Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Break Growth Records
Emissions rebound fast from global financial crisis, driven by developing world
Global carbon dioxide emissions hit a record 9.1 billion tonnes in 2010, after a year of the highest growth ever, a new study has found.
The new study was released as world leaders meet in Durban, South Africa, in an effort to reach a new international agreement to reduce emissions and tackle climate change following the end of the commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, and the failure to reach a new binding agreement in Copenhagen in 2009. (Image: Shutterstock) "This is the highest total annual growth recorded, and the highest annual growth rate since 2003," reported an analysis by the Global Carbon Project published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. The project is an international science research partnership founded in 2001 to develop a complete picture of the global carbon cycle.
Emissions of greenhouses gases, measured in units equivalent to tonnes of carbon dioxide, have been linked to global climate change.
The new study was released as world leaders meet in Durban, South Africa, in an effort to reach a new international agreement to reduce emissions and tackle climate change following the end of the commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, and the failure to reach a new binding agreement in Copenhagen in 2009.
Governments are aiming to keep the increase in global temperatures by 2100 below two degrees. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that may allow the world to avoid some of the most dangerous aspects of climate change, such as a significant rise in sea level and extreme weather.
However, the new analysis shows global emissions since 2000 are on track to "far exceed two degrees warming by 2100," said study co-author Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, in a statement.
Preliminary estimates showed the 2010 emissions increase was driven by a 5.9 per cent jump in fossil fuel emissions after the world economy rebounded from the 2008-09 financial crisis, said the study led by Glen Peters of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway. That "more than offset" the 1.4 per cent drop in emissions in 2009 as a result of the crisis.
For the past two years, the study said, the growth in emissions has been dominated by developing countries, the study found, especially China, where emissions grew by 212 million tonnes or 10.4 per cent, and India, where emissions grew 49 million tonnes or 9.4 per cent last year.
Average emissions drop developed countries
In 2010, CO2 emissions in developed countries grew 3.4 per cent. But after decreases in the two previous years, they are now lower than the average emissions during 2000 to 2007.
The study suggested that the global financial crisis helped developed countries meet their emissions commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord, but had little impact on emissions growth in the developing world.
"Reversing the growth in global fossil-fuel and industrial CO2 emissions will require countering the trends in all of the underlying contributors," the paper said.
Overall, global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have increased 49 per cent in the past two decades, the study said.
While previous economic crises since the 1960s had persistent effects on energy production and consumption, that was not the case for the 2008-09 crisis. The study suggested that was due to a fast drop in energy prices, large government investments to stimulate the economy, and high economic growth in the developing world.
Although the global financial crisis "was an opportunity to reverse some of the trends leading to increased CO2 emissions, the return to high emissions growth in 2010 may make the global financial crisis a lost opportunity," the paper said.
37 Comments so far
Show AllComplete and utter non-sense.
It's the Sun.
Simple really.
Temperature rises followed by an increased Carbon load.
Now this fact is supported by science, not mathematic modelling techniques which this article is nothing more.
Climate on Earth is always changing and always will.There is nothing man can ever do about that.
Let,s not waste anymore time money and emotion on this media created distraction.
Shame on us!
Are you for real?
"Shame on us!"
Speak for yourself. Those of us not in denial feel no shame, just a deep sense of loss and incredulity at willful stupidity.
This is a theme in Koch brothers sponsored "science" programs.
Hi 'Wildwood' - how're you doing there, in your denial-bubble? Having fun?
Sure hope so, because due to your denial, et al, the fun's going to run out for most of US rather soon.
It has already run out for many. Cf. e.g. the victims of the floods and droughts in Australia. But, yeah, I know you said - "let's not waste anymore time and money and emotion" on them. - Seems like climate extreming denial and psychopathic lack of empathy go well together.
Have fun, friend, there in your bubble - but you ARE losing out on participation on the emotionally richer world of feeling responsibility for your part, however small, in the big scheme of things.
Thank you ~Wildwood~ I didn't know that it's the sun story was still hanging around..... Have you ever considered writing some new science text books? __ You may win a Pulitzer or even an Nobel Prize.
Actually It has been a long time since I've heard that crazy it's the sun stuff, so you may just be using sarcasm? __ I hope you really aren't that stupid.
I don't know why I'm bothering to reply, because it won't change your mind, but...
"It's the Sun". Satellite data shows that the Sun has been cooling slightly for the last 30 years, but temperature has risen by over 0.5C in the same period, which is an extraordinary rate in terms of the Earth's climate history. The last major temperature rise was 50 million years ago, and the rate was 10-100 times less than we are seeing now.
"Temperature rises followed by an increased Carbon load" Yes, because CO2 gets released from the oceans, it doesn't dissolve as well in warmer water. But it's a well-known positive feedback cycle, unfortunarely for us. Are you denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That "science" is 150 years old.
"Climate on Earth is always changing". This has a ridiculous logical flaw, it's like saying that since forest fires have always happened, humans are not the cause of any forest fires.
Developed countries may have reduced the overt emissions inside their own countries, but they import goods, resources and food from the developing nations, enough to make up the difference. We obviously need a GFC mark II, to strangle the global economy. This time it needs to be fatal.
Perhaps a major war with Iran, with a major part of world oil supply cut off or in jeopardy. The consequent rise in oil price should be a major economic shock. Perhaps a nuclear weapons exchange or two, between any of the many nuclear nations, pehaps started by Israel or Pakistan, will cool the planet with a nuclear winter and mass starvation, followed by long term plutonium infiltrating every part of the biosphere.
Perhaps more business as usual, with economic adapatation extracting and burning fossil fuels for another 10 years, till the tropical rainforests all burn and the Artic Permafrost melts, and Methane Clathrates push climate destiny beyond reach.
Hit the road, mankind, and don't come back no more.
We are so f.....! Actually our children are. Folks like "Wildwood" are the reason why. While I'm sure they are usually a reasonable, and nice, well meaning human being, they are so dangerously wrong. And there is no convincing them, once their emotions, and personal biases replace facts and reason.
There's a visceral attachment, in our culture, to lighting stuff on fire with no thought of where the smoke goes. To point to the emissions is to question a way of being. It cuts very deep.
Heedless burning is an intimate matter. If you question how one eats, or how many children one chooses to have, or what kind of sexual relations are proper, you risk provoking a similarly irrational response.
"The American way of life is not negotiable."
- G.H.W. Bush, Earth Summit, 1992, and Dick Cheney, 2001
How's that for digging in, securing a nationally irrational response to any need for change?
An absolute classic line!!! But of course, Dick was only talking about the way of life for the 1%.
Sample comments from the CBC website:
>>"I have a hot tub. I set the water temperature to 98*F and then re-set the water temperature to 100*F and I couldn't feel much of a difference. This is the climate change the environmentalists, scientists and computer models want us to fear. Two or three degrees is some kind of a looming catastrophe? I'm not buying any shares in this baloney factory."<<
Another:
>>"If it means that the climate here will become a bit more tolerable, I'm all for increased emissions. For now it seems that it gets colder no matter how much the lefties are screaming about global warming, or, as the new euphemism goes, 'climate change'."<<
The denial industry has obviously been incredibly "successful" and must represent, by far, the best "investment" made by the fossil fuel industry crime syndicate! Canadian media has done its part to "balance" the message so that a casual browsing of online mainstream media sites will throw up much more denier comments than those battling with them:
http://www.straight.com/article-555826/vancouver/canadian-climatechange-deniers-are-neville-chamberlains-our-time
And here's CBC's Rex Murphy (Canada's Andy Rooney wannabe?) berating Desmond Tutu for daring to speak out against tar sands oil production:
http://youtu.be/OhhrKAtAA04
And a sample comment from this YouTube page:
>>"Say how did those campaigners get to Durban. I seriously doubt they get around on bicycles and sailboats. Long live the tar sands, long live Canada!"<<
The fossil fuel industry has nothing to fear, it seems!
It is an industry, insofar as some of these people are corporate PR ciphers. The vested interests have so much money we cannot begin to imagine it. They can bury us with fake, astroturf people supposedly voicing silly or ignorant opinions (as Wildwood is doing for us today on this thread). It serves to demoralize us and discourages debate. However, there are also people who have been genuinely duped by Fox News et al as well. Eventually, the glaring 'facts on the ground' will be indisputable. We can't be far away. The calls for revenge on those who have profitably participated in this catastrophe are already audible. Listen carefully when the wind howls; it sounds like an angry crowd to me.
No, I am using the term "denial industry" which I picked up from George Monbiot's book "Heat" (a whole chapter on this topic, with this title) to refer to something much more organized, deliberate in its intent, and operating using "proven" techniques from the tobacco industry fraud days:
* The denial industry case notes
* The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's working
* The denial industry
* Attacks on climate scientists are the real 'climategate'
* Failure to catch climate email hacker is the real scandal
I am becoming very concerned about crop failure.
Buy a recipe book for road kill ~no name~... One thing is, if one's diet is primarily mice and rats, they must eat the intestines to get any necessary fat in their sysetm... Guess they have to be cleaned out first?
And to be quite serious,, you should be very concerned about crops,, we all better be because what is coming down the track at a fast clip is not going to be fun, combine climat change with Fukushima fallout.
Crop failures will just be one of the dire results of global warming/climate change.. Dramatic world wide climate changes... Look what happened to Russia's wheat crop two summers ago,,not good. And now Texas is well on the way to being another Gobi desert.
The Murry Darling water basin in Southern Australia is drying up, droughts in Africa and floods in Pakastan and India, etc, etc.... And dramatic climate changes have just really started,, It's gonna get really nasty.
"They can bury us with fake, astroturf people supposedly voicing silly or ignorant opinions..."
They can bury most, but not all. There will always be willing dupes. Nothing we can do about that but not be willing dupes...and act accordingly.
1. As the price of oil rises, poor people in poor countries turn to other energy sources such as sticks of local firewood. When everyone does this, it leads to the denuding of entire countries, Haiti, for example. Wood is a high-carbon fuel. That carbon would have stayed in the forest otherwise. Also, burning forests down creates grazing land for cattle.
2. People don't have to burn down the forests -- nature may do this by herself. Vast acreages of trees are unhealthy or dying all over the planet. We know that bugs will develop resistance to many pesticides in 100 generations. Forests will adapt to climate change in 100 generations of trees, but each generation of trees takes maybe 20 years so don't hold your breath. As nature burns down worldwide forests or as dead and dying trees are turned into methane by fungi, all of that carbon reverts to the atmosphere, and also no living tree exists to convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into cellulose or other carbohydrates.
This past year I've been to NYcity, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles area. The highways and streets are choked with traffic. The traffic is unbelievable.Seemingly 24/7/ I don't know how people do this every day! I would go mad. The cause for global warming look no further than you and your neighbors. We should be building bullet trains and light rail and bike lanes not weaponry. The greatest threat right now is global warming, then comes corporate hijacking of our government.
Here here!
Stop the Wars!
Then stop the Auto Addiction!
Our Western lifestyle unfortunately is not compatible with the laws of thermodynamics. These laws have to be changed as soon as possible!
"Carbon Dioxide Emissions Break Growth Records"
"Oh maaan, we're so fuc**d". - Sorry, had to mention that spontaneous reaction. And "sorry" because the truth is always that just when reaction against a socially damaging phenomenon is at the strongest, that's when the phenomenon's at its worst. Not the other way around: that when some problem gets talked about a lot, that means it's nearly solved. No. It's when we don't talk about it much anymore that a problem is solved. So we're reaching some sort of crecendo of epiphany here.
Hopefully we'll get smarter before all our beautifully functioning societies go bust. - While getting into the big job of shearing off the bad, exploitative parts of those societies. Which are all of the parts, regrettably - meaning what we need is a generally, commonly, dominantly changed attitude for the harmonic, aligning ourselves with our origin in the biosphere of the living "Mother Earth" - Gaia.
Heard it before? - Well, now you heard it again. We'll all hear it again, until we all act on that - again, and again.
"Global carbon dioxide emissions hit a record 9.1 billion tonnes in 2010, after a year of the highest growth ever, a new study has found."
This is sloppy reporting by the CBC - incorrect by a factor of 3.67
The actual report, with embedded link, is as follows:
"Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and cement production grew 5.9% in 2010, surpassed 9 Pg of carbon (Pg C) for the first time, and more than offset the 1.4% decrease in 2009."
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1332.html
One Pg = 1 x 10 to the power 15 grams of Carbon (not carbon dioxide)
One Pg of carbon = One Gt of carbon = One billion metric tonnes of Carbon = 3.67 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide
Therefore 9 Pg - Carbon = 33.4 Pg carbon dioxide, or, in more manageable terms, 9 gigatonnes of Carbon = 33.4 billion tonnes of CO2.
Manysummits
======
Thanks.
It struck me too, but I was distracted by the comments I found on the CBC website. I remember a few months ago that the IEA had put out estimates of 30.6 billion tonnes of CO2 for 2010. So it's actually much, much more than that!!!! And to underreport this by a factor of 3.67 is sloppy, shameful and inexcusable. Not that it would make any difference to those who seem supremely confident that their own lives wouldn't be affected in the least - such as those who post comments on the CBC website with such arrogance.
Hello Alcyon!
They got the main point right, that this is a new record and that the increase was also exceptional in terms of rate, i.e. 5.9% above 2009.
But very obviously, the CBC sees no need to assign a reporter who really understands climate science, or is it more inclusive - the language of science, which strives for precision and detail and if possible, context and lack of ambiguity.
And it's not just the CBC, unfortunately.
Granted, Pg - C (petagrams of carbon, a carbon equivalent, in this case representing CO2 emissions) is not a common phrase in the world outside of science. All the more reason to have a qualified reporter explain conversion factors and provide context. It's not as if the issue being discussed is of interest to only a few specialists.
I have a printed list from Oak Ridge Laboratories of all the estimated "CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751 - 2005". I keep it updated by hand - it helps me get a feel, if you know what I mean.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html
Including the new figure for 2010, we have now emitted to the atmosphere ~ 364 gigatonnes (Gt) of Carbon since 1751, and if you actually print off the entire list, and tally them up by hand, as I have, decade by decade, you 'get the feel' for the exponential increase in emissions from these three sources.
Very roughly, one third to one half of these emissions have been absorbed by the world ocean, with consequent 30% increase in ocean acidity. It should be burned into long term memory that even if a geo-engineering scheme or a fortuitous volcanic eruption were to cool the planet temporarily, the ocean would continue to acidify, and this will in the end probably be as great a problem as a warming ocean and a warming world.
Recent work by Lee Kump et al. indicates that the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum began with a rapid emission of greenhouse gas of just about the amount we have now emitted to the atmosphere since 1751, but that the rate of emission by mankind is probably one order of magnitude (ten times) faster than that of the PETM.
The PETM then accelerated out of control as another several thousand gigatonnes of Carbon equivalent (Gt-C) were released, possibly from a combination of methane clathrates, peat and coal oxidation, permafrost thawing etc..., in short, 'a cascade of positive feedbacks'. The world ocean acidified and the surface acidification was eventually transferred to the bottom waters, causing a benthic mass extinction of bottom dwelling foraminifera.
Man-kinds emissions are at the early stage, and there has not been enough time for the world ocean surface water acidification to have been transferred to the bottom waters in any quantity, but it is only a matter of time, the process is underway as we speak, and to all intents and purposes unstoppable.
However, we certainly have control over whether we burn the several thousand gigatonnes of Carbon in the world reserves of fossil fuel, initiating in the process the cascade of positive feedbacks which are likely in this event - we just have to grow up and exercise restraint - to care for the future.
If we burn all possible fossil fuels, conventional and unconventional (Tar Sands, Shale Oil...), that amount (several thousand Gt-C) will have been oxidized by the year 2400, presuming we make it that far. (Zachos et al, 2008)
This is, in effect, what James Hansen is talking about when he speaks about "game over".
I'm not sure it is realistic to expect that the public master science, or even the language of science.
But surely everyone can understand justice - and its lack - and the need to replace our current leadership.
Manysummits - in Calgary
========
PS
The emissions spoken of above do not include those from deforestation, permafrost thaw, or any others than listed.
Hi Michael,
Awesome post. But just the same it lacks something, i.e. consequences for mankind over the next 70 years. A "causing a benthic mass extinction of bottom dwelling foraminifera" would not be nice, but what are the consequences for us. For example, can you remember the BP oil leak that happened way out in nowhere. If it was explained that a billion fish and plants had to die out there under the ocean, perhaps few cared so long as they got to watch TV. (shocking as that may seem).
Yes - the consequences for 'us' over a human lifespan.
One could of course talk about the IPCC 2007 report, or speak of James Hansen's work, or James Lovelock's insights.
One could talk of the geologic past, the climate record revealed in the ice core records, in the deep ocean sediment cores, in lake cores, in various proxies of past climates. One could go on and on.
Abrupt climate change is a fact of paleoclimatic history, and on the timescales you speak of, but we are not yet knowledgeable enough to predict with precision the future quantitatively. The smooth curves of the IPCC are fiction, in all likelihood.
Science doesn't know how to lead, being funded, almost entirely, by governments and corporations, the very problem in our present inertia, so to speak.
Also, scientists by their very nature are not natural leaders politically, at least from what I can see. As Shadow Dancer so poignantly reminds us, we all have bills to pay, and the professional scientist is no exception. Then there is the sense that the important work must continue (science), and who else is capable of doing it?
These are all valid points.
We have leveraged ourselves to technology - yet at heart and physiologically we are hunters and explorers.
We are now seven billion - too many I would think - and vulnerable.
I happen to like weather, talking about the weather, studying the weather - and living out in the weather. Climate science is history writ large, and a geologist is an historian, after all is said and done.
But there are a suite of existential threats now abroad - pandemic disease, nano-technology, gene-manipulation, nuclear power, chemical pollution, water-scarcity, and on and on...
Nothing is too big to fail, including us. We have organized ourselves, for better or for worse, into a monstrous New World Order.
I wish I could reassure you, and me, and my family, that all will be well.
But I fear we are in for it - a fight to survive.
Manysummits
=======
Michael Desautels, I came across something similar to what you have described, and even posted on it. Please check out Durban Diary: #Occupy the COP and look for my comment, "Alcyon - Dec 3 2011 - 7:14pm".
I had a chance to see a poster made by a student who had fitted exponential growth functions to both global carbon emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration (ppm) for the period 1751-2010. More importantly, there were also separate fits for the intermediate periods 1751-1929, 1930-1979, 1980-2000 and 2000-2010. Data had come from a few sources, including the ones you have mentioned here. I listed a couple of spreadsheet files available online, but more at that site.
What I found most telling was that the CO2 concentration kept rising at increasing rates even when there was a drastic fall in the exponential growth rate of carbon emissions during the period 1980-2000, despite the Chinese economy picking up speed precisely during that period. Of course, it was only the exponential rate that fell, not the total emissions, but the rate for CO2 concentration did not fall. What this shows clearly is that the surplus capacity for nature to absorb additional CO2 had been pretty much used up even back then!!!
My take away from this poster was that here is elementary, in-your-face proof as to the historical responsibilities (culpability) of various countries to decide who should cut their emissions first and by how much. I had mentioned in that post that this fact was obviously known to the negotiators who came up with the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, based on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" - the very principle that the rich nations are trying to get rid of in the last few years.
I don't think the mainstream media in the US and Canada are covering the Durban meeting adequately or appropriately. They are every bit part of the problem, despite their occasional pretensions about caring for this subject. They are made of ordinary, pathetic human beings after all, and it seems a bit much to expect any strong principles on their part to guide their news coverage if it would mean going against corporate interests.
Also, the problem in this reporting is NOT with the somewhat uncommon unit of Pg - C (petagrams of carbon, a carbon equivalent, in this case representing CO2 emissions). Just a little bit of online search could have pointed out that such estimates are also reported in giga tonnes or billions of tonnes of CO2 **all the time**. There were several news stories a few months ago that kept citing the International Energy Agency's preliminary estimate of 30.6 billion tonnes for 2010 - so it's already out there. The real problem is that this is just a "filler news" item for the CBC and other media. The reporter would have got that signal from higher-ups, and hence the sloppiness. I am willing to bet that the coverage of the Durban meeting is not even 1/1000th of other coverages such as for the Stanley Cup or for the royal visit or any number of totally pointless, pathetic "news" items. I am also willing to bet that no reporter was even sent to Durban for the whole 2-week period so as to provide daily updates. And so, there you have it - that is the real problem!
I looked up the article you linked to, and read your comment(s), and checked out the spreadsheets you provided.
I wish I could see graphs of those time periods you spoke of.
Of late, there has been a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, as I wonder if I should not be full-time onto this climate science business, rather than copping a few minutes here and there. I have to work, I too have bills to pay, but still, I wonder, and I feel that sickness inside.
Manysummits
=======
Sorry, maybe my post was not clear. This is what I had said:
>>"Data had come from a few sources, including the ones you have mentioned here. I listed a couple of spreadsheet files available online, but more at that site."<<
Those spreadsheet files have only the data, but not the graphs. We have to make our own graphs (which can be done in a jiffy) like I saw on that student's poster. Of course, fitting equations of different forms than the built-in ones that come with MS Excel would take just a bit of extra work. When the data is plotted and an exponential growth function is fitted for the overall period as well as for the intermediate periods, the values for the growth rates tell you an unmistakable story:
Much of the emissions had come during the period 1751-1979. Here's the breakup, in case you're interested - this is from the file
http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/xls/indicator7_2010_1.xls
and you have to add the figure for 2010 there (9,140 million tons of carbon, to match with the rest of the numbers):
Cumulative emissions for the period
1751:1929: 36,861 million tons of carbon,
1930-1979: 121,938,
1980-2000: 125,189,
2001-2010: 79,424.
Or, differently,
Cumulative emissions for the period
1751:1929: 36,861 million tons of carbon,
1751-1979: 158,799,
1751-2000: 283,988,
1751-2010: 363,412.
The above numbers are only for the carbon emissions. Now, if you consider atmospheric CO2 concentration (in ppm) for the same periods,
1751: 276.77
1930: 305.91
1980: 338.68
2001: 371.07
2011: 392.00
Here's the site where you can find a bunch of spreadsheet files:
http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C52
The point to be noted here is that despite reaching a high level of development, the rich countries did NOT slow down their rate of burning by much, if at all. Nature's capacity to absorb all this carbon had already been used up several decades ago. And you add in other countries that started to burn all this fossil fuel at an accelerated rate starting around 1980 and in the late 1990s, and the insane amounts of deforestation (reducing the amount of carbon sink), and you see the CO2 ppm values shoot up most frighteningly!
Michael Desautels, as to your last paragraph above, I think I know what you mean. I made a similar comment myself, on another story today:
"...the biggest challenge for those who care and those who want to do everything possible to avert disaster could well be about how to keep pushing ahead and not give up. At least that is how I feel right now. Especially since giving up is not an option for the rest of our lives. We need to find ways to preserve our own energy level and find ways to recover when discouraged by this kind of news stories on a regular basis."
I am thinking that your comment is related. If so, yes, we need to preserve our own energy first. So sometimes it helps to tune out from too much negative news, as long as we don't lapse into escapism and denial. Maybe if you find other like-minded people around where you live, it might help? We live in unusual times and I really resent having been put in such a situation and mostly surrounded by people who may not give much of a damn for any of this. But we need to bring our energy to try convince as many people as we can about the need for urgent action, urgent, drastic change at all levels. And for that, we first need to preserve our own energy level. Hang in there!
OK - it took awhile, but I'm seeing what you are saying.
I just crosschecked the figures I have against the ones you so patiently listed - close enough. I imagine the small discrepancies are due to data tweaking and updates.
So you are saying that the uptake of CO2 is not synchronous with the emission rate, if I read you correctly, and that your interpretation is that carbon sinks are displaying a reduced capacity to absorb CO2?
------------------
Yes, "preserve our own energy level."
If I read him correctly, James Lovelock has essentially thrown in the towel as regards our ability to actually prevent disaster, and suggests we 'accept' our fate, and prepare as best we can.
That's discouraging, because I think a lot of his analytic abilities.
It doesn't help that globally we appear to be paralyzed.
Thank you for the kind words - it helps.
Manysummits
=======
Humans are so over.
shutting down industry won't happened, but the constant attempt of ecologists to do so gave us 30 years of reaganomics \
those who don't like reaganomics must figure out how to make clean development reality
http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?173262/Warming-Arctics-global-impacts-outstrip-predictions
"This report shows that it is urgently necessary to rein in greenhouse gas emissions while we still can," Dr. Sommerkorn said. "If we allow the Arctic to get too warm, it is doubtful whether we will be able to keep these feedbacks under control."