The ongoing disruption of the earth’s climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable. Under midrange projections for economic growth and technological change, the planet’s average surface temperature in 2050 will be about two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than its preindustrial value. The last time the earth was that warm was 130,000 years ago, and sea level was four to six meters higher than today. No one knows how long it will take sea level to “catch up” with such an increase; it could be several centuries, or it could be less.
Even with uncertainties, there is reason to believe that tipping points into unmanageable changes will become much more probable for increases larger than two degrees C. To achieve a better-than-even chance of not exceeding that figure, human emissions must start to decline soon, falling to about half of today’s level by 2050 and further thereafter.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important of civilization’s emissions and the most difficult to reduce. About 80 percent comes from burning coal, oil and natural gas; most of the rest comes from deforestation in the tropics. The largest emitters in 2006 were (in descending order) the U.S., China, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, India, Japan and Germany. (Numbers are not final, but China appears to have passed the U.S. in 2007.)
There is no way to keep the temperature increase under two degrees C unless these big emitters start taking serious action almost immediately. The U.S. and the other industrial nations on the list have an obligation to lead this transition. They have caused most of the buildup of gases to date, and they have the largest per capita emissions, the greatest wealth and the most technology. And they agreed to their responsibility to lead in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, to which the U.S. and 191 other countries are parties.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has wasted the last eight years. It should have been taking decisive action but engaged instead in systematic understatement of the danger: it has made ridiculous assertions that the U.S. should not do anything that China does not agree to do and has stubbornly insisted that no action should be taken to improve climate change “if it hurts the economy.” This last rationalization translates into “if it costs anybody any money” and is roughly akin to saying that the country should not defend itself against terrorism because that costs money.
There is now reason to hope, however, that this country is about to shift from shameful foot-dragging into the leadership role that the world needs and expects. Such a transition has been made possible by the convergence of several factors: a stream of new science showing an accelerating pace of climate change and its impacts; the everyday experience of people witnessing the change around them (and seeing it on the evening news); the compelling portrayals of what is happening and why, such as Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and the shifting stances of constituencies as diverse as evangelical Christians (who argue for protecting the climate on grounds of stewardship of God’s creation) and military leaders (who argue on grounds of national security).
The impending political tipping point is evident in nationwide opinion polls and in the climate policies already embraced by more than 850 towns and cities and 32 states. It is also manifest in the rapid transition of attitudes among corporations, which have come to see climate-change mitigation and adaptation not only as necessities but as opportunities. When top executives from General Electric, DuPont, Duke Energy and Exelon testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in favor of federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, this surely was the equivalent of the plastic thermometer in the turkey popping up to indicate that it’s done.
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentIf the very first statement in this article was fact instead of conjecture, the rest of the article might have some point worth taking. Unfortunately, aside from a few islands and fjiords in the polar regions emerging, their is no catastrophe in the wings waiting from warming. The degree of alarm being provoked is disproportionate to the amount of envirinmental change that is likely to occur based on what we know, versus that which we fear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the mean time genuine environmental catastrophes ARE in the wings, due to overpopulation, deforestation, loss of habitat, pollution in the form of genuinely toxic substances like methylated mercury and other organo-metalloids, and persistent organic pollutants and various industrial chemicals being created and released into the planet's water and atmosphere. and of course, the crumbling and poorly designed infrastructures of our civilization's increasing urban landscape, in particular along the ocean coastlines.
It doesn't matter if a city is destroyed by rising due to melting or flooding due to a tsunami as a result of an earthquake, landslide or cosmic impact...the death and destruction which we fear is not going to be avioded simply by keep the climate at a prescribed temperature point, which flies in the face of scientific understanding regarding the earth's continuously changing climate.
Doug - you ignorant slut.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTalk about conjecture - how about this:
"Unfortunately, aside from a few islands and fjiords in the polar regions emerging, their is no catastrophe in the wings waiting from warming"
Says WHO? Do you have a crystal ball?
Why not tell me tomorrows stock prices too.
Illogical idiots like you are dangerous, and if there are too many of YOU we are doomed as a species.
I question a couple of assumptions tacitly or overtly made by the article. First, that "there is no way to keep the temperature increase under two degrees C". Geoengineering is one way (see David W. Keith's website and publications; he's at U. Calgary). Basically, for a few billion dollars' investment, the upper atmosphere is seeded with material that cuts out a small percentage of incoming sunlight. It's a technology whose impact and availability need to be taken into account in a balanced consideration of our long-term climate and geopolitical strategy. Second, that failing to step up to reducing carbon emissions right away would be a failure of leadership. Bjørn Lomborg argues convincingly (he has a web-site too) that spending current funds to fight global warming is a poor allocation of scarce resources: we could significantly impact every one of the world's other top ten worst problems (malaria, AIDS, etc.) for what it would cost to make very small dent in global carbon emissions. Of course it will be a good thing to control CO2, limiting global warming and ocean acidification. But if you ask, what's the best use for a dollar today, attacking global warming is not near the top of the list.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree 90%. Sciam has apparently taken a politically correct stand on global warming rather than one based on science. Shame on them, since it degrades the overall quality of the Magazine. As a Research Engineeer, I have done considerable reading on the subject and conclude humans have nothing to do with global warming which is basically not happening. Some small areas may be a warming but that is not a global phenomenon and which may still be a response from the retreat from the last ice age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big problems are those you mention. As far as I am concerned we could use some warming if lucky enough to experience same, since I live in Canada which temperature averages far too cold for my liking. Much of Russia falls into the same category.
It would have been nice if the author hadn't blown any credibility by completely ignoring the huge amounts of CO2 that are released naturally by fires, volcanos and other such things that are not even remotely man made. Then there is the whole lack of rise in sea levels and the vast expansion of the antarctic ice shelf. I don't think the antarctic expansion completely offsets the arctic melting but it sure comes close. Besides, nature is naturally self correcting. If our environment is seriously out of whack because of human activity then billions of us will die and the situation will be fixed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't stand behind the specific facts given by the article. However you people are incredible. Whether you believe or not that humans are causing global warming, it is still highly ignorant to accept the current situation. What is the current situation? (Whatever I say is mostly US based) Car manufacturers are giving us 20mpg cars because they simply don't have to do any better. Corporations are wasting huge amounts of energy and irresponsibly release toxins into water supplies. The US in the past century has consistently made bad foreign policy decisions in the name of or perhaps truthfully for securing oil supplies. This has resulted in multiple wars and killed many people. Furthermore, the hunger of developed nations for energy has kept them incompetent on resolving real issues, like you people describe above. Example: Women get raped in Saudi Arabia, and then because of, often get thrown out of the family or killed .. because they are not pure anymore. The rapist too often suffers no consequence. Of course, the US government would claim they need to be friends with Saudi Arabia to keep their influence in the Middle East (for the sake of oil). Either that, or they simply don't care about real human issues. There are so many other examples of why burning coal and especially oil are terrible options.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides all the negative consequences of oil hunger in the past century, there is other compelling evidence that we should change the way we make use of energy and its disposal: new technology. If you don't care about human rights issues, etc, that's fine. Maybe I can appeal to you hunger for human advancement. We have on a large scale limited ourselves to the simple concept of generating electricity by burning fossil fuels. Today, many new technologies exist that make direct use of the only real source of energy that Earth receives: the energy of the Sun. Why should we tap into the ground and use energy from fossil fuels (given by the sun a long time ago) when we can make direct use of it?
You say the cost is too high, and not worth it when we could be solving other issues like disease, hunger. Yes we should be solving those issues, but it's not a matter of cost and we should all be able to admit this. When the majority of the people of a developed nation own mp3 players, HD tvs that they paid $3000 for, etc.. it's pretty clear that there is plenty of money to go around. What high cost are you referring to any way? Solar panels are expected to reach the same cost/kw that we currently paying in the next couple of years.
continued...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar panels, wind turbines, geothermal plants could provide the electricity we need. And of course our cars can all be converted to run on electricity.
Here's the thing. It's perfectly good to question exaggerated global warming claims, or not believe it, etc. However it's irresponsible, ignorant, and frankly not very intelligent to NOT support emerging technologies that can provide cleaner air, among other many benefits.
I'm sorry if this sounds too much like a renewable energy rant, but renewable energy is directly related to reducing the claimed global warming. What I'm saying is... People who are advocating that we do something about global warming are really advocating that we advance technologically, that we become more responsible with our energy use, that we produce more efficient products, etc. Who here can tell me this is a bad thing??? Is it bad because the luxuries we have become accustomed to will be slightly more expensive??
minulescu
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChange occurs when the present situation becomes too bad to tolerate. Witness: finally putting up traffic lights at high death intersections. Same with getting off-oil. As long as it's available at a reasonable price we will use it. This is a fundamental fact of life. No environmental movement will stop this.
As oil became suddenly too expensive (but now not so bad again) there was a sudden rush by the consumer for more fuel efficient vehicles, and the car/truck etc. manufactureres which could not provide, lost out. Plant closures at GM for example. As far as doing better that a 20 mpg auto is concerned, one can buy a fuel-injected VW Diesel that will get 60 mpg (right now), without using hybrid technology. Your choice!
Alternative energy sources will be utilized when it is economical to do so, and not before. So don't worry, it will work out. Of course irresponsible pollution of air, water and soil is inexcusable and can be partially controlled by regulations. CO2, however is not a pollutant and I could care less how much is emitted.
You advocates of solar and wind power, must realize that in northern countries like Canada and Russia, they won't work. Try heating your house on a still, cold night in winter with solar or wind power! There ain't any. So we still have to have base-load power generators, preferably nuclear.
Remember, economics drives change, not idealism.
Ted Coulter (my real name), BASc
I understand your points Ted. However, with your last sentence, you are implying that idealism has no impact on economics. In fact, it is idealism, and "ideas" of people in general that drive economics. (At least I would hope it's that way). Spreading idealism about a certain concept will drive people to accept that concept, and ultimately buy into those technologies, ie: renewable energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour first paragraph: "when the present situation becomes too bad to tolerate". I wonder what exactly you mean by that. In my previous posts I have given strong example of how TERRIBLE the current situation is - not price wise, but its effect on human beings, as they struggle for energy. You are not suggesting that ALL that matters is price.
I'm not a scientist, and have not studied CO2 extensively, but as I have said.. how can it possibly be a good thing for us to emit any sort of chemicals into the air we breath, when we have other choices?
If I did some research, I think I would find information that in fact Canada and Russia would have potential for wind energy in certain places. And I'm advocating for these technologies where they are possible. I am not proposing we eliminate all dirty power plants immediately. I'm definitely suggesting that we should NOT build any new ones if we have other choices. In fact, I see that you are supportive of nuclear energy. I agree with you: nuclear energy is great, and very clean! However, public perception and high costs have hindered it incredibly in the last 30 years. (No new generators build in the US for example).
Minulescu
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI stand by my last remark that economics drives change not idealism. It is my opinion but I think it is true. The idealists I have known, generally are insufficiently educated (informed) about the big picture and advocate or even make bad choices that won't work, and frequently do more damage than good. Ethanol (ethyl alcohol) production from food (corn and wheat) is such an example. Such production of, say, a gallon of ethanol consumes almost a gallon of diesel fuel in the farming, manufacturing and transportation of the ethanol product. And this practice is subsidized by various governments! Meanwhile we are stressing the land and depriving other people of the food we just burnt.
Electric vehicles? These will probably work now that we are on the verge of building reliable and affordable lithium battery cells. They have got to be charged with electricity though and what will be the source? Present electrical supplies are quite insufficient to supply a huge new demand for power. Some reduction in the need for new power plants can be realized by charging batteries at night (off-peak). But much more power must still be generated, which consumes some sort of fuel. Again new nuclear plants could do this but the lead time for construction is about 20 years. Much of this delay is caused bypolitical wrangling about safety issues. Been there, done that, get on with it. But the poiticians and politically appointed bodies must have their day and hang the expense.
By the way my remark," By too bad to tolerate" can be taken to mean that the economic burden is too great to bear . High oil prices don't just affect commuting costs but rather the whole transportation system and thus impacts on the price of EVERYTHING. Canada is self sufficient in oil and thus perhaps we should not have to pay the international price. But that's another polical decision.
The U.S. situation is entirely different. They are severely deficient in oil energy, and that affects both the costs of EVERYTHING and the security etc. of everybody in the world. The impetus for development of alternatives to oil energy should soon come from the US. since it is pure folly on their part to rely on their enemies to sustain the life blood of the American economy. It's surprising that that they have not made a concerted effort to free themselves decades ago. Expect a change here soon.
Oh, yes, and CO2 as a global warming agent. Much touted but mostly hype with little substance to the argument. It's mostly caused by water vapour.
I must say I'm pretty disappointed by the level of commentary here. This is the most important issue any of us will ever deal with. Where in the hell is your honesty and your courage? Many of these comments are simply another illustration of a basic human impulse: wishful thinking. Even if you don't confront reality and deal with it as reasoning adults, reality will deal with you. It seems we'll have to deal with human psychopathology in order to deal with CO2 emissions. Which is the greater liability: human denial, or CO2?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. How can we be so arrogent to assume the that the curretn climate is the best of all psossible climates? Before we spend $43 trillion on climate control, how can we besure all other climates are worse?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. When weather forecasteres can start giving accurate forecast for two weeks in the future I may have more faith in forecast 50 or a 100 years from now. Until then I say, you have no way of frocasting next century's weather!
3. If we all agree to spend $43 trillion dollars to fix the climate that we are not certain is broken, we had damn well better be right, becasue this spending will impoverish our chldren and grand childern for generations if we are wron. Are you really willing to make this bet?
1. How can we be so arrogent as to assume that the current climate is the best of all possible climates. As a geologist I know there have been lots of other ones in the past and life seems to thrive through all of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. When making an investment one likes to have a pretty good chance of not only getting teh money back, ut also a return in addtion to compensate for the risk. Based on so called "science" avaialbe to us now do we think spending $43 trillion dollars on the climet will return us in excess of $43 trillion of benefit? If not we are impoverishing our kids and grand kids for gereations to come. Really folks, there just isn't enough certainty about this climate thing to justify put $43 trillin at risk.
3. Scientists can not predict the weather 10 days from now and you want me to spend a sigificant portion of the rest of my life's earnings on a 100 year forecast. Get real.
1. How can we be so arrogent as to assume that the current climate is the best of all possible climates. As a geologist I know there have been lots of other ones in the past and life seems to thrive through all of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. When making an investment one likes to have a pretty good chance of not only getting the money back, but also a return in addtion to compensate for the risk. Based on teh so called "science" availabe to us now do we think spending $43 trillion on the climate will return us in excess of $43 trillion of benefit? If the science is wrong, ( and it may well be wrong) we are impoverishing our kids and grand kids for gereations to come. Really folks, there just isn't enough certainty about this climate thing to justify wasting $43 trillion.
3. Scientists can not predict the weather 10 days from now and you want me to spend a sigificant portion of the rest of my life's earnings on a 100 year forecast. Get real.
Any article that cites a *movie* as a basis of scientific reason is SAD. No mention of sunspot activity. No mention of mean water temperatures. No mention of volcanic emissions. And, apparently he is now saying that *all* human made emissions are now greenhouse gasses. I would be more apt to believe the global warming thing if these guys would just stick to science. As it stands, im left with the idea that Prof. Holdren is more interested in his sociological agenda of controlling society rather than adding to the body of scientific knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost sad of all, he is an MIT grad like me. Maybe it was all those years in Berkeley as an anti-nuke activist that warped his thinking. Or maybe it was just the cash.
" This is the most important issue any of us will ever deal with"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is your opinion. If you really want to convince the scientific thinkers here, you need to address the many question marks in the man-made global warming theory. Responding to skeptics with emotional, forceful, condescending and high brow retorts only makes people that much more skeptical.
The Us is NOT deficient in energy. We have an overabundance of enviro-loonie lawyers keeping us from getting to or using almost of all of it!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have 40% of the world's coal. At $40 - $50 dollar a barrel we can turn this into enough gasoline, diesel, and natural gas to power the country for about 200 years. If we could produce from ALL of the regular oil reservoirs off shore and in Alaska we have several decades (maybe up to 60 years) worth there.
In the Green River oil shale deposit there is AT A MINIMUM the amount of oil in ALL of Saudi Arabia - most estimates put it as much as 3 times what the Saudi's claim they have left.
Add in all the wind and solar.
AND THEN PUT IN STEAM GENERATORS AT YELLOWSTONE AND LONG VALLEY - where you have enough underground heat to power the ENTIRE US electric grid.
All it takes is for us to not have to give one stinking cent to anyone else for energy is for the next 500 or so years is for us to have the will to do and the wisdom to get rid of the loonies.