There are several news items pushing the "This is our last chance to hit +1.5°C" angle and I can't figure out why. The scientific consensus is that we've passed that mark already and will even almost certainly pass the +2.0°C target sometime during 2028-30.
Any idea where they're going with this?
Also, it's a little hard to tell for sure if Uninvited-Greta is really popular or is this news slant/hype?
My guess is to keep the ignorant ignorant for longer while the people who profit off of this mess make more profit. OR things are worse. Much worse and they don't want a panic. IMHO we are ramping up to more than +3.0 degrees warmer. Plus there are plenty of feedback loops that have been tripped or are about to trip that will accelerate things. I hope that I am wrong. I really do.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Because the climate system is ruled by chaos it's hard to know how things will turn out. The best we can do is put a "floor", a minimum worst case, based on the current understanding of possible and actual feedback loops. Right now there aren't any good candidates for a cooling feedback - clouds were potentially a candidate at one time but seemingly not so now based on the latest science. Right now, barring a global human catastrophe, a +2.0°C is mathematically guaranteed.
I also don't understand the general advocacy for wind power. For the scale our modern society needs (not to mention will need as the developing nations move forward towards our standard of living), wind power is too dispersed and damaging to the ecosystems where it's being installed and/or proposed to be. Solar is far easier to install, works daily for net half the year (wind can fail for weeks at a time), far easier to maintain and can be placed, on average, much closer to the places it is consumed - rooftop solar anyone?
Both of these will benefit hugely from long-term, utility-scale, reliable battery storage. We're not there yet and because we seem insistent on turning the auto fleet into EVs, despite them being still a mostly luxury purchase, we will push out the "getting there" another 5-10 years. We just can't build that many batteries in so short a time.
So we have two promises so far:
1) Stop deforestation and begin reforestation by 2030.
2) Something, something methane by 2030.
It looks like there might be some real $ thrown at #1, which is a good thing and the best potential solution within our current abilities. The second item is pretty darned vague and dependent on too many places that don't really give a hoot.
It looks to me like they've sidelined Greta rather effectively. Now that she's technically an adult they've formally de-platformed her. This move and all the effort discussing Carbon Credits is rather dismaying. The idea is to not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Offsetting with the buying of credits is just a game to scam on top of ignoring the real problem.*
All one has to do is take a look at a table of the largest polluters, and plot a graph of likely growth looking forward several decades, to see that both the US and the EU are not where the problem will be coming from. The US is already #2 and the EU #3 and we should both be pushed out of the top 5 by 2030, if not before. Not only that but by 2030 the #1 and #2 emitters will be comparable to everyone else.
* That we have a rapidly dwindling carbon "budget" that, despite it's name, is in fact a thing we want to save and not spend.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
This thread is dangerously political.
Well, that's what the "Almost" is for in the title.
:D
My angle is the science, which includes the social science but not the political science. Tackling this whole AGW thing is a massive undertaking. It makes the prep and execution of WWII into a dawdle.
Humanity will not do anything as important as this until we are permanently occupying the solar system.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The last thread of this nature was shut down due to non-discussion. I'll leave this open for now, but if it delves into political territory or becomes a single poster spam thread, it will be locked.
Well, the conference ends November 12th.... so the thread kinda has a termination date already.
:D
I'm approaching this topic with the same attitude that PDK outlines here. Literally (not figuratively!) none of us will live through anything more important to humanity than how the AGW issue is handled through the course of this conference and the things that evolve out from it over the remainder of the decade.
The conference isn't yet ended but the final "agreement" is looking like they'll kick the can down the road another year.
In the mean time the Washington Post looked over the issue and have created a really detailed summary article for the state of things.
WaPo wrote: Across the world, many countries underreport their greenhouse gas emissions in their reports to the United Nations.... An examination of 196 country reports reveals a giant gap between what nations declare their emissions to be vs. the greenhouse gases they are sending into the atmosphere. The gap ranges from at least 8.5 billion to as high as 13.3 billion tons a year of underreported emissions* — big enough to move the needle on how much the Earth will warm....
At the low end, the gap is larger than the yearly emissions of the United States. At the high end, it approaches the emissions of China and comprises 23 percent of humanity’s total contribution to the planet’s warming....
“In the end, everything becomes a bit of a fantasy,” said Philippe Ciais, a scientist with France’s Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences who tracks emissions based on satellite data. “Because between the world of reporting and the real world of emissions, you start to have large discrepancies.
* Not to mention another 1.0+ billion tons for global trade and air emissions!
While I'm fairly confident that the IPCC has a proper understanding of the problem and accurately reports, I'm equally confident that they are essentially a toothless/clawless/shackled lion getting picked apart by the inaction of laughing hyenas.
It looks to me like, globally, humanity needs something like a 50% reduction in directly anthropogenic GHG emissions by 2030. I think in both absolute and relative terms that the "Western" world will come very close to getting this done. The problem is China, Brazil, Russia, India, etc. are clearly not going to do so and by that time (2030) those countries will be emitting the vast majority of GHG and well before the end of the century the emissions of the "Western" world will be a steadily shrinking minority of all GHG emissions to date.
Does anyone see the current state of affairs differently?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark, I'll give you this much, we don't disagree for once.
something-something pro-nuclear something-something
...
...
... and after all, "Fusion is only thirty years away-"
So it's over for another year. The BIG take-away is that the delegates did "keep the drive for 1.5 alive". I'll grant that the slogan rhymes, in English, but I'll demure as to its status* as the BIG take-away.
Sadly that slogan ignores the current state of our scientific understanding on the issue. It's non-controversial that we are at present +1.2°C over the pre-industrial global average. It's been a consensus model that the contribution of anthropogenic particulates is very close to -0.5°C. Thus, when fossil fuels are eliminated, especially diesel and coal, the global temperature will increase from that factor alone. By the time we truly get rid of said particulate sources, even if it's at the fastest possible non-catastrophic+ pace, the Earth will be perilously close +1.5°C already and with the removal of the insulating capacity of particulate pollution (the -0.5°C magically becomes +0.5°C), that alone will push us to +2.0°C at the very least.
Further, with the ratified COP26 agreement there has been a compromise on coal. A compromise driven by India but passively, if not actively, championed by China and several other countries. And, as one reporter noted, there were more fossil fuel "delegates"/observers at COP26 than delegates from any single country.
Something else overlooked is that though the SIDS complain, more or less, rightly that they will be under water or critically submerged by the end of the century, they handily ignore the fact that their economies are for the most part dependent on tourism. And since these countries are located very far (in some cases literally on the opposite side of the planet) from where the majority of tourists live, they are a far bigger part of the problem than they admit. Further their livelihood also depends significantly on exports whose GDP value relies on timely access to global markets. Which is to say, unless these SIDS want to return to being sparsely-populated subsidy-fishing people groups, they are, on a per capita basis, just as much a part of the problem as those of us in the "West".
That leaves us, as Tacticslion so adroitly observes, with Gen-IV nuclear fission as being an absolutely necessary part of the global solution to AGW.
BTW - leveraging the current and modestly expected improvements in high speed computing and AI techniques, could very well mean functional, if not yet scaled, nuclear fusion by 2030. At the very least by 2030 we'll know if we are truly close or if the success of fusion needs to be again pushed out to an indeterminate future date. Which wouldn't be good news exactly but I think it best to finally know what we don't know on this topic. Yay super computers and AI!
:D
* Surely COP26 will be seen as the biggest can-kicking episode in international diplomacy ever! Until the next time I suppose.
+ Like a global nuclear war or a global pandemic with a fatality at or in excess of ~30%.
Here are some selected quotes from a Glasgow Climate Pact summary document written by a number of globally recognized climate scientists and others whose research focuses on related disciplines:
Piers Forster wrote: The pact now explicitly “requests parties to revisit and strengthen” their 2030 goals, meaning 1.5°C is down but not out. .
Simon Lewis wrote: Before COP26, the world was on track for 2.7°C of warming, based on commitments by countries, and expectation of the changes in technology. Announcements at COP26, including new pledges to cut emissions this decade, by some key countries, have reduced this to a best estimate of 2.4°C.... at best we can say the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is on life support – it has a pulse but it’s nearly dead. .
Kyla Tienhaara wrote: As the International Energy Agency made clear earlier this year, there is no room in the 1.5℃ carbon budget for any new investments in fossil fuels.
The commitment from more than 25 countries to shut off new international finance for fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022 is one of the biggest successes to come out of Glasgow. This could shift more than US$24 billion a year of public funds out of fossil fuels and into clean energy.
.
Kate Dooley wrote: Such recognition of the role of nature is critical to enhance the inclusion of ecosystem restoration in countries’ climate commitments. Yet, nature alone cannot deliver the 1.5°C goal without other efforts, including phasing out coal and fossil fuel subsidies, providing adequate finance to developing countries, and protecting human rights. .
Daniel Sperling wrote: More than 30 countries and six automakers pledged to end sales of internal combustion vehicles by 2040. The list had some notable no-shows – including the US, Germany, Japan and China, and the two largest automotive companies, Volkswagen and Toyota – but was still impressive. The shift to electric vehicles was already unequivocal. .
Ran Boydell wrote: But without doubt, the biggest win is the specific reference to energy efficiency in the adopted text of the Glasgow Climate Pact. This is the first time energy efficiency has been explicitly referenced in the COP process, and energy efficiency is the key action where buildings have a disproportionate role in mitigating climate change.
Article 36 calls on governments to “accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination” of actions including “rapidly scaling up” energy efficiency measures. Note the urgency of the language. There is now a legal imperative for all countries to align their building regulations with a low carbon future.
.
Christina E. Hoicka wrote: According to the International Energy Agency, 38 technologies are ready for deployment right now, including solar photovoltaic, geothermal and wind power. Yet none has been deployed at the scale we need to achieve 1.5℃. Renewable energy, currently 13% of the global energy system, needs to reach 80% or more.
Globally, a transition to renewable energy will cost between US$22.5 trillion and US$139 trillion. What’s needed are policies that support a mix of innovations, accelerate the scale-up of renewable energy and modernize power grids — including the right for consumers and citizens to generate power to sell to their neighbours and the grid. They also need to support business models that offer revenue to communities and jobs for those in industries in transition.
.
Ian Lowe wrote: UK, Germany, Canada, India and the United Arab Emirates formed an initiative for developing low carbon steel and concrete, to decarbonise construction.... That is an exciting project, as construction materials like these contribute about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions.
A goal of creating low-carbon health care systems.... is hardly an additional commitment. If a nation achieves net zero, its health system will have met that criterion anyway.
Mission Innovation is a collaboration between governments aimed at accelerating technologies that will reduce emissions. The Netherlands and India are leading a welcome bio-refinery program, aiming to make bio-based alternative fuels and chemicals economically attractive.
Less useful is the “carbon dioxide removal” project, led by Saudi Arabia, US and Canada. Its goal is a net annual reduction of 100 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2030. As global emissions are now 35 billion tonnes a year, this project aims to prolong fossil fuel use by capturing only a token, tiny fraction.
.
Mariola Acosta wrote: Looking back to 2001 -– when the sole concern COP had in terms of gender equality was with women’s representation and participation in the Convention itself -– it is clear that some progress has been made. The establishment of the Women and Gender Constituency in 2009, the Lima Work Program on Gender of 2014, and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change in 2015 (which emphasised that climate actions must be gender-responsive) are proof of this progress. .
Nice to see someone talk about efficiency (Ran Boydell) as I've been calling that one for nearly a decade. It's odd though that no one talks about population directly. A person born in the "West" will, by age 5 years or so, exceed the average lifetime CO2 emissions of someone born not in the "West". As countries like China, India, Brazil, etc. work to modernize they are also working to compound their impact on GHG emissions. Currently we in the "West" are responsible for the majority of GHG emissions, but given current trajectories in fossil fuel use and renewable efforts, by no later than 2050 (and likely much sooner) the "West" will be in the minority position based on total global emissions to date. And it will only get more lopsided in favor of the "West", though at a decreasing rate, over the following decades.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
|
