrigator levels in much larger homes than in the 1960's. Capitalism demands that this happen or it's couldn't survive.
You are certainly correct about capitalism. Nevertheless, the world is overpopulated with humans. Climate disruption, driven by the industrialized nations and the fundamentally flawed economic concept of endless growth, is but part of the sixth extinction event currently underway. Other aspects of this extinction event are population driven.
In my starkest, most honest moments, I believe that we are headed for an extinction event, though it may be a misnomer. Many poor people in third world countries will certainly go before us, the well-fed, and I believe (maybe, hope is more honest) that there will be enough survivors so that it won't truly be an extinction event.
As hard as we try, we don't seem to be able to land this craft in a safe manner. There is no Captain Sully flying this bird.
The rural poor are probably better equipped to survive than the rich. How are those Randians in Vail going to get food? The growing season is too short to grow their own. How many people can still can their own? Without power, our whole society shuts down. Back to the dark ages, like the Romans.
Close, but not exactly.
The problem is not caused by the lifestyles of the several billion living in squalor in Asia and Africa. As of now, their contributions to climate change are relatively nil. It's the people in the (so-called) "developed" world, with their capitalistic-driven, extravagent and unsustainable lifestyles, who are the real problem. There is enough food and resources right this very minute to provide every person on the planet with enough basic needs to live a comfortable life. The reason why millions of people starve and life on this planet is teetering on the brink is a direct result of the inequalities which are inherent in the system, and which drive it.
Obviously, there is an enormous number of people alive today. Short of deliberate mass extermination, there ain't much we can do about in in the short run. As I see it, either we find a way to share what we have equitably (and that means eliminating capitalism immediately and entirely), or we all perish.
There are no other choices.
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...the Autumnal Equinox...we can start replacing pavement with food-plants now, and be ready to cease our dependence upon petroleum, industry and electricity by then...think about it...no more Jobs! work with the planet, rather than against it...join me, join others...let's go acoustic and agrarian together, around the world, on September 22, 2012...people have lived without petroleum, industry and electricity for many thousands of years...surely, we can do it again?
No thanks.
Carbon-free power works fine for me: solar, wind, fission, fusion before too long...
Electric cars and trucks, trains, subways.
Stabilize population, gradually change Economics to be sustainable.
Things certainly have to change, but we don't have to go back to hunting and gathering, or even simple agrarian lifestyles.
If we make the correct choices now we don't have to, but if we do nothing we may have no alternative.