Posted by Damozel | Just when you were thinking things couldn't get any worse, this:
"The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades."(New York Times)
"Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide. (New York Times)
In other words, the long-term interests need our attention right now. It can't wait. Unfortunately, "[a]lthough many nations have been pledging steps to curb emissions for nearly a decade, the world's output of carbon from human activities totals about 10 billion tons a year and has been steadily rising."(New York Times)
The diet always starts tomorrow, after just one last binge.
You'll possibly be relieved to know that the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality isn't too upset by this latest information. He has had a 'guarded' reaction. They've heard it all before---the argument that we need to get to net-zero emissions, he says. "When it comes to tackling such a daunting environmental and technological problem, he added: "We've done this kind of thing before. We will do it again. It will just take a sufficient amount of time."
""The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?" asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about."
We've done what kind of thing before? This kind? This kind of thing? Really? I must have been sleeping through the worldwide successful effort to get the entire planet to change its ways.
And what does he mean, "a sufficient amount of time"? Isn't the point that we don't have a sufficient amount of time to take a sufficient amount of time? Isn't the point that the situation is already urgent and that the moment is now?
"The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?" asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about.""The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?" asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about." (New York Times)
Barbara Boxer, Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee (as if those were exactly the same concerns) is shepherding climate change of the Senate, seems to understand that the message is "act now." (New York Times) She said:
"It won't be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling...It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves." (New York Times)
She's just speaking rhetorically, of course. She and I both know that merely compelling evidence will never be enough for some of her colleagues, who will demand nothing less than 'evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt.' In other words, they'll believe it when they see it. And by 'it' I mean nothing less than irrefutable evidence that it's already too late.
And perhaps 'too late' is closer than we think.
Caldeira and Oregon State University professor Andreas Schmittner now argue that it makes more sense to focus on a temperature threshold as a better marker of when the planet will experience severe climate disruptions. The Earth has already warmed by 0.76 degrees Celsius (nearly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Most scientists warn that a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) could have serious consequences.
Schmittner, lead author of a Feb. 14 article in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, said his modeling indicates that if global emissions continue on a "business as usual" path for the rest of the century, the Earth will warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. If emissions do not drop to zero until 2300, he calculated, the temperature rise at that point would be more than 15 degrees Fahrenheit.(New York Times)
I wonder what it will take.
Memeorandum has blogger reactions here.
OTHER BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
Contractor Provided Dirty Water in Iraq, Troops Got Sick
Election 2008: Primary v. General (i.e., Electoral College)
This Year's Enron: Countrywide (Might be) Investigated re: Subprime Crisis
Comments