CLIMATE COSTS: Delays in acting to restrain climate change may make it impossible to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.
Image: Flickr/arbyreed
The chances of keeping temperatures below a 2-degree-Celsius rise over preindustrial levels drop precipitously the longer policymakers dither, according to a new study that finds political will is the biggest uncertainty in fighting climate change.
Enacting immediate and swift climate change policies would, in the most optimistic scenario, give the world a 90 percent chance of meeting the 2-degree target for averting catastrophic global warming. But a 20-year delay, scientists found, would mean the probability of hitting that goal drops to 50 percent -- no matter how much money countries spend in the effort.
"The biggest choice is when we would start with globally comprehensive action, for which an agreement is needed," said Keywan Riahi, energy program leader at the Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and a co-author of the paper published yesterday in the journal Nature.
The study underscores the concerns that small island nations and others raised at last year's U.N. climate conference in Doha, Qatar. Though nations have agreed to work out a new emissions plan, it will not go into effect until 2020 -- far too late, scientists say, to save vulnerable countries from rising sea levels, increased storm surges and other impacts.
In examining the chances of keeping average global temperatures in check, IIASA researchers quantified and ranked several "uncertainties" associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, like the actual impacts of rising temperatures, future energy demand and technological developments, to see which factors have the biggest impact on the chances of averting warming.
Riahi said the goal was to put those unknowns -- often used to postpone action on climate change -- into context. The result of their findings: The biggest uncertainty of all is the timing of global political action.
"If there is a delay in action, despite all the other uncertainties there are certain targets that will be out of reach," he said.
Delay may be 5 times more expensive
In large part, the chance of reaching the 2-degree goal skips out of reach because of the emissions that continue to rise with every passing year. So crashing on emissions cuts two decades from now and even achieving negative emissions output would mean countries could not compensate for the additional rise.
Meanwhile, Riahi said, if carbon emissions were taxed at what he described as a "modest" price of $20 per metric ton, the world would have a 60 percent chance of meeting the 2-degree goal. If policymakers delayed putting a price on carbon until 2020, achieving that same probability would necessitate a tax of $100 per metric ton.
"So you're talking about a fivefold increase in the price signal in order to achieve the same likelihood for staying below 2 degrees," he said. Waiting another decade after that, he said, could be disastrous. By 2030, the 60 percent probability rate becomes out of reach, no matter how high the price on carbon becomes.
Some of the probability rates do change if nations can achieve lower energy demands. Researchers found that if energy growth is limited, there could be a 50-50 chance, with high carbon prices, of reaching the 2-degree goal from a 2030 starting point.
"My hope is at least that more research is done in this direction that it can support negotiations to find an agreement that would help to reduce emissions globally to stay below the 2-degree target, because that's definitely the biggest factor," Riahi said. "There's numerous studies that have shown it is in principle possible, but of course it requires dedicated policies and action that won't happen without the political will to reduce emissions."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
35 Comments
Add CommentAnother Alarmist article that begins with the assumption that man made CO2 is responsible for ALL climate changes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this were true, how did climate change in the past without the benefit of man made CO2? It most assuredly did, so please explain how.
Also please post the experimental data that prove the CO2 heat trapping amplifier that ALL computer models ASSUME exists. Please post it's physical mechanism, what it affects, the limits of its operation etc.
The Alarmist community for decades has stated that CO2 amplifies other heat trapping mechanisms. Show how. Clearly. With real live experimental data.
We're all sick of listening to unsupported Alarmist theories that "Too Big To Be Questioned".
"Delays in reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases causing global warming may mean combating climate change becomes prohibitively expensive"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt already is.
Also:
1) It ain't gonna happen. We are not going to destroy our economies over unproven theories. and
2) A warmer climate (which is occurring naturally) is conducive to increasing species diversity.
Lisa Friedman’s article is complete bologna and propaganda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate science does NOT Know how much temperature will rise as a function of more CO2 (unless you include such a wide margin of error as to make the estimate meaningless) and the 2 degree estimate she references has no more validity than estimating that temperature will go up by less than half her estimate. Perhaps more importantly, science does not know what the impact of any higher temperature will be on other conditions important to the human condition such as annual rainfall.
With a World War II effort, in ten years 10000 mass produced nukes could easily with a fraction of our industrial capacity, with the costs covered at a 40% ROR by replacing fossil expensive fuels, head off the fast approaching the global warming precipice and peak oil crisis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWestinghouse is predicting 2 cents a kwh costs and 3 year build times for factory produced nukes. China is now building reactors for $1.5B/Gw and that is dropping fast towards the $1B/Gw predicted.
Google "china-leverages-learning-curve-cost"
2500 new mass produced nukes scattered around the US at $2500B financed by the $700B paid every year into the coffers of Big Oil/Coal for their deadly products and $100B in pollution related health costs, would carry all US energy needs.
At a minimum fifty times the cost wind and solar alternatives are simply impossible industrially, politically, and financially.
The process begins with Obama setting us out on the needed course with a new 80% clean energy electricity mandate by 2035. A massive nuclear build is a certainty as no other clean energy alternative is competitive.
Eliminate the current absurd 6 years process to get a site permit to add an approved nuke identical to many other operating units to an existing nuke plant or replace a filthy coal plant with an already approved nuke, cutting US nuke costs to Asian levels.
Like FDR with 1930's TVA and Bonneville hydro projects, Obama needs to start a giant public power nuke corporation with a single national license - no lawyers allowed - charged with replacing all the nations coal plants efficiently on budget and on time just like Asian countries are doing.
There is a lot of unemployed autoworkers and mothballed auto factories just waiting for orders.
As we convert to nukes, NG electricity and heating applications would immediately convert to nuclear electricity, nuclear produced synfuels and electric vehicles.
Green people need to understand that the biggest roadblock ending the imminent threat of a peak oil GHG holocaust is the Green movement's ill conceived, opposition to nuclear power At the very least their stupid stubborn opposition kills a several million folks annually.
Feeding the green nitwit are the scum at Big Oil/Coal paying off our politicians and media keeping the public in the dark.
Both of you guys don't get it. Rising CO2 and temperatures is not necessarily the issue. It's true we have had a past with high CO2 and warmer global temperatures, but it took 10s of thousands of years for those transitions to happen. The ecosystem had time to make adjustments. If you think times are hard now, just wait. Geopolitics will be the name of the game and people will be warring over natural resources and space. Future life is going to be very ugly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can believe whatever news channel, newspaper, magazine, and/or radio talking head you want to reenforce what you "think" is going on. The fact of the matter is that humanity is largely, if not completely, to blame for the CO2 increase. The writing is on the wall and everybody can see it, even if they don't want to. So rather than continuing to live in a gluttonous manner denying reality, why not instead acknowledge the problem and at least do something positive to make small difference in your corner of the world. Maybe not your children, but your children's children will be asking why you did nothing with your time when you could done something---anything---to maybe make a difference.
Glad you deniers know more than all the climate scientists in the world...you are so very clever. Make sure you are around to take the credit for the world you leave our kids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain I say that no matter how big of a percentage
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe cut our emissions per capita, it is not going to
be enough if we keep growing our population.
It will get ugly as we fight over land water and other
resources. I believe that climate change will be the
least of our worries as we fight for resources and elbow
room.
Population control is something we can do now. How about
a carbon tax on population gains. Has any climatologist figured out how many metric tons of CO2
an individual exhales or causes indirectly by energy use. Cutting population growth would eliminate a lot
of CO2 in 20 yrs and make a much better world in which
to live to boot.
I agree, population is a scarry timebomb. We need govenments to discourage couples having more than 1-2 children. (Religion has a lot to answer for here)I disagree that climate change will be the least of our future problems, rather it will be the camel that breaks the back of the world as we know it. Because we are to greedy/stupid to accept the evidence that the worlds best are showing us and act now we will have to endure the consequences. Hopefully my time on this planet will be done, but I am concerned for the generations (maybe just generation!) to follow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think they will thank us.....this time in history (if it is ever recorded) will be known as 'The great denial' or 'the fuck'en idiots'.
Crasher, that language in unnecessary and takes away from the integrity of your comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually dirt cheap clean and green nuke power can desalinate all the water we need, turn deserts into garden paradises, and provide all the synthetic materials we need. No population related resource restrictions at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said "The fact of the matter is that humanity is largely, if not completely, to blame for the CO2 increase."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot even the most rabid AGW theory advocates blame humanity for all the increase in CO2 and by definition, AGW is 'theory', not "fact".
Unneccessary perhaps, but I image that will be the kind of language future generations will used to describe the current sutpidity of the current generation as they try to deal with the steaming mess we leave for them. Especially when they look back and see that we knew it was happening and we did nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs parents we are supposed to care for our kids.
So from such a heartfelt conviction, you endorse nuclear power or is the situation not serious after all? If there is a real problem, there is only one real solution. In any case it is immoral to unnecessarily burn fossil fuels when there is a proven clean substitute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love the way alarmists make sweeping statements that are totally untrue. Look up Professors Richard Lindzen,Freeman Dyson, Nils-Axel Morner,Philip Stott,Ian Plimer. Professors from all over the world who strongly disagree with the so-called "consensus". More than 34,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that climate science is not settled & the effect of CO2 is questionable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out www.petitionproject.org
When you lie,or are too lazy to investigate to support your argument, you fail.
Yet another sponsored site by vested interests. Not worth the effort really.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReal scientists works for NASA NOAA CSIRO etc. Check their sites if you want genuine unbiased information on current climate happenings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/heres_more_of_that_snow_the_csiros_warmists_didnt_expect
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere’s more of that snow the CSIRO’s warmists didn’t expect
The venerable climate scientists. In May 2008, the CSIRO’s warmists warned of vanishing snow:
Scientists say Australian skiers should prepare for shorter ski seasons because of global warming… CSIRO climate change expert Dr Penny Whetton says Australia’s mountain snow cover could be reduced by up to 54 per cent by 2020.
In August 2008, skiers were snowed in:
Would you like examples from the other infallible institutions you nominate? It will not be difficult. Aliens come to mind for example.
Sure! Kill the Planet is cheap, but please, don't 'll forget of to bring the little coin for Charon!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's not point the finger at politicians, but at ourselves. In any society, political will is the product of the majority view (even in dictatorships: no regime can survive against a determined citizenry).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf social will is lacking, politicians don't work miracles. "Fortunately", Nature is a self-correcting system. If we make a mistake, we will be put right.
Postman1 ... by definition, AGW is 'theory', not "fact".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo is gravity. Please feel free to step off a cliff.
Crasher- The fact that you BELIEVE that there is a consensus amoung scientists on the issue of climate change shows that you need to read more on the topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only scientific consensus is on the theory that additional CO2 will warm the planet if all other parts of the system remain constant. Use of the term "denier" would only seem to be appropriatly when someone disagrees with the basic physics.
The truth is:
1. There is no consensus on what rate temperature will rise as a function of increasing CO2 concentrations unless you include such a wide margin of error that the estimated rate becomes pretty meaningless. The estimated rate of change varies from very beign rates of rise to rates that might be of concern.
2. There is no consensus on what will happen to the other conditions that impact humans lives as a result of any warming that might occur. As an example, we have no way of knowing how much annual rainfall will be impacted at any specific location.
Sorry, but those who fear more atmospheric CO2 or a warmer planet frequently try to argue that all or a consensus of scientists believe a certain thing, but that is simply untrue.
The truth is we have much to learn and the world will not be universally impacted in the same way. Some nations will benefit and some nations will be harmed.
Gravity is testable, repeatable and falsifiable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGW is none of the above.
Please explain to me the exact mechanism,limits, physics and experimental data confirming the heat trapping amplifying mechanism CO2 creates. ALL researchers and modelers (yes even IPCC ones) know that CO2 cannot by itself trap much more heat than it already has. Some amplifier circuit between CO2 and some other greenhouse gas is needed to boost CO2's effects.
The problem is that NO RESEARCHER has yet identified, isolated, explained in detail or experimentally demonstrated precisely what this supposed amplifier is. The computer models all use one and assume that it is correct, but it may all be imaginary. If the amplifier is non-existent, CO2-fixated Alarmism is nothing more than the maddening of a crowd.
If you know of research that demonstrates (not computer models) the CO2 amplifier, please post it. If you yourself have data that demonstrates it, please publish it and get your Nobel Prize. Seriously... we need this issue cleaned up.
Any article like this will bring out the deniers, but the truth is that climate change is a fact and we are running out of time to address it. The actions (price on carbon) are clear. The cost of inaction (temperature and climate spirals out of our control) is unbearable. We either give up on humanity -- or fight like hell for our children. What do you choose?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you will be fighting for widespread utilisation of nuclear power? The only practical way of reducing CO2 emissions, or do you believe in the pixy dust non solutions? What will you be advocating should we enter a cooling period over the next few years? A fly in a corked bottle could be considered to be fighting like hell too but like the alternative energy schemes, the effort is doomed to failure. Or are your concerns not so serious after all? If you are going to fight, you will have to get real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour price on carbon solution has been adapted in Australia. $20 per ton is very effective in halting growth in our steel, aluminium & cement industries. So now we import these products from China where they are not constrained by our environmental laws & use much higher polluting processes. You want your country to follow this madness?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is unfortunately true, all these restrictions on Carbon emissions, prices on Carbon and extraordinarily expensive Renewable Energy SCAMs have just pushed heavy industry out of the region to regions not so impeded. That is EXACTLY what has happened in Germany, is now happening in Japan and is the main way California has reduced its emissions. And it is interesting how Greenies, California & German politicians utterly refuse to incorporate the embodied emissions in imported goods into their GHG emissions calculations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin. "Gravity is testable, repeatable and falsifiable."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's still 'just' a theory, which was Postman1's scientifically illiterate jibe at AGW.
Sorry, you are just plain wrong. Never mind you will discover the truth later...maybe. Oh and I am a realist not a denier. If science demonstrates something to me I accept it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't see your point. The things that the CSIRO are predicting are precisely what is starting to happen, but then you would expect that as they are REAL scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich predictions have the CSIRO made that are outside previous variability, that you claim are starting to come true exactly?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not scientist, but it is interesting that the argument here focuses on what group is right and which group is wrong - but no one seems to be doubting that global warming is happening (naturally or otherwise), that we are entering and unprecedented time of change in our civilization that will affect large numbers of people, animals and nature in yet unknown amounts (although scientists can predict some of these changes).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't it be more productive a discussion in the scentific and governmental communities (and here) to establish how to survive in this changed world and how we might work now to prepare appropriately? Even the pro-environment scientists I know say that warming and water level increases are going to happen in the next 20 years regardless of what changes we make - New York, Miami, Southeast Asia and low lying areas will be impacted. Shouldn't we stop focusing on whose fault it is and get to eliminating the denial that NOTHING is going to happen that should be considered? As long as the argument stays about fault or cause, we may never get to doing anything about it.
Do your really want preindustrial levels of CO2? This is much like the anachronistic thinking that claims the purity of the pre-Columbian new world. It is a fantasy. The climatological conditions in 1800 would not be sufficient to support our current population let alone our projected growth. The fact is the amount of warming seen in the late part of the 20th century was desirable. It is tough sledding when one out of five crops are frozen out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should be looking to mitigate the warming effect of CO2 to produce the best mix of climatic conditions, not a blind adherence to some arbitrary point in history.
Mein Gott! Sorry Shoshin, you are just betraying your ignorance. No one said Greenhouse gases such as CO2 are the only cause of climate change and variability but the other factors such as solar output have all been factored into the equations and the discrepancy exactly corresponds to Greenhouse gases like CO2 precisely identified as originating from fossil fuel combustion by its isotope signature. Faith wont move mountains by coal merchants do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMein Gott! Sorry Shoshin, you are just betraying your ignorance. No one said Greenhouse gases such as CO2 are the only cause of climate change and variability but the other factors such as solar output have all been factored into the equations and the discrepancy exactly corresponds to Greenhouse gases like CO2 precisely identified as originating from fossil fuel combustion by its isotope signature. Faith wont move mountains but coal merchants do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for visiting our site and for being part of scientific conversations in the new year. We especially thank those of you who have posted constructive comments that have advanced the dialogue on topics directly related to the content posted. We remove name-calling comments, hostile comments, ad hominem comments, and comments that gratuitously mention politics, as you might have noticed on this story. Overall, if you are consistently making the comments section a less enjoyable place to be, your account and your comments may be removed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this