Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
- This topic has 902 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Did I hear right, Alan, did he just say that we should live in mud huts in the future? I think he said his name was Ted Trainer.
Mock all you wish , ALB. Eco-homes, rather than these micro-houses that are being built today by capitalism using loop-holes in planning rules
One of the issues is that we are not building zero-carbon homes, and the promises of insulation and low energy usage have not been kept by the industry or the government.
http://www.earthhomesnow.com/mud-brick-homes.htm
Geo-engineering deemed safe. Or is it?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/11/solar-geoengineering-climate-change-new-study
“…study co-author David Keith, a Harvard professor who works in engineering and public policy, said researchers should not rule out geoengineering yet.
“I am not saying we know it works and we should do it now,” he said. “Indeed, I would absolutely oppose deployment now. There’s still only a little group of people looking at this, there’s lots of uncertainty.”…there is the possibility that solar geoengineering could really substantially reduce climate risks for the most vulnerable”…”Alan Robock, a geophysics professor and researcher at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said “We’re not able right now to say whether, if global warming continues, we should ever decide to start spraying this stuff into the stratosphere. Would solar-radiation management, would geoengineering make it more dangerous or less dangerous? That’s the question we have to answer, and we don’t have enough information.”
One more dire scenario to add to the many others.
“…potentially devastating temperature rises of 3C to 5C in the Arctic are now inevitable even if the world succeeds in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement, research has found. Winter temperatures at the north pole are likely to rise by at least 3C above pre-industrial levels by mid-century, and there could be further rises to between 5C and 9C above the recent average for the region, according to the UN.
Such changes would result in rapidly melting ice and permafrost, leading to sea level rises and potentially to even more destructive levels of warming. Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate “tipping point” as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect…If melting permafrost triggers a tipping point, the likely results would be global temperature rises well in excess of the 2C set as the limit of safety under the Paris agreement. Nearly half of Arctic permafrost could be lost even if global carbon emissions are held within the Paris agreement limits, according to the UN study…Even if all carbon emissions were to be halted immediately, the Arctic region would still warm by more than 5C by the century’s end, compared with the baseline average from 1986 to 2005, according to the study from UN Environment. That is because so much carbon has already been poured into the atmosphere. The oceans also have become vast stores of heat, the effect of which is being gradually revealed by changes at the poles and on global weather systems, and will continue to be felt for decades to come.”
“What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic,” said Joyce Msuya, the acting executive director of UN Environment. “We have the science. Now more urgent climate action is needed to steer away from tipping points that could be even worse for our planet than we first thought.”
But as always the scientists offer a glimmer of hope.
“There was still a need to fulfil the aims of the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change and to take further action that could stave off some of the worst effects of warming in the near term. “We need to make substantial near-term cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, black carbon and other so-called short-lived climate pollutants all over the world,” said Kimmo Tiilikainen, Finland’s environment minister. Making drastic cuts to black carbon and short-lived pollutants such as methane could reduce warming by more than 0.5C, according to previous research….”
Can capitalism fulfil “urgent” and “drastic” and “substantial” action? Can such vocabulary be translated into political and economic policies?
The United States and Saudi Arabia have hamstrung global efforts to scrutinise climate geoengineering in order to benefit their fossil fuel industries.
“It is regrettable that efforts to strengthen existing UN governance on geoengineering met with resistance from a handful of high-emitting oil-producing countries,” said Lili Fuhr of the Heinrich Böll Foundation. “This task is now more important than ever as we see real-world experiments and public support for these technologies growing in exactly those countries, like the USA and Saudi Arabia, that were blocking progress on this issue this week in Nairobi.”
The petrochemical industry sees it as a way to justify further expansion of fossil fuel industries. Chevron, BHP and other high-emitting companies have invested in companies that are pushing ahead with experiments to pull CO2 out of the air.
The Trump administration diplomats were also accused of undermining efforts to ensure strong environmental governance. “They are trying to remove all targets and timelines,” said one senior delegate.
A Norwegian proposal to build an effective global strategy for dealing with plastics that enter the oceans has also met with resistance from the US. “They want to postpone measures so they can protect their industry,” said an ambassador from a large developing country.
Scientists love a good mystery. But it’s more fun when the future of humanity isn’t at stake.
This enigma involves methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Twenty years ago the level of methane in the atmosphere stopped increasing, giving humanity a bit of a break when it came to slowing climate change. But the concentration started rising again in 2007 — and it’s been picking up the pace over the last four years, according to new research.
Scientists haven’t figured out the cause, but they say one thing is clear: This surge could imperil the Paris climate accord. That’s because many scenarios for meeting its goal of keeping global warming “well below 2 degrees Celsius” assumed that methane would be falling by now, buying time to tackle the long-term challenge of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Its difficult and disconcerting to accept that the experts can be very baffled, Dave.
“I don’t want to run around and cry wolf all the time, but it is something that is very, very worrying,” said Euan Nisbet, an Earth scientist at Royal Holloway, University of London, and lead author of a recent study reporting that the growth of atmospheric methane is accelerating.
“The hope was that methane would be starting on its trajectory downwards now,” said Matt Rigby, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Bristol in England. “But we’ve seen quite the opposite: It’s been growing steadily for over a decade.”
That growth accelerated in 2014, pushing methane levels up beyond 1,850 ppb. Experts have no idea why. “It’s just such a confusing picture,” Rigby said. “Everyone’s puzzled. We’re just puzzled.”Debra Wunch, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Toronto said “We could actually reduce the amount of methane in the atmosphere on timescales that are relevant to the problem we are facing right now.”
But the big question is as always – will that actually happen, will resources be mobilized. It is not a scientific question but an economic-political one. As we have seen too often reassuring statements are made and politicians tell us not to worry, not to panic. The striking school students I think are right…it has become an emergency and it is time to make it a top priority.
A useful read
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change-end-capitalism
“The need to keep the wheels of capitalism well-oiled takes precedence even against a backdrop of fires, floods and hurricanes….Any meaningful policy has to upset the established power base and the political donor class. Any policy that doesn’t upset these people will be useless. To pretend that we can compromise our way through this while we wait for a magical, technological bullet that will keep temperatures down without costing us anything is beyond wilful ignorance now…”
Turn facts into what you want them to be and not what they really are.
The climate optimists assume that it will not be business-as-usual and that effective action, even if a tad tardy, will take place.
They cite the change within the oil corporations as proof that the leopard is changing its spots.
This report casts doubts on the sincerity of the carbon emitters.
“Oil majors’ climate branding sounds increasingly hollow and their credibility is on the line.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47666007
Sir David Attenborough is to present an “urgent” new documentary about climate change for BBC One.
“It may sound frightening, but the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies,” he says in the documentary.
Hopefully, he won’t be pushing his over-population theory.
I am reading the book: The End of Ice, and the author does not use the expression Climate Change, but climate disaster and the destruction of the earth. He predicts that in 2025 South Florida is going to be covered with water. The sea level is increasing and the USA military budget is increasing and the budget for the peoples needs is decreasing
The Green New Deal which has not even reached the legislative process as yet has been costed by Trump as a HUNDRED TRILLION dollars, based on a $93 trillion calculation (More conservative estimates suggest between $46 and $81 trillion)
The guessimate Trump used came from the Manhattan Institute.
Paul Singer, the founder and CEO of Elliott Management, is the chairman of the Manhattan Institute’s board of trustees. His Paul E. Singer Foundation contributed $3.725 million to the Manhattan Institute from 2011 to 2017. Elliott Management is now the top shareholder in Peabody Energy, a major producer of coal, with a 26 percent stake valued at more than $850 million. Elliott Management also reveal current investments in fossil fuel producers like Devon Energy and ExxonMobil, and electric utilities like FirstEnergy Corp and Sempra Energy. Singer is known in energy circles has pushed utilities like NRG and Sempra Energy to divest from their renewable energy assets. In 2015, the Paul E. Singer Foundation had contributed $200,000 to climate skeptic Bjorn Lomborg’s think tank.
ExxonMobil itself has contributed over $1 million to the Manhattan Institute since 1998. Koch foundations have contributed over $1 million dollars to the Manhattan Institute over the years.
Who’s Behind Trump’s Claim the Green New Deal Will Cost $100 Trillion?
Proponents of the GND have simply laid out their aspirations and say that actual “the math will come once the policy is ready”
MEANWHILE
Since the Paris Agreement’s adoption, 33 global banks have invested $1.9 TRILLION into financing climate-changing projects worldwide.
Global Banks Invested $1.9 Trillion in Fossil Fuels Since Paris Climate Pact
AND
U.S.-based Morgan Stanley tallied $650 billion in climate-related disasters over the past three years — and predicted $54 TRILLION in damages worldwide by 2040
Are war tanks, war airplanes, and war submarines going to be powered by green energy ?
The consequence of business-as-usual
Analysis by the Labour party shows that the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere if the government’s fracking plans go ahead would be the same as the lifetime emissions of 286 million cars – or 29 new coal-fired power plants.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.