Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
- This topic has 902 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A study by the University of British Columbia compared the economic and environmental impact of holding the global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as agreed in Paris in 2015, versus the current 3.5 degrees warming scenario.
I’m not sure it is entirely accurate to talk of “the current 3.5 degrees warming scenario”. This is the IPCC’s worst case scenario, based on the assumption that nothing is done to counter global warming. But something, however inadequate, is being done, so “current” is not the right word. “Currently” the world would seem to be on course for something less than 3.5 degrees but well above 1.5 degrees. NB these are figures for the increase above pre-industrial levels, but as there’s already been an increase of about 1 degree since then, we’re talking about a further potential increase before the end of the century of 0.5 degree and 2.5 degrees.
Assessing estimates is I think we have agreed is a difficult process. We have our optimists and we have our pessimists.
Here is a summary
“…If we are very fortunate, global surface temperatures will only warm 2°C above pre-industrial levels in response to doubled atmospheric CO2 – realistically that is the lowest equilibrium climate sensitivity we can hope for. The best case scenario doesn’t look too bad. If we take aggressive steps to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions, we can keep global surface warming well below the most dangerous levels. Even in RCP 4.5, where emissions don’t peak until 2040, we will probably not pass the 2°C ‘danger limit’ in this best case scenario until after 2100, though we will be committed to about 2.4°C eventual warming once the planet reaches a new energy equilibrium. Quite simply, if equilibrium climate sensitivity is 2°C, then we can double atmospheric CO2-equivalent levels (to 560 parts per million) before we commit ourselves to 2°C surface warming. That will require that we take steps to transition away from fossil fuels, but at a rate which is realistically achievable.
HOWEVER
The *most likely reality* (my emphasis) is a global surface warming of about 3°C above pre-industrial levels in response to doubled atmospheric CO2.
NEVERTHELESS
In a realistic worst case scenario, global surface temperatures will warm 4.5°C above pre-industrial levels in response to doubled atmospheric CO2.
THEREFORE
There is a critical point that must be made here – the worst case scenario is just as likely as the best case scenario. Those who argue that we can proceed under the assumption that the best case scenario is reality do so by cherry-picking convenient evidence and ignoring inconvenient evidence. So what does this all mean? The only way we can be certain to avoid catastrophic climate change is to take major steps to reduce global fossil fuel consumption as quickly as possible. And remember, we haven’t accounted for account for possible changes in the carbon cycle, like reduced ocean carbon absorption or releases from melting permafrost, or slow feedbacks which may amplify global warming further in the future. The problem is that at the moment we’re moving in the wrong direction. The rate of increase in annual global fossil fuel CO2 emissions was about 3 times faster in the 2000s than the 1990s, and the increases in 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 were two of the three highest annual emissions increases ever (data are not yet available for 2012). At a time when global emissions need to be flattening out and approaching a peak, instead they are accelerating. Power plants have lifespans of decades, so our decisions today lock us into a long-term emissions pathway. We need a global agreement to turn this trend around, and fast – we can’t just wake up 10 years from now and decide it’s finally time to take climate change seriously.
The good news is that we still have time to solve this problem. Even in the worst case scenario we would have a chance to avoid the most dangerous climate impacts with aggressive emissions reductions, and the lower the real-world sensitivity to CO2, the more time we have. However, that time is running out. Those wishful thinkers who are helping to delay meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because they refuse to consider any but the best case scenario are doing the entire world a great disservice. At this point we only have two options – take urgent action to reduce fossil fuel consumption, or risk a climate catastrophe. The longer we delay, the greater the risk of catastrophe becomes…”
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html
This is where we on this forum are now relying on our own knowledge of the history of capitalism and experience of politics. Will there be a delay in treating the situation with the utmost urgency or will there continue to be procrastination in implementing effective measures and policies. Do we place our faith in the capitalists doing the right thing for humanity – even if it is for the wrong reasons?
Or accept that it will be business-as-usual and any small reductions in emissions (such as economic downturns which you indicated previously) are mere hiccups in the prevailing trend of rising figures.
I think it is important to point out that climate scientists are not political scientists, nor are they social scientists, much less socialist scientists. The implications of their research such as the knock-on social effects can be under-estimates or over-exaggerations.
That report is not saying anything different than I am trying to say.
We know definitely that, unless the rate of emission of CO2 is stabilised, average global temperature is going to continue to rise and that this will affect sea levels, the weather, and regional agricultural and ecological conditions. (In fact it will continue to rise for a while even if emissions were stabilised tomorrow, as an effect of past emissions). The question is by how much and to what extent. This is where the speculation begins.
Not, however, wild speculation but speculation based on certain assumptions. In drawing up scenarios of what might happen in the future, scientists have to make two basic assumptions. First, about the link between a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and the rise in average global temperature. Second, about what humans do, or do not, to reduce or compensate for CO2 emissions.
As to the first, nobody knows with certainty what it is. The standard that scientists have chosen is an estimate of by how much the global average temperature would rise if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubled. This is not easy to calculate as there are feedbacks. Once these have been taken into account, the figure they come up with is anything between 1.5°C and 4.5°C, variously described as ‘the best estimate’, ‘most likely’, or even ‘the best guess’. It is in fact a ‘guestimate’, albeit an informed one.
Polar ice-core records show that in the pre-industrial past the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was for centuries 280 ppm. Today it is 410 ppm. If present trends continue it will reach 560 ppm, i.e., double, by 2050. In that case, in the period after that date until the end of the century average global temperature would gradually rise to 1.5°C or by 4.5°C above pre-industrial levels or by anything in between. As average global temperature has already gone up by about 1 °C since pre-industrial times we are talking about a possible further rise by the end of the century of between 0.5°C and 3.5°C. That’s as accurate as you can get.
The trouble is that there would be a huge difference in effects between the lower and the higher figure. All we can safely say is that if CO2 emissions continue to increase, so global average temperature will go up and so the effects of this will be felt. Since most of these effects will be negative CO2 emissions should be reduced in any event.
No need to exaggerate.
Who really cares, eh, ALB? It appears only you, me, a few MPs and a bunch of schoolkids who want to discuss climate change and its ramifications.
Climate change had not been debated in the main chamber of the House of Commons for two years. A handful of government MPs attended a debate on climate change in parliament on Thursday.
Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, said, “If you look at the trends, we are not heading for that apocalyptic 2 degree rise, we are heading something that looks more like 3 degrees, the consequences of which we cannot possibly estimate.”
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion said even after all of the international conferences and pledges, the Earth was still set to warm by 3-4C… “We face a climate emergency.”
Fish catches have declined markedly and are likely to fall further, a study has found, with warming oceans to blame.
Around the world, fish populations have fallen over the past 80 years, although some species have shown greater resilience than others. Overall, catches of commercially important fish have fallen by just over 4%, but in some regions catches have plunged by about a third since early in the last century.
Just read something about government regulation that can give some hope.
Remember smog?
The government simply pass the Clean Air Act legislation demanding smoke-less fuel to be used.
Who has a coal open fire these days?
But the first calls for smoke-free zones came in 1935 yet it took 25 years to be accomplished.
The world is going down the toilet.
The boreal forest covers almost 60% of Canada and is home to 600 indigenous communities. Its huge size means it can absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the equivalent to the annual emissions of 24m cars each year. The report found that major brands’ refusal to switch to sustainable materials in toilet paper is having a devastating impact on forests and climate. About 28m acres of Canadian boreal forest is cut down each year, an area the size of Pennsylvania. Virgin pulp, the key ingredient in toilet paper, accounted for 23% of Canada’s forest product exports.
Americans are particularly to blame for this crisis. They make up just over 4% of the world’s population, yet account for more than 20% of global tissue consumption. The average four-person household in the US uses over 100lb of toilet paper a year. Major toilet paper brands have refused to use more sustainable materials, the report says, because Americans tend to more concerned than the rest of the world about ideal toilet paper texture in their homes, largely due to decades of marketing around toilet paper softness. Previous reports into the environmental impact of toilet paper have found American desire for super-soft multi-ply toilet paper to be “worse than Hummers” for the environment.
Personal disclosure. I have not used toilet paper for years. Here, we have attached to the toilet, hoses to clean your arse. In poorer homes, water bowl and the hand is used. More hygenic than smearing faeces around your arse-hole with paper.
As many as 96 water basins out of the 204 supplying most of the country with freshwater could fail to meet monthly demand starting in 2071, a team of scientists said in the journal Earth’s Future. A water basin is a portion of land where water from rainfall flows downhill toward a river and its tributaries.
“There’s a lot of the U.S. over time that will have less water,” said co-author Thomas Brown, a researcher with the U.S. Forest Service, in a phone interview. “We’ll be seeing some changes.”
The basins affected cover the country’s central and southern Great Plains, the Southwest and central Rocky Mountain states, as well as parts of California, the South and the Midwest, said Brown.
Water shortages would result from increased demand by a growing population, as well shrinking rainfall totals and greater evaporation caused by global warming.
One way to alleviate pressure on water basins would be to reduce irrigation for farming, the scientists said. The agricultural sector can consume more than 75 percent of water in the United States, they said. Farmers could cut their irrigation of industrial crops used primarily for animal feed and biofuels, such as hay, field corn, soybeans, sorghum, millet, rapeseed and switchgrass.
How delightful to return to the party’s website after a short absence brought on by the idiocy of others and find a debate between two of my favourite members! This is just another reason why – after four decades of banging my head against a brick wall – metaphorically speaking, of course – I have never once left the party.
Ron Cook once told me a story about being lectured by one of our now-dead luminaries – I forget his name but someone will remember – that ended with the said luminary saying “It’s a terrible party, but it’s the only one.”
We laughed about that, poor dead Ron and I, as we drove down to London for the ADM one Easter weekend. (That was the first time I ever spoke as a delegate at an ADM. I was twenty-two years old and got savaged by Steve Coleman and Vic Vanni. Fond memories, indeed!)
But, to the point.
We cannot know if it’s too late. It might be. In which case, we’re fucked. It might not be too late. In which case we’re also fucked. It’s a little bit like Pascal’s Wager, but rational.
The most important thing for me as a lifelong socialist is to put the case. Wherever it can be put. And however futile it may – or may not – turn out to be.
Jarvis.
Global warming under the sea
Heatwaves affecting the planet’s oceans has increased sharply killing swathes of sea-life like “wildfires that take out huge areas of forest”. The damage caused in these hotspots is also harmful for humanity, which relies on the oceans for oxygen, food, storm protection and the removal of climate-warming carbon dioxide the atmosphere
Heatwaves are becoming more frequent, prolonged and severe, with the number of heatwave days tripling in the last couple of years studied. In the longer term, the number of heatwave days jumped by more than 50% in the 30 years to 2016, compared with the period of 1925 to 1954. As heatwaves have increased, kelp forests, seagrass meadows and coral reefs have been lost. These foundation species are critical to life in the ocean. They provide shelter and food to many others.
Dr Éva Plagányi at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia said. “This study shows that record-breaking events are becoming the new normal…In the space of one week, scientific publications have underscored that unless we take evasive action, our future oceans will have fewer fish, fewer whales and frequent dramatic shifts in ecological structure will occur, with concerning implications for humans who depend on the ocean,” said Plagányi.
American coal plants produce about 100m tons of coal ash each year, with at least 2bn tons stored in pits of varying quality. Most coal ash pits are ageing and not lined with a protective substance that would prevent the ash seeping into streams and rivers. A stew of pollutants emanate from coal ash, including cadmium, cobalt, chromium and lead, as well as arsenic and lithium. These toxins are linked to a range of health conditions, including cancers, kidney damage and developmental problems.
Simon Evans, the policy editor at the group, said: “The lion’s share of recent CO2 reductions in the UK have been due to falling coal use.”
Experts said future emissions cuts would not necessarily be more costly, but would be politically harder.
Michael Grubb, professor of energy and climate change at University College London, said: “The next steps involve more coordination of government efforts – the infrastructure and industrial policy dimensions of electric vehicles, coordination of zero carbon homes with housing policy.
“I don’t see higher costs, but tougher lobbying and coordination problems which can’t easily be tackled…”This is more like it:
Keep your scythe, the real green future is high-tech, democratic, and radical
Love the title of the book being reviewed: Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts. It seems to make some good points too:
…[G]rowth under market conditions also requires pollution/extraction/waste/overproduction:
“The firm not be able to pay for new materials or labour or the upkeep of its machines and will go out of business. This is why capitalists, left to their own devices, have no choice but to pollute or extract or pump out CO2 or catch fish at a rate that is heedless of what remains of our store of resources. It is not that they are evil or greedy. If one capitalist says to herself “To hell with the profits! The planet is more important!” then she will quickly be beaten by a rival who is not so scrupulous. To keep going, they will have to give up on such high-minded thoughts. And this is true regardless of size, whether a globe-rogering, $11-bajillion-market-cap, Taibbian vampire-squid investment bank or a mom-and-pop corner shop that sells nothing but thimbles of rosewater-scented whimsy and hand-sewn felt puppets of characters from Wes Anderson films. If right next door, a big-box chain-store Whimsy-Mart opens up with vats of all-you-can-eat cut-price Owen Wilson dolls and that small business doesn’t toughen up, then they’re fucked.”
Companies can only abstain from harmful conduct when the market is regulated — no longer “free” — and they are required to do or not do certain things that the state has banned. If all companies are required to follow the rules, then following them won’t mean being undercut by a competitor. But regulation can’t solve the problem, because it’s always fighting a rear-guard action:
“…[H]owever much we want to regulate capitalism, there will always be some new commodity or market inadvertently ‘polluting’ that has yet to be regulated. So the regulator is always playing catch-up. Further, capital’s need for self-valorisation tends to strain at the leash of regulatory restraint, as there is always some jurisdiction where this regulation does not exist. Which means that there is a force in the economy constantly pushing toward pollution that we are forever trying to push back against, a beast we cannot tame or cage. This is why social democracy goes further toward preventing pollution than less regulated forms of capitalism, but cannot absolutely prevent the problem.”
Always two sides to an argument, ALB
The critique of the eco-modernist
A critique of Leigh Phillips’ assertion of the Tech-Fix Ecomodernist faith
“…there is no reason why we cannot have both sophisticated modern medicine and the kind of supportive community that humans have enjoyed for millennia, and have both technically astounding aircraft along with small, cheap, humble, fireproof, home made and beautiful mud brick houses, and have modern genetics along with neighbourhood poultry co-ops. Long ago humans had worked out how to make excellent and quite good enough houses, strawberries, furniture, dinners and friendships. We could opt for stable, relaxed, convivial and sufficient ways in some domains while exploring better ways in others, but ecomodernists see only two options; going forward or backward….”
I have read numerous aspirations in SPGB literature that our aim is a sustainable benign steady-state society. Leigh Phillips disagrees.
“To call for a steady-state economy, to oppose growth, is to foreclose all the rest of the spectacular deeds that would otherwise lie in humanity’s future.” (p. 260.)
In another critique
“…Despite your avowed anti-capitalism, what you really seem to be saying is that managed capitalism can deliver prosperity to the masses so long as we claw back a bit of wealth from the richest few….”
Promethean Porn and Malthusian Mistakes: a letter to Leigh Phillips
Another of the pro air-con position of Phillips
The Air-Conditioning Debate Isn’t Really About Air-Conditioning
“… there can be no adequate or just solution to the climate emergency that does not ensure sufficiency for all with excess for none by putting a halt to overproduction for, and overconsumption by, the affluent world. Because capitalism is incapable of surviving in a world like that, the necessity for deep restraint is being widely ignored for now….”
The assumptions of the projections has been that governments will take action. But what if they don’t?
“The Trump administration’s actions amount to a virtual surrender to climate change,” said the report by the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center
What if other nations follow this example of economic self-interest before the general good?
We see plenty of reports, graphs and statistics. But what is always missing are policies and regulations and changes. Is this how an emergency is responded to?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.