Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
- This topic has 904 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
But he is guilty of anthropomorphising our relationship with nature but aren’t we guilty of romanticizing somewhat when we use terms like human family to get our message across? His language is not ours
No I don’t think so as we do species etc also. While on language and the use of it, Paul had an article here I heeded for some time but then I slipped out of it before it became ‘grooved’. But it is worth a thought.
Yup, Paul’s recommendation is still one that I always try to follow on our blog, Matt, often amending the original text of what I copy and paste.
Compare saying that “the SPGB is leaderless” in contrast to “the SPGB is leader-free.”
Interesting headline of an article in today’s Times
GREED NOT FEAR WILL SAVE OUR POLLUTED PLANET. Only economic incentives can encourage people to adjust energy use and drive down emissions.
Opening paragraphs of the article can be read here.
In view of the impasse at the inter-governmental conferences the profit motive may well be the only way of something more being done. Wouldn’t have thought that that’s any guarantee though, but that’s the best capitalism can offer.
Analogies – how useful?
Global warming has heated the oceans by the equivalent of one atomic bomb explosion per second for the past 150 years, according to analysis of new research. But the heating has accelerated over that time as carbon emissions have risen, and was now the equivalent of between three and six atomic bombs per second.
Dana Nuccitelli, an environmental scientist who was not involved in the new research, said: “The ocean heating rate has increased as global warming has accelerated, and the value is somewhere between roughly three to six Hiroshima bombs per second in recent decades, depending on which dataset and which timeframe is used. This new study estimates the ocean heating rate at about three Hiroshima bombs per second for the period of 1990 to 2015, which is on the low end of other estimates.”
“I try not to make this type of calculation, simply because I find it worrisome,” said Prof Laure Zanna, at the University of Oxford, who led the new research. “We usually try to compare the heating to [human] energy use, to make it less scary.”
[confirming that the scientific community does try to express itself conservatively as Sussex previously suggested]
More than 90% of the heat trapped by humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions has been absorbed by the seas, with just a few per cent heating the air, land and ice caps respectively. The vast amount of energy being added to the oceans drives sea-level rise and enables hurricanes and typhoons to become more intense.
Washington Post reports on Tuesday:
“The findings, published Tuesday by the independent economic research firm Rhodium Group, mean that the United States now has a diminishing chance of meeting its pledge under the 2015 Paris climate agreement to dramatically reduce its emissions by 2025.
The findings also underscore how the world’s second-largest emitter, once a global leader in pushing for climate action, has all but abandoned efforts to mitigate the effects of a warming world. President Trump has said he plans to officially withdraw the nation from the Paris climate agreement in 2020 and in the meantime has rolled back Obama-era regulations aimed at reducing the country’s carbon emissions.”According to the Guardian, the jump in 2018 “is the biggest since the bounce back from the recession in 2010. It is the second largest gain in more than two decades.”
The Rhodium Group does not say it is impossible for the U.S. to meet its initial Paris obligations, the path the achieving those reductions is now going to be all that much harder.
“To meet the Paris Agreement target of a 26-28% reduction from 2005 levels by 2025, the US will need to reduce energy-related CO2 emissions by 2.6% on average over the next seven years — and faster if declines in other gasses do not keep pace,” the report notes. “That’s more than twice the pace the US achieved between 2005 and 2017 and significantly faster than any seven-year average in US history. It is certainly feasible, but will likely require a fairly significant change in policy in the very near future and/or extremely favorable market and technological conditions.”Another report seemingly saying that it is worse than we first thought
Another reappraisal of the urgency of the crisis
“meeting the internationally agreed aspiration of keeping global warming to less than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is still possible. The scientists say it is therefore the choices being made by global society, not physics, which is the obstacle to meeting the goal.
The study found that if all fossil fuel infrastructure – power plants, factories, vehicles, ships and planes – from now on are replaced by zero-carbon alternatives at the end of their useful lives, there is a 64% chance of staying under 1.5C.”Christopher Smith, of the University of Leeds, who led the research, said: “We are basically saying we can’t build anything now that emits fossil fuels…“The climate system is not stopping you hitting the target, global society is stopping you,” Smith said.
The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, used computer models to estimate by how much global temperatures would rise if a fossil fuel infrastructure phaseout began immediately. The lifespan for power plants was set at 40 years, cars an average of 15 years and planes 26 years. The work also assumes a rapid end to beef and dairy consumption, which is responsible for significant global emissions.
In this scenario, the models suggest carbon emissions would decline to zero over the next four decades and there would be a 66% chance of the global temperature rise remaining below 1.5C. If the phaseout does not begin until 2030, the chance is 33%.
The analysis did not include the possibility of tipping points such as the sudden release of huge volumes of methane from permafrost, which could spark runaway global warming.Prof Dave Reay, of the University of Edinburgh, who also was not part of the research team, said: “Whether it’s drilling a new gas well, keeping an old coal power station open, or even buying a diesel car, the choices we make today will largely determine the climate pathways of tomorrow. The message of this new study is loud and clear: act now or see the last chance for a safer climate future ebb away.”
As the situation is no longer science but politics and economics, how many of us are confident that the decisions made will no longer be based on profits?
mith’s personal belief is that global heating will surpass 1.5C. “I don’t think we will do enough, quickly enough. I think we are heading for 2C to 2.5C.”
The previous post centred on urgency being required but will this happen?
The Trump administration’s replacement for the Obama-era plan to combat climate change would increase greenhouse gas emissions in much of the US more than doing nothing at all, according to new research by Harvard University.
Emissions would “rebound” under the Trump policy, researchers found, as it delays the retirement of coal-fired power plants. Carbon dioxide emissions would be 8.7% higher in 18 states and Washington DC by 2030, compared with having no policy at all.
The plan was halted due to legal action, with the Trump administration intending to replace it with a watered-down alternative called the affordable clean energy rule. The new rule sets no pollution limits for states and merely advises them to make power plants more efficient. Harvard researchers found such upgrades would probably enable coal-fired power plants to run for longer, boosting output of carbon dioxide and other pollutants.
“This new plan essentially gives out a free pass for carbon pollution,” said Kathleen Lambert, an expert in climate change and public health at Harvard who coauthored the research. “It’s a recipe for increased carbon emissions. It will make it even harder for the US to meet its emissions targets under the Paris accord and sets us in exactly the opposite direction we need to go in.”
The EPA’s rollback “could make things even worse”, said Jonathan Buonocore, another coauthor of the Harvard report. “This will throw a wrench into the climate action plans for many states and cities.”
Carbon emissions at nearly a third of coal plants would escalate over the next decade compared with no policy at all, the research found, while 20 states would experience climbing levels of sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, which can form harmful smog. The EPA’s own analysis has shown the new Trump administration plan would raise carbon emissions by 3.5% compared with the clean power plan.
“Putting a coal lobbyist like Andrew Wheeler in charge of the EPA is like giving a bank robber the keys to the vault,” said Matthew Gravatt, the associate legislative director of the Sierra Club. “Wheeler isn’t just friendly with corporate polluters, he’s been on their team for years.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/15/trump-replacement-obama-climate-plan
So we are all relying on a change of US policy that will take place when (if?) Trump loses the 2020 election and the new incoming Democrat president saves the world with immediate and instant action to catch up with lost time. Are we fucking mad to trust in this crazy gamble?
How important is the USA to climate change mitigation?
Trump nominated EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler “I would not call it the greatest crisis,” when asked if he believed the increasingly urgent warnings from scientists about the threats from global warming. Wheeler said he believed global warming is an important issue that needs to be addressed, but that far-reaching federal regulation forcing deep emissions cuts was the wrong approach and more faith should be put in the hands of states and private enterprise.
Another example of how it is not possible for a rational energy policy to be adopted under capitalism:
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-01-17/nuclear-power-hitachi-says-no-thanks-its-not-worth-the-risk/
Nuclear power is one way of generating electricity without emitting CO2 and so not contributing to global warming and would no doubt have to be resorted to even in a socialist society to deal with this problem. However, under capitalism it costs so much to build a nuclear power station and getting it running and so long to get a return (profit) on the capital invested that private capitalist enterprises are unwilling to undertake it, in fact even unable to raise the capital, while governments which could raise the capital take a similar short-term view and don’t put up the money (which would ultimately have to come from taxes that would fall on the profits of other capitalist enterprises).
The same thing happens with other large-scale, renewable, energy projects like tidal power, as with a recent project in Swansea:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/live-updates-swansea-tidal-lagoon-14827245
Yet another study that reveals that scientists don’t quite comprehend the consequences of ice-melt which is more severe than previously thought.
“The only thing we can do is adapt and mitigate further global warming – it’s too late for there to be no effect,” Michael Bevis, lead author of the paper and a professor of geodynamics at Ohio State University said. “This is going to cause additional sea level rise. We are watching the ice sheet hit a tipping point.
“We’re going to see faster and faster sea level rise for the foreseeable future. Once you hit that tipping point, the only question is: How severe does it get?”Richard Alley, a geologist and glacier expert at Pennsylvania State University added that while there are uncertainties over future sea level rise “if the big ice sheets change more rapidly than expected, they could drive faster or much faster rise than expected”.
Yet another report that confirms a lack of urgency by governments.
The European commission warned that the total subsidies for coal, oil and gas across the EU remained at the same level as 2008. This is despite both the EU and G20 having long pledged to phase out the subsidies, which hamper the rapid transition to clean energy needed to fight climate change. Across the EU renewable energy received 45% of subsidies and fossil fuels 33%.
The total fossil fuel subsidies in the EU were €55bn in 2016, the report concluded. “This is a very high number, given we are reaching the deadline for some of their phase out promises,” said Ipek Gencsu, subsidies expert at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
It found €12bn (£10.5bn) a year in support for fossil fuels in the UK, significantly more than the €8.3bn spent on renewable energy. Along with the UK, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Ireland all gave more to fossil fuels.
Shelagh Whitley, also at ODI, was dismissive of the UK government’s claim to provide no fossil fuel subsidies. “They are lying,” she said. “It’s absurd. They are playing games and continuing to prop up a centuries old energy system.”
Yet another climate change threat surfaces, this time from below ground.
Mark Cuthbert of Cardiff University’s School of Earth and Ocean Sciences and Water Research Institute commented, “Groundwater is out of sight and out of mind, this massive hidden resource that people don’t think about much yet it underpins global food production.”
More bad news
The level of climate-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is forecast to rise by a near-record amount in 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/25/worrying-rise-in-global-co2-forecast-for-2019
The Barents Sea is said to be at a tipping point, changing from an Arctic climate to an Atlantic climate as the water gets warmer.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46976040
British government face a £24bn bill for tax relief awarded to oil and gas companies removing hundreds of North Sea wells, rigs and pipelines, the UK public spending watchdog has said. The National Audit Office (NAO) said the figure would climb if companies collapse and are unable to pay for cleaning up their operations, leaving the government to pick up the tab. About half of the figure comes from decommissioning reducing companies’ taxable profits, with the rest from tax reliefs based on the large sums of tax paid historically. Those reliefs allow companies to offset decommissioning costs against revenue, cutting the amount of tax they pay on their profits.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/25/british-taxpayers-bill-tax-relief-oil-gas-companies
Still in denial
“Trump administration’s senior air pollution official said on Friday that he and his agency were still exploring the science of climate change and fell short of calling it a crisis. ”
Bill Wehrum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)assistant administrator for air and radiation and previously a lobbyist for coal and oil industry interests, said at a public event in Washington that he supported a rollback of former President Barack Obama’s centerpiece climate change regulation. Asked if the EPA is trying to determine whether climate change is a crisis, he responded, “I’m trying to figure that out. I’ll admit I did not come to the agency as a climate change expert … I’ll admit, there is a lot I don’t understand about climate change,” he said. He added that he did not finish reading the National Climate Assessment.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.