Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet

  My Profile  Log In   Register Free Now   
Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet Planet Thoughts Advanced       Click to see one of our videos, chosen at random from the database, along with its PlanetThought
 Try a video
Home   About   Books&Media   Resources   Contact  
   News   Quote   Review   Story   Tip   All   Blogs   News   Quotes   Reviews   Stories   Tips
Get Email or Web Quotes
or use our RSS feeds:
New Feed:  Fossil Fuel
 Full  Blog  News
Read & Comment:
A Solar Community In Isr...
'Let's You And Him Fight...
Paul Krugman's Errors An...
Why Climate Change Is An...




Most recent comments:
From Farm To Fork
A Simple List: Things We...
Can the affluent rest at...

Actions:
Bookmark the site
Contribute $
Easy link from your site
Visit Second Life
Visit SU Blog





News item: Too Late? Why Scientists Say We Should Expect the Worst

    Email a Friend     See Related

4 comments, last: Dec-20-2008   Add a comment   Contributor:  TheTeam (Dec-16-2008)    Play a Video
Optimism: 1 Categories: Global Warming, Philosophical & Quality of Life, Wildlife and Nature

Do you like it hot?At a high-level academic conference on global warming at Exeter University this summer, climate scientist Kevin Anderson stood before his expert audience and contemplated a strange feeling. He wanted to be wrong. Many of those in the room who knew what he was about to say felt the same. His conclusions had already caused a stir in scientific and political circles. Even committed green campaigners said the implications left them terrified.

Anderson, an expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University, was about to send the gloomiest dispatch yet from the frontline of the war against climate change.

Despite the political rhetoric, the scientific warnings, the media headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were soaring way out of control - far above even the bleak scenarios considered by last year's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern review. The battle against dangerous climate change had been lost, and the world needed to prepare for things to get very, very bad.

"As an academic I wanted to be told that it was a very good piece of work and that the conclusions were sound," Anderson said. "But as a human being I desperately wanted someone to point out a mistake, and to tell me we had got it completely wrong."

Nobody did. The cream of the UK climate science community sat in stunned silence as Anderson pointed out that carbon emissions since 2000 have risen much faster than anyone thought possible, driven mainly by the coal-fuelled economic boom in the developing world. So much extra pollution is being pumped out, he said, that most of the climate targets debated by politicians and campaigners are fanciful at best, and "dangerously misguided" at worst.

In the jargon used to count the steady accumulation of carbon dioxide in the Earth's thin layer of atmosphere, he said it was "improbable" that levels could now be restricted to 650 parts per million (ppm).

The CO2 level is currently over 380ppm, up from 280ppm at the time of the industrial revolution, and it rises by more than 2ppm each year. The government's official position is that the world should aim to cap this rise at 450ppm.

The science is fuzzy, but experts say that could offer an even-money chance of limiting the eventual temperature rise above pre-industrial times to 2C, which the EU defines as dangerous. (We have had 0.7C of that already and an estimated extra 0.5C is guaranteed because of emissions to date.)

The graphs on the large screens behind Anderson's head at Exeter told a different story. Line after line, representing the fumes that belch from chimneys, exhausts and jet engines, that should have bent in a rapid curve towards the ground, were heading for the ceiling instead.

At 650ppm, the same fuzzy science says the world would face a catastrophic 4C average rise. And even that bleak future, Anderson said, could only be achieved if rich countries adopted "draconian emission reductions within a decade". Only an unprecedented "planned economic recession" might be enough. The current financial woes would not come close.

Lost cause

Anderson is not the only expert to voice concerns that current targets are hopelessly optimistic. Many scientists, politicians and campaigners privately admit that 2C is a lost cause. Ask for projections around the dinner table after a few bottles of wine and more vote for 650ppm than 450ppm as the more likely outcome.... Read the rest of the article

See original news item: Guardian.co.uk, Dec-9-2008  
Related PlanetThoughts.org reading:
  NOAA Focus On Climate (Apr-19-2013)
  It'll Be Tough Enough Without The Hair-Shirts (Sep-15-2010)
  Scientists Issue Open Letter On Climate Change (May-14-2010)
  Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack - Part 2 (May-8-2010)
  Climate Denail Crock Of The Week: Flogging The S... (Apr-16-2010)
  Google climate change tools for COP15 (Sep-26-2009)
  Similar Early Warning Signals of Change in Clima... (Sep-8-2009)
  Stop Emitting CO2 or Geoengineering Could Be Our... (Sep-2-2009)
  Climate Denial Crock of the Week - This Year's M... (Jun-30-2009)
  The Two Cultures in the 21st Century (May-27-2009)

Click one tag to see readings related specifically to that tag; click "Tags" to see all related readings
  
^ top
Add a comment    
  Follow the comments made here? 
  (Please log in or register free to follow comments)
Comment by: Steven Earl SALMONY (Dec-20-2008)   Web site

With human population projections indicating that the human community will have 9+ billion members by 2050, perhaps it is time to open discussions here and elsewhere about the profound implications of a 40% increase in the human population in the coming four decades. After all, the frangible biological systems and finite resources of our planetary home make clear to a reasonable observer that a planet with the size, composition, and ecology of Earth cannot indefinitely sustain the unbridled increase of human overproduction, overconsumption and overpopulation activities.

Now for a question: Is it reasonable to conclude that the unbridled increase of the clearly visible and distinctly human global overgrowth activities we see overspreading Earth in our time cannot be sustained much longer, much less indefinitely, secondary both to Earth's limitations and humankind's "feet of clay"?

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001

http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176
  
Comment by: LiamAlexander (Liam Alexander) (Dec-17-2008)   Web site

I'm afraid I might be correct about this too; this is something I'd rather be mistaken about. Activists like Dr David Suzuki warned as early as 20 years ago that we had about 10 years to take action. Governments populated by climate change sceptics procrastinated.

The ultimate irony may be that the economic pain an environmental disaster will bring will be much worth than any preventative measures that might have been applied. I wish I could be more positive, but still, it's essential that action is taken immediately.
  
Comment by:  PT (David Alexander) (Dec-17-2008)   Web site

I am afraid you may be 100% correct about the inability to get populations in each country to go along with severe measures. If we had started 30 years ago, it could have been worked in gradually. Even dictatorships such as in China are worried about social unrest in their provinces brought on by financial, food/water, and pollution/health issues, and they are trying to steer a course to avoid major problems there. Most people think those dictatorships are stable, but they are not.
  
Comment by: LiamAlexander (Liam Alexander) (Dec-17-2008)   Web site

The fundamental problem with this may be democracy itself. Any government which introduced a draconian emissions trading scheme is almost certain to be ousted as soon as their term is up. Up until now, most governments have argued that unless the rest of the world responds, any commitment on their part would make little difference.

In response to the Garnaut Report, the Australian government is proposing an emissions trading scheme of between 5 and 25% by 2012. The opposition argues that even 5% is too much.

Unless a government effectively commits to electoral suicide, no effective measures will be put in place. If a government does commit, they leave the door open for an opposition to be reelected on a platform of dismantling and returning to 'prosperity'. Despite rising concerns about climate change, I doubt that self interest will give way to measures involving economic pain until it really is too late.

  
^ top 
About contributor Member: TheTeam (PlanetThoughts Team) TheTeam (PlanetThoughts Team)

Member: TheTeam (PlanetThoughts Team) The volunteers of PlanetThoughts.org are happy to give you their best selection of news, opinion, reviews, stories, quotes, tips, and more. We hope you enjoy the reading... and thinking. Thanks!

Love your Planet... Know your Planet.

Visit Green Wave Email Marketing
Email Marketing for You and Your Planet


We won a Gotham Green Award for 2010, on Earth Day! Thank you Gotham Networking for this award.

See the attractive event brochure.

Recommended Sites

  Member of:
GOtham Green networking
Green Collar Economy
New York Academy of Sciences
Shades of Green Network

  PlanetThoughts
     Members/Affiliates *

Approaching the Limits
    to Growth
EcoEarth.Info
Environmental News Network
EESI.org
GreenBiz.com
GreenHomeBuilding.com
Heroin and Cornflakes
NewScientist
ScienceDaily


* Members of PlanetThoughts      
  communities on SU or MBL,      
  and blog article affiliates      

  Other Favorite Blogs
21st Century Citizen
Center for Bio. Diversity
Easy Ways to Go Green
EcoGeek
Good Bags
Opposing Views


Valid my RSS feeds


We Do Follow

ClickBlog.org



  Volunteer      Terms of Use      Privacy Policy  

Copyright © 2021 PlanetThoughts.org. All Rights Reserved.
Except for blog items by David Alexander: Some Rights Reserved.