IEA Warns of Irreversible Climate Change In 5 Years 1105
iONiUM writes "As a follow up to the previous slashdot story, there has been a new release by the International Energy Agency indicating that within 5 years we will have irreversible climate change. According to the IEA, 'There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is under way. Although the recovery in the world economy since 2009 has been uneven, and future economic prospects remain uncertain, global primary energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO2 emissions to a new high. Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400bn (£250.7bn).'"
So (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
As 60% of the energy usage is all the third-world countries, the answer is obvious.
I can guess what you're going to say, but no the answer is not obvious.
Short of a major disaster (worldwide epidemic, nuclear war, asteroid strike), none of which would benefit the planet in the long run, I don't see how we're going to recover. Here in Australia they just passed a carbon tax - as if we can just tax the problem away.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, a carbon tax might work, if it applies to imported goods as well. Of course, China would scream bloody murder.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So (Score:4)
Actually if you would put the tax in ratio with the population, the US would scream bloody murder
Wouldn't this lead to Americans consuming much less (goal), which would then lead to even worse worldwide economic turmoil? So are we drawing a line between economy vs. climate now?
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
So are we drawing a line between economy vs. climate now?
Now?!
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately for OP, the US is not the highest emitter by that metric [wikipedia.org]. Australia, Canada, and a host of other small oil-producing countries equal or exceed it. Furthermore, if you divide by average household income (ability to pay a tax per capita), the U.S. drops even further down the list.
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, if your goal is to reduce consumption, it would be difficult to find a tax that is ineffective.
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, want to reduce CO2 from transport? Well you better man transport unaffordable to the masses. Little changes won't work.
How about we make a far greener public transport system more affordable and practical?
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, a carbon tax might work, if it applies to imported goods as well. Of course, China would scream bloody murder.
When has a tax ever done anything? Name one!
Apart from funding well working societies and policies[1]: Taxes affect people's behaviour by affecting demand via price. Here in Norway, it has had a large effect on alcohol and tobacco consumption - and when car taxes changed to be partially based on CO2 emissions a couple of years ago, it had a large effect on mix of cars sold: More diesel, less gasoline, smaller and more modern engines.
[1]: Sure, one can discuss some policies and the exact tax level but the main conclusion is that society is a lot better off with infrastructure, general education, police, health care etc.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, a carbon tax might work, if it applies to imported goods as well. Of course, China would scream bloody murder.
When has a tax ever done anything? Name one!
Well, I rather like having public education, public roads, and public defenders, all of which are paid via tax money... Just as a few examples off the top of my head.
Re:So (Score:4, Funny)
When has a tax ever done anything? Name one!
It's amazing how many Americans have never heard of sewerage systems.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree that the carbon tax "bones the economy on a grand scale". I also disagree that we "fucked the future of the country".
Could you provide any information (e.g studies predicting a significant decrease in GDP, standard of living or any other reasonable measure of progress) to support this claim?
I agree that the carbon tax in Australia won't make much of a difference. But of course we can look at each individual in the world and say their individual actions won't make much of a difference. It would be unreasonable to use this as a reason to take no action.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that the carbon tax in Australia won't make much of a difference. But of course we can look at each individual in the world and say their individual actions won't make much of a difference. It would be unreasonable to use this as a reason to take no action.
I don't know who said it but - It's like seeing a truck coming at you from a distance, do you start calmly taking one step at a time towards the curb, or do you wait until the last minute and then dive into the gutter?
Personally I'm strongly in favour of this small step despite the fact I'm in the tax bracket that gets zero compensation. In principle I would like to see a situation where the cost of dumping shit on to the commons is greater than the cost of proper disposal.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like seeing a truck coming at you from a distance, do you start calmly taking one step at a time towards the curb, or do you wait until the last minute and then dive into the gutter?
Or do you stand still and do nothing at all and get hit by the truck? Because every motion can be subdivided into smaller motions until each accomplishes virtually nothing. Since none of those actions will individually get you out of the way, why bother taking any of them?
Re:So (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
The details of the plan are that it's an emissions trading scheme, initially with a fixed price per tonne of CO2 emitted. Only heavy-emitting companies have to pay it - I can't remember what the threshold is, but it affects roughly 500 companies. Of course those companies will pass much of the costs onto consumers, however they will also put effort into reducing their carbon emissions to gain financial advantage. Petrol/gas is specifically exempt from the trading scheme for individuals.
The modelling of increased cost of living, which takes into account increased grocery prices, electricity prices, etc, comes out at $10 per week for the average household. The government is spending part of the money raised in the form of tax cuts and pension increases, compensating low income earners a bit more than $10 per week. If those low income earners then reduce their carbon footprints (get rid of the second fridge, buy the now-cheaper goods with a lower carbon footprint), then they come out ahead. Those earning over $80K can afford the $10 per week.
Re:So (Score:4, Interesting)
You're assuming that in all cases there are no alternatives to using lots of energy, and that is completely invalid.
Tying in the London congestion charge just gives a great example for a rebuttal. London does have a decent public transport system - the tube is the quickest way of getting around. Commuting journeys across London do not need to be made in a car. The congestion charge has been effective: people go to work on the tube, or a bike.
A generic carbon tax will promote efficiency and lower consumption of carbon, but just increase costs.
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
It also hasn't done anything to slow carbon emissions. Which makes it useless.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
If it "bones the economy on a grand scale", that would be because it's costing so much, greatly reducing carbon emissions, right?
As for the "we are only 1%" argument, that's kind of BS. We are basically the worst in the world, per capita. We also screwed up global efforts, by dragging our feet on Kyoto (though the US had more of an impact), despite having *very* generous terms.
For a complete sociopath's point of view, we should do everything we can to get out of having any responsibilities. We are a small fish, and no-one really cares what happens here. But from the same point of view, China should invade us for our coal and ore reserves. I'm rather glad that sort of behaviour is frowned upon.
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
The climate has been warmer in the past, but humans and the civilization we have built like the climate we have NOW, not a million years ago. Being natural doesn't make something good for you. Rattle Snake poison is perfectly natural, but I don't want any.
A much warmer world is going to be very difficult for the great mass of humanity that is poor. The average slashdotter will barely notice the higher food costs, the higher taxes to build dikes, or help relocate people from flooded areas. But, because this warming is caused by us, we have the power to reverse it if we choose. The cost of reversing this is much less than say the war in Iraq, and would do much more good.
Creating whole new industries for new "green" power should help the economy, not harm it.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that if a glacier moved through Manhattan it wouldn't be a problem. I mean hell, there used to be glaciers in Manhattan all the time, why the big fuss *now*?
The reason your argument is 'fucking stupid' and not just 'stupid' is the same reason that having a volcano erupt under you is quite different in every single way from a volcano having erupted where you're standing 100k years ago.
I mean shit son, not that long ago Japan was entirely under water, who gives a shit about a little wave?
I would like to see that argument in a court of law. "Your honor, members of the jury, I don't see what the fuss is all about. Yes a bulldozer drove through Xenobyte's home but only 10 years ago that was an empty lot! That lot has seen far greater changes in the last 100 years than last Tuesday. So who's to say that humans are responsible for driving that bulldozer through his living room? Why, 1,000 years ago huge glaciers would have driven through his living room."
Re:So (Score:4, Informative)
By irreversible they mean that we will hit the point where we cannot prevent a 2 degree Celsius average global temperature increase. If we hit 2 degrees then enough bad things happen that widespread human suffering will be unavoidable.
We will be able to fix things up if we spend a hundred times than it would cost to prevent it in the first place, but the damage would already be done.
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
Carbon taxes on industry can work, in theory, when the tax amount makes production infeasible, which it never does and when the tax is actually asked for and not bailed away, like it usually is.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Without a carbon tax, industry has no incentive to reduce their emissions. With a carbon tax, they have a small financial incentive to do so. Therefore they will pick the lowest hanging fruit to save some money, in the process lowering their emissions. While there is still low-hanging fruit (e.g. now, coming from where there's no incentive not to emit CO2), a carbon tax can reduce a nation's emissions without forcing large changes in how things are done.
I vaguely remember that a month or two ago, a mine in Queensland (possibly the one owned by the Indian who threatened to pull out of Australia if the carbon tax went through) worked out how to reduce their emissions by 30%.
The other effect is that the added cost of coal power due to the carbon tax/trading scheme makes gas somewhat more financially viable and renewables significantly more financially viable.
It's a very neat theory, and it's easy to see how it will affect businesses either gently (with a low price on carbon) or eventually reshape industries (with a high price).
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
> none of which would benefit the planet in the long run
The planet is a big iron ball that doesn't give a damn what we do. The ones who care about epidemics and war are us humans, who are by and large causing the problems ourselves.
Although this is not politically correct to say, the fewer humans there are the better off the rest of the biosphere will be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY [youtube.com]
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People are surprisingly not stupid. When third world parents have a) education about birth control options b) access to birth control options and c) social services to guarantee them care in old age without a need to have many children then they tend to reduce their own birth rate to one appropriate for their local environment.
We need a fundamental change in the way the West gives aid. It should be 100% conditional on setting up good democratic, education, birth control and pension systems.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people always think that reducing the population requires some sort of genocide? You realize it's also possible to just have a birthrate below replacement level? Soylent Green entirely optional.
I don't think we're at the carrying capacity of the Earth yet, but I think Homo sapiens are the only species so far that will be capable of artificially surpassing the carrying capacity for a short amount of time which will lead to a period of...genocide, at least in some localized populations who aren't lucky enough to have a strong government with a powerful military. So by not addressing the problem now in a humane way we might end up having exactly what you fear.
Re:So (Score:4, Informative)
Sure. And the simple and well-tested way of getting lower birthrates, is by upping living-standard.
Europe as a whole is already basically reproducing at replacement-levels, USA is a little above, but much of that is due to first-generation immigrants outbreeding the average, and due to an overabundance of teenage pregnancies. (something that's fixable by reducing shame and increasing knowledge about contraception)
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't upping living standards worsen the problem?
As living standards rise you would expect pollution controls to increase and hence less aerosols blocking sunlight. Which I seem to recall is what kicked off the problem - the developed world stopped pouring aerosols into the atmosphere but kept pouring the CO2.
Plus of course the increased energy demands of a higher standard of living itself.
Re:So (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonsense. If 10% of Americans own 80% of the American wealth, that would mean that you could support 1.3 billion people at the average American lifestyle with no change in our income at all. That's just us. Of course, the extra 800 million people who suddenly have a basic education and shelter could then be more productive, raising the income substantially; combined with the wealth of other nations, getting the whole world to American levels of living is a logistical problem, not one of limited resources.
What we don't have the resources to do is support the world at average American levels and then about 200,000 billionaires and 22 million millionaires, which would keep us around current USA levels. Maybe that's what you meant.
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
There may not be enough resources (questionable) for everyone to live like an _American_, but Americans are the most frivolously wasteful people in history.
The resource usage of, say, the average Swiss or Dutch citizen is substantially lower, yet the living standard is not meaningfully worse (better by many measures).
We have plenty of resources. The problem is one of distribution.
Re:So (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
How about hormonal birth control? Condoms? Education? Empowering women? Whenever someone speaks about dealing with population control out come the sado-masochist fetishists who project their worst fears (or fantasies) on what's actually being said. No one is suggesting any of the things you first mentioned, you don't contribute anything by bringing those things up.
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
Bingo. Studies all over the world show that a woman's level of education is negatively correlated to the number of children she has. Women with high levels of education have options and opportunity costs to raising children that don't exist for someone with low levels of education.
The problem is that people like GPLHOST-Thomas have a devout religious belief that people MUST procreate as much as possible, thus any attempt to persuade people to have fewer children is equivalent to murder in their eyes.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in Australia they just passed a carbon tax - as if we can just tax the problem away.
Well, it's not a tax -- it's an Emissions Trading Scheme, but with a fixed-price set on permits by the Government for the first three years of its operation. Even in those first three years, permits are still able to be traded and sold as in any ETS, rather than CO2 emissions being directly taxed (as is the case in a carbon tax).
Once it starts being a fully-fledged ETS, incidentally, there are two separate non-governmental bodies that should hopefully ensure that CO2 reduction targets are set independently
Re:End the Federal Breeding Subsidy (Score:5, Funny)
If we ended the Federal Breeding Subsidy in the U.S., we could reduce our carbon footprint as a species in very short order. Even better: $1k per child tax ($200 federal, $800 state). Would help pay for schools too.
You are so not going to make the cut as a Republican candidate. ;^)
Australia is not a pissant nation. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A single nation, US of A releases 25% of world's greenhouse gases. "Third world" is not even in the picture here. US beats everyone even in emissions per dollar of economic activity.
So you're saying 75% of the problem is the rest of the world...
If you think the third world is not part of the problem, then you're just a half-educated college student pumping your fist in the air.
You can twist stats however you want - "emissions per dollar of economic activity" is a nice one - but the reality is that the U.S. is not the sole cause of the problem.
For example, turn off every power plant and factory that is not at U.S. emissions standards (China, etc.) and the whole climate change problem si
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he is saying that a country with 5% of the world's population is responsible for a disproportionate 25% of emissions, and should try and mend their ways.
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me take 25% of your skin, or 25% of your food, or 25% of your family, and then tell me if 25% is "significant".
And remember, it's only 25% at the moment (if that's really the number). If you take the entire industrial revolution, how much of the carbon output was from the US?
At 25%, the US is the leader. It's time for the US to lead toward the solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly!
60% of the energy is being used by the 90% living in the third world countries...
40% of energy consumption is by us 10% of the people in the 'developed' world.
Interesting how this looks when you start adding numbers of people...
Indeed obvious, where we need to start, isn't it?
And that is before trying to calculate energy consumption in third world countries to have them produce stuff for 'us'...
It's human nature. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't expect changes to be made. Capitalistic culture has no thought of the future; people are selfish and will sacrifice their descendants to make things just a bit easier and more profitable to themselves.
I'm kind of curious to see how the world will end up by the time I die.
Re:It's human nature. (Score:5, Informative)
Tell you what - take a tour of what used to be the USSR some time... the vast majority of the ecological damage there [wikipedia.org] (esp. what used to be the Aral Sea) was done by a decidedly non-capitalistic government, hell-bent on a 'glorious revolutionary future'.
Or, you can drop the sophomoric and faux-intelligent 'OAMG teh capitalizm is teh nexus of 3vilz!' act.
Re: (Score:3)
And USSR industry, while deeply socialist on personal level, was also deeply capitalist on organisational levels. Competition between companies for government contracts has been bloody - just look at their Mikoyan&Gurjevich vs Sukhoi competition on the market of fighter jets. It makes Lockheed Martin VS Boeing look communist (as in real meaning of the word, "let's share the wealth") in comparison.
And while saying that, he is in fact correct. One of the major reasons why capitalism needs to be moderated
Re:It's human nature. (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the main reasons for the global warming denial is that it will be profitable.
Specifically, shipping over the Arctic. [informaglobalevents.com]
Of course, the same thinking about profits also leads to the thinking that all of the side-effect damage is "not my problem".
But, for now, the greed factor wants to encourage global warming, because the less ice over the North Pole area, the better the ships will be able to operate.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't expect changes to be made. Capitalistic culture has no thought of the future; people are selfish and will sacrifice their descendants to make things just a bit easier and more profitable to themselves.
Spot-on; however, if it was possible to become a billionaire by substantially reducing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, within 30 years the discussion would be about the dangerously-low levels of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Create a profit motive and watch innovation flourish, but allow entrenched wealth to buy politicians and watch progress grind to a halt.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be 200 ppm the point at which a mass extinction event is likely to happen due to failure of photosynthesis. It's only once you get above 1 part per thousand that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is no longer a limiting factor for photosynthesis.
old news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:old news (Score:5, Interesting)
From 2009, Obama has 4 years to save the world [examiner.com]
From 2009, global warming is now irreversible, study says [npr.org](also discussed on slashdot [slashdot.org])
From 2006, The End of the World As We Know It; THE world has already passed the point of no return on global warming [smh.com.au].
From 2005, past the point of no return [independent.co.uk].
Also from 2005, Global warming irreversible [ummah.com].
From 2004, Damage from warming becoming irreversible [commondreams.org].
From 1989, We have a 10 year window to fix the problem [newsbank.com].
What do you think of that?
Re:old news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:old news (Score:5, Insightful)
There has been credible evidence that "point of no return" comes when oceans are warm enough to start releasing methane stored on the seabed. Then greenhouse effect will start feeding itself and will likely become unstoppable, and we'll simply repeat history with massive warming and sea level rise.
Reality is though, that we have no reliable information on when this threshold will occur. We do know that oceans are warming up, and it's alarming, so reducing the emissions would absolutely help. But all this crying about DOOMSDAY only pulls the rug from under the people who are actually working on the problem.
Re:old news (Score:4, Informative)
That's not the point of no return.
Hey I can use a car analogy!
You are in a car speeding towards a cliff, there are three impotant points.
1. The point at which even if you apply the brake you will still go over the edge.
2. The edge.
3. The ground below.
That methane release would be the edge.
The resulting climate changes the ground below.
The point of no return though is the last possible braking point - since even though you aren't off the cliff yet there is now nothing you can do to stop it happening.
Re:old news (Score:5, Informative)
I am waiting for even one of their predictions to come true. For example: ocean level has actually decreased over the last couple of years.
Over the last couple of years? Do a Google image search on "ocean levels graph" and you can see numerous versions of graphs that show the ocean levels going up and down for individual years, but the average over time keeps increasing. To choose a "couple of years" to prove that the predictions are wrong is simple cherry picking data to give a false impression of what is happening.
It isn't far removed from saying that it is cooling because yesterday was warmer than today. People do the same trick to discredit climate change by saying that over the last few years it has been getting cooler, but when you look at the temperature on a decade by decade basis, it just keeps getting hotter.
The other side of the argument falls into the same trap. You cannot point to the temperature of a single year and say that it is proof of climate change. People did that back in 1998 to make predictions of disaster, and they were wrong because it was El Nino that caused the sudden spike in that year. Similarly, anyone who uses 1998 since then to "prove" that the Earth is actually cooling is making the exact same mistake. To eliminate the spikes in a single year or group of years, you have to look at the longer term average. I am afraid that this is yet to show that the warming trends have reversed, nor have the sea levels have stopped rising.
Re:old news (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine you're standing on the beach, and someone's telling you that flood is coming in. You're screaming they are wrong, because the sea has retreated in the last 2 minutes.
We are clear that you don't understand how to look at the data, yes.
In other words (Score:4, Interesting)
There will be irreversible climate change. The corporate powers that profit from the status quo have more than enough money to continue confusing the issue for centuries to come. Short of a major catastrophe (i.e. millions dead in first world countries), nothing will ever break through the wall of propaganda to awaken the masses.
Cue deniers coming in to lie about how all the world's climatologists are in a conspiracy being funded by Big Solar or whatever.
Re:In other words (Score:5, Interesting)
See, there you go. Confusing the issue.
1) Do you have any actual numbers to back up the notion that solar energy is worse for the environment than current technologies (coal, mostly)?
2) Even if you do, it's irrelevant, since my only point was the absurdity of thinking that "Big Solar" could somehow afford to buy off more scientists than the oil and coal industries.
3) Chemicals required in manufacture are completely unrelated to climate change. We don't make a habit of dumping them into the environment the way we do with CO2.
4) Climate has been hotter and colder. Yes, it was colder during the ice age, and hotter 4 billion years ago. Would you have liked to live in either of those time periods? The climate is changing. It is scientific fact that we have a hand in it. If it changes too much, many, many people will die. We should therefore attempt to prevent it from changing. This is really straightforward stuff.
"Big anything" is going to be big (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Climate has been hotter and colder. Yes, it was colder during the ice age, and hotter 4 billion years ago. Would you have liked to live in either of those time periods?
You don't have to go back 4 billion years to find hotter climate than now -- not long ago there was the Medieval Warm Period. And yes, I'd have liked to live in that time period (at least as far as climate is concerned).
Anyone looking at the history of human civilization cannot help but reach the inescapable conclusion that human beings simply do better when it's warm than when it's cold. Just ask the Vikings.
But it seems those looking for research grant money don't like to look at history, preferring co
Re:In other words (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, most scientists agree it's much warmer now than during the MWP.
Here are the modern temperature reconstructions for the last 1000 years.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png [wikimedia.org]
If you have solid evidence that the WMP was globally warmer than today, I'd love to see it.
Re:In other words (Score:4, Informative)
There are plenty of temperature reconstructions based on different kinds of proxies. Every colored line in the graph I posted is based on such a proxy.
Unfortunately, those proxies are all we have, but they are in general agreement that the MWP was cooler than today.
In order to show MWP was warmer, you'd have to find a suitable proxy, with small enough error bars. Preferably you'd show a combination of different ones, all in agreement.
In any case, absent any further evidence, claiming that the MWP was warmer than today is silly.
Re:In other words (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever been on an oil rig?
The last thing you'd think is that this enormous, energy-wasting mechanical monstrosity could possibly a net producer of energy. But of course it is. Same with your solar panel factory, which (just like the oil rig) is fabulously energy-efficient -- over 100% efficient, in fact.
what will happen: (Score:5, Interesting)
this will turn into a discussion assigning political blame, and nothing but a lot of hot air will be generated (pun intended)
what should happen:
blame should be set aside, and fixing the problem should be talked about. seed the ocean with iron to create phytoplankton blooms to suck out CO2 and sink to the ocean floor? it has flaws. so strategize some other ideas. yes, some will have anxiety about doing such major ecosystem altering activity when we aren't sure of every infinitesimal outcome... missing the whole goddamn point about what is already happening to the climate. penny wise, pound foolish. it's time for dramatic action, not hand wringing
look: natural, manmade, whatever: obviously the climate is changing, only complete idiots still insist it isn't. so the most compelling, overarching argument is: we have a vested economic interest in keeping our environment the way we are used to it. so we can talk about a price point about what we are willing to invest to keep the thermostat where it should be. so find the price point and fit a plan of action. end of discussion
we are homo sapiens: we don't evolve fur, we kill animals and wear their hides. we don't look for berries, we slash and burn and make the berries grow where we want them. and we don't get used to a hotter earth with more violent storms. we put our hands on the thermostat, and put the earth in the climate zone we like
we are homo sapiens: we don't adapt to the environment, we adapt the environment to us. we aren't fatalistic spineless scatterbrains. this whole climate change topic is really just an engineering problem, with currently not enough engineers working on it, and too many talking heads and other assorted nitwits involved. roll up the sleeves and get to work
Re: (Score:3)
Re:what will happen: (Score:5, Insightful)
Your faith in science is excellent. However, you're basically saying it is somehow easier to collect a vastly dispersed gas rather than to stop producing it.
Climate control engineering is far far beyond human capacity in time to solve this. The things that are well within our power are utility-scale solar thermal power and electric automobiles. These simple, existing technologies are completely sufficient. They just need to be built. To do so will have far less risk and lower cost than fanciful planet-sized umbrellas and other science fiction dreamery.
More importantly, when someone builds them, you can believe it, unlike when someone tells you they are going to research climate control, "clean coal", or other distractions. Don't believe anything but real action.
Buy wind power (at a premium) RIGHT NOW. Contact your electricity provider and ensure they too are taking it seriously. You can act now. It's only 20% or so extra in Australia (and expect that gap to close with the Carbon Tax).
Or do nothing and be a pathetic loser.
Re:what will happen: (Score:5, Insightful)
Just how stable do you think civilization is today? All we have to do is not expand the economy every quarter and hissyfits crawl out of the TV. It is only going to take modest changes in either arable land, fossil fuel supply or potable water to really kick the major economies into a prolonged tailspin. That increases the probability of widespread military actions, enormous problems with refugees and other unpleasantness.
Read up on Joseph Tainter's 'Collapse of Complex Civilizations' for an overview of what will likely happen.
Yes, the planet will survive. In fact, homo stupidicus will likely survive as well. But it isn't going to be pretty.
What are you going to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what are any Of you going to do about it? Continue to point fingers at China? The third world? Oil companies?
How about accepting that you can't change others, and instead set examples yourself. I moved into the city, leave my A/C and heat off whenever possible, bicycle for 95% of my trips (including commuting), grow as much of my own food as I can, and buy the rest locally and in-season whenever possible.
2 years ago, I was doing none of that. Now my personal energy footprint is a fraction of what it had been. Perhaps not as much as is needed, but it's something, and none of it has honestly even been hard.
So again I ask: what are you going to do about it? What will you or have you changed about your lifestyle to help avert global disaster?
Re:What are you going to do? (Score:4, Funny)
Put a pool in my back yard, and look forward to floating through the hot afternoons.
Re:What are you going to do? (Score:4)
I take the bus whenever possible (average 1000 mi of driving per year), use energy efficient bulbs and appliances, turn off everything when its not in use, buy local food where possible, and got good insulation so I can turn down the heat in non-bedrooms during the night, never use AC in my house (don't even own one), and only use it in my car in short bursts to cool it down after it's been baking in the sun all day.
But all of that is nothing if we don't get political change as well.
The powers that profit from the status quo are devastatingly effective at propaganda. Nothing you change about your own lifestyle will make a difference if they convince a hundred million of your neighbors that you're just some stupid hippie to be laughed at and ignored.
Re:What are you going to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>95% of US electric power is generated by BURNING COAL
Uh, no, Captain Hyperbole. It's consistently between 40%-50%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States) NG, which is cleaner than coal, but still not "clean" is about a quarter of production. The mix varies a lot by state - we don't have coal reserves in California, so we generate from NG instead of coal, and are boosting our renewables... though we're paying some of the highest energy rates in the country for the privilege.
Most of the rest comes from Nuclear and Hydro (our two big green sources of energy), which environmentalists hate for some reason, not really understanding that by blocking/shutting down/destroying nuclear plants and dams, they're just upping our coal and NG production.
>>And the answer is simple -- do what the French did -- go nuclear
Yep.
Stop talking about changing the way we use energy! (Score:3)
Carbon emissions are a real problem. We don't need a bunch of zealots claiming the sky is falling unless we do things their way.
With the third world getting ready to ramp up energy production the idea of conservation is a pipe dream. China is already ignoring us and the rest will do the same.
We need to globally spend trillions of dollars on energy research and we need to do it yesterday. It's the only answer left.
Two Simple Solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Built a cheap portal to an alternative Earth that is 85 million years in the past, in order to colonize it.
Or wait for the rapture.
Because the above choices are more realistic than expecting the human race to put short-term greed aside to save the planet.
Ask a bunch of people if they would be willing to receive a billion dollar now, in exchange to blowing up the Earth 200 years in the future, you would be surprised how many of them would say yes. That is the problem with the human race.
Sky is falling in 5 years (Score:5, Funny)
Since it will happen... (Score:3)
...there's no point in resisting but every point in positioning for survival.
This will mean competition for space in the lifeboat, so to speak. That will mean willingness to let competitors die off, to use violence to save our own countries, and do things which are unfashionable.
Let's face it (Score:5, Insightful)
Viable alternatives to fossil fuel will emerge as soon economics allow this. Remember when oil prices boomed a couple of years ago? Suddenly all kinds of research boomed as well. But the oil price all of a sudden stabilised to a level we perceive as fine and dandy.
I don't believe in a well organised conspiracy of oil producing countries as that would require much more intelligence and cooperation than portrayed by any kind of existing governing body. Instead I believe that almost everyone in the energy market is acting in the best possible interest of their limited awareness. Oil prices rise, alternative research boosts, oil prices drop, alternative research slows down,
I don't see developments going in any other significant direction in the current way the world is governed. And I don't expect world government to change any time soon. Who or what would be powerful, charming and effective enough to change mankind's nature? It would require a disproportional amount of concentrated power to achieve such a thing, which after having saved our civilisation will inevitable start at exploiting it.
Re:It's almost all China (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not "almost all China". That's completely retarded.
It's not the rate that CO2 output is increasing that is the problem, it's the level of CO2 output. China only recently surpassed US in level.
Worse than that though, it's not just a yearly output that's the problem, but decades worth of output, because CO2 stays around in the atmosphere for a very long time.
Check out this chart from a recent slashdot story: http://planet3.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/cdiac.gif [planet3.org]
Compare the area under the graph of the US relative to the area under China.
It's more appropriate to say "It's almost all US" at this point. China, having produced less CO2 in the past decades but now producing more, has only just started to catch up. It's got a long way to go.
That said, with the US not slowing down and China racing to catch up, if their rate of production keeps up then things are going to get a lot worse a lot faster. However you spin it, rate of CO2 production by the US is not sustainable, whether they're producing most of the world's CO2, or (worst case) if their dangerously high levels are only a small fraction of it. In the latter case, in the future the US would be making things generally worse, while China might be rapidly endangering the planet, but that hasn't yet happened and it still wouldn't make the problem "almost all China".
Re:It's almost all China (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's almost all China (Score:5, Insightful)
At least the US' emissions are only on a slight increase and are slowing down. China's have almost gone vertical in the last ~7 years 8-(
On the other hand, consider that the USA is emitting nearly as much as China with less than 1/4 the population 8-(
WTF guys!? You're doing something seriously wrong over there, especially considering that all the heavily polluting industry has been outsourced and people don't commonly ride 2-stroke bikes in the US.
Are you putting WW2 fighter engines in your SUVs now or what?
It's the elites (Score:5, Insightful)
I fear so too. We have such fools leading our nations and large corporations. Trolls like Rupert Murdoch are deliberately confusing the public, sowing doubts about science itself, not only climate science, and telling outright lie after lie. In 1993, I personally heard a speech from the CEO of Lennox to employees in which he said that 1) he didn't believe in global warming, but 2) if global warming was real, then good, because it would be good for Lennox's business of selling more A/C's! (He also complained that he would have made more money in the stock market than he made having it all tied up in Lennox, implying that the employees didn't work hard enough or something, but for the sake of everyone's jobs, he stayed with the company. What a guy!) They ought to be our best and brightest people. They evidently believe they are, the way they carry on. But they don't seem to understand something basic that separates children from adults, which is that you can't make problems go away by ignoring them. They've done worse. They've actively worked to deny everything, actually spent money that they are so greedy to have, on propaganda dressed up as science. What the hell! We have a huge, huge leadership problem. In Lennox's case, I know that CEO inherited the company. He didn't win his position on any sort of merit at all. He was the son of the previous leader, that's all.
What a bunch of lying, smug, lazy hedonists. Every generation can use a challenge, to keep life from becoming too easy and boring. We ought to embrace this problem. We could solve it. The US didn't go AWOL for WWII, didn't chicken out and let Japan grab half the Pacific, didn't leave the Brits to the Nazis. We demonstrated to the world that democracy is superior to fascism. Now we call them the Greatest Generation. If Rupert Murdoch had been a media mogul then, I can imagine he'd have spewed ridiculous pro-Nazi propaganda, maybe suggest that the US ought to cut a deal to sell Hawaii to Japan in exchange for peace. Solving global warming doesn't require the sacrifice that war did. Yet, we're running away from it. We don't deserve to stay #1 with that attitude. Our parents would be ashamed. All the work and sacrifice they did so we'd have a better life, and this is how we repay that.
So, we won't do enough to address this problem, not until it's far too late. Greenland will melt, and maybe western Antarctica will too, most of Florida and Bangladesh will drown, and the Netherlands may find it impossible to raise the dikes high enough. Then we'll engage in recriminations as we fight over higher ground and food. There will be war, maybe even WWIII and use of nuclear weapons. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Re:It's almost all China (Score:5, Informative)
For example, in the linked article [planet3.org].
Re:It's almost all China (Score:5, Insightful)
Beware of any statistics presented in English, for the publishers have an obvious incentive to skew the output for political reasons.
Re:It's almost all China (Score:5, Insightful)
No, mon ami, it is almost all US. In fact, about 25% of world greenhouse emissions, more than any other nation, even if weighted by economic activity.
The map you linked to was data from 2002, with some data from 2004. Go ahead, download the linked data and look for yourself.
In the meantime, China has been growing economically at an incredible clip, and lots of their energy comes from coal. They have surpassed the United States, and with a billion+ people moving from agriculture to Western lifestyle, are going to dwarf whatever the United States does in the future.
Beware of any statistics presented in English, for the publishers have an obvious incentive to skew the output for political reasons.
Beware of your own biases. English is the world's de-facto common language between countries. It's not like you're going to get unbiased data from China government newspapers.
Re:It's almost all China (Score:4, Interesting)
Last time I checked China was building hydroelectric and nuclear power plants far faster than any other country.
Most of the 'developed' countries seem to think that going back to coal is a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Point is: It never changes spontaneously, for no reason. Usually it's changes in atmospheric chemistry that causes it to change.
Right now we're the ones changing the atmospheric chemistry. And it's a Bad Thing.
Take a long view (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you realize that it's possible for what you say to be true (and I agree with the general point) AND for it to also be true that humans are capable of altering the environment? Given that, it's also possible that the natural changes wouldn't be so bad, but the human caused changes might end up being very bad for us. So shouldn't we do something to stop the changes we can stop?
The answer to your questions lies not in the direct answer, but the indirect one. To give the answer I have to give a little background.
The Earth's climate has always been changing and it always will. The treehugger notion we could or should stop the climate from changing is great irony - because that would be a bigger imposition on the Earth's ecology than doing nothing. It would introduce a static climate never before seen on Earth - if it were possible - with inevitable and unforeseen consequences. But there are temperature zones the Earth appears not to like, and it transitions through them swiftly - and then stays on one side or another of this zone for a longer time. There are other zones that global average temperature can vary in for a considerable period of time - until it enters this unsavory zone and then rapidly crosses over it again. I'll leave the "why" of this to some philosopher or trained scientist, but it's a useful observed fact without understanding why.
Giving the average global temperature of the 21st century as 0, we reached the peak of the current temperate zone about 5,000 years ago at a level called the Holocene Climatic Optimum at about +1C. This is about 4-8C below the maximum temperature for the last 450K years or so, and there appear to be feedback effects which prevent the temperature from going any higher than that maximum because it hasn't deviated from this pattern for 2.5 million years - longer than humans have been around. There is a climate danger zone at -0.6C and if we enter it the temperature drops quickly to a new range of -5 to -8C for a very long time. Glaciers march and scrape our cities into the sea, owning the land for a hundred thousand years.
Unfortunately for our teeming billions, up until about 300 years ago the temperature had declined from the Holocene Optimum of +1C to -0.6C and was trending down. -0.6C appears to be the upper bound of one of those unsavory zones, and the next stop is -5C [wikimedia.org] which is quite a drastic change. We were on the cusp of transition into the ice, and in fact that period is called the "little ice age". Each time in the last half-million years the average temperature passed below -0.7C it skipped directly over the intervening temperatures and went directly to the lower level - resulting in the die-off of terrestrial animals including humans, glaciation, and other unpleasant effects. The duration of this cold period averages 100,000 years which is likely longer than we could bear it. If it had not been for the warming currently attributed by some to the burning of fossil fuels and its concomitant CO2 discharge, we would likely already be suffering the cold dipping to -5C or more.
Perhaps 6 billion of us would be dead already, or never born - not from the cold, but from the inevitable famine and struggling for resources that it would bring. But that's not the end. 300 years from now there would be only a few million of our seven billions left, if the resulting wars didn't leave the planet uninhabitable entirely. Our entire industrial revolution, sciences and arts these last 200 years? Lost, perhaps forever.
No matter what we do the Earth will not stay habitable to this many humans forever. In the last half-million years we've had only four such periods lasting an average 12,000 years or so. This warm period we now enjoy is not the Earth's normal temperature. And when it's over, it really and truly does appear to be over for a very long time. It will be cold sooner or later. For me and mine, I
Re:stop the subsidy madness (Score:5, Interesting)
from the summary :
Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400bn
that dwarfs green subsidies.
Re:We're going to find out (Score:4, Interesting)
If you think China gives one rat's ass what the IEA thinks about 'climate change' you've got more lead and mercury in your brain than a resident of Shenzhen. The only way their CO2 output is going to stop growing is if we apply tariffs. We won't do that, because we like keeping the industry that makes our stuff faaar away from our precious selves.
Funnily enough, China's actually doing a heap more stuff on reducing emissions than most countries, including starting trial emissions trading schemes next year. And their investment in renewable energies is extraordinary. Unfortunately, they're also the largest country in the world and they're industrialising their population at a crazy rate -- so whether they do enough remains to be seen.
But they certainly care a lot more than one rat's ass, and more than a lot of developed countries also.
We _are_ thinking scientifically... (Score:4, Informative)
But saying that there is a 'point of no return,' a point where massive feedbacks start making the planet vastly hotter than what CO2 could do on its own, where ocean currents stop flowing.......that stretches belief.
No one is saying that. The "Irreversible Climate Change" in the article means the 2C warming considered unsafe will be unavoidable.
The evidence for it is sparse. In fact, there is good evidence to believe the opposite: that each successive ton of CO2 causes a smaller and smaller effect on the earth's climate (see the above equation and consider its implications if you are in doubt). Thus going from 380ppm to 480ppm atmospheric CO2 will have a smaller effect than going from 280ppm to 380ppm.
Yes, the warming is proportional to the exponential of CO2, so every doubling of C02 will give roughly the same amount of warming. This is well known.
Re:Think scientifically about this please (Score:4, Informative)
That's not what they say in the article, and not what they mean by the phrase 'point of no return'.
The generally accepted 'safe' minimum rise from pre-industrial levels is 2 degC, which we'll reach with 450ppm atmospheric CO2. We know how many Gigatons of CO2 we're pumping into the air every year. Every new fossil power plant we build increases those emissions, and will do so for several decades. The forcing effect of the CO2 they emit lasts for several more decades.
A rise close to 2 degC is already inevitable due to the amount of CO2 we've already dumped, and are dumping in the air. If we keep building at even close to our current rate, it will be impossible for us NOT to put enough CO2 in the air to cause a rise higher than 2 degC. The longer we wait, the more we build, the higher the final temperature will be that we won't be able to bring down again without some fantastical pie-in-the-sky geo-engineering project.
Going above a 2 degC rise increases the risk that we will trigger an equilibrium change; by for example, causing enough permafrost to melt that mass methane clathrate stores release their methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas - we're already seeing a big increase in methane emissions - up to 100x in places - in the siberian arctic. The higher the rise, the bigger the risk. We don't know precisely how much bigger, because we have one shot and only one experimental model. And we're living on it.
Even assuming that that doesn't happen, the predictable effects of a 2 degC rise are bad enough with loss of arable land, alterations to fresh water routes - and quantity, increase in storm violence and damage, worse flooding of coastal regions etc. The higher we go, the worse they get.
If the IEA, a really conservative body when it comes to predictions, is saying we're going to hit 2 degC whether we like it or not if we don't radically change course in the next couple of years, frankly it's probably already to late to avoid a 2 degC rise.
Re:Think scientifically about this please (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the kind of unscientific sensationalism we need to get away from.
Ahh. You're one of those people that thinks all the climate change research done so far is bunkum, and we don't need to worry. We're already observing changes. Have you even read the IPCC reports? Actually, don't bother answering. Looking at your other postings in this thread alone, you're clearly entirely closed to the idea that there is a problem, or that it will get worse. The rest of this is for the benefit of people who are prepared to look at the actual evidence.
For example - fresh water [www.ipcc.ch];
Current vulnerabilities to climate are strongly correlated with climate variability, in particular precipitation variability. These vulnerabilities are largest in semi-arid and arid low-income countries, where precipitation and streamflow are concentrated over a few months, and where year-to-year variations are high (Lenton, 2004). In such regions a lack of deep groundwater wells or reservoirs (i.e., storage) leads to a high level of vulnerability to climate variability, and to the climate changes that are likely to further increase climate variability in future. In addition, river basins that are stressed due to non-climatic drivers are likely to be vulnerable to climate change. However, vulnerability to climate change exists everywhere, as water infrastructure (e.g., dikes and pipelines) has been designed for stationary climatic conditions, and water resources management has only just started to take into account the uncertainties related to climate change.
Floods [www.ipcc.ch];
A warmer climate, with its increased climate variability, will increase the risk of both floods and droughts (Wetherald and Manabe, 2002; Table SPM2 in IPCC, 2007).
Food: [www.ipcc.ch]
Water balance and weather extremes are key to many agricultural and forestry impacts. Decreases in precipitation are predicted by more than 90% of climate model simulations by the end of the 21st century for the northern and southern sub-tropics (IPCC, 2007a).
There's plenty more of that sort of thing in the IPCC reports. But if you live in a wealthy country away from the seaboard and can afford the increases in prices for fresh water, food and military spending to keep the oil flowing from areas less lucky than you; then yes, the impact won't be so bad in your lifetime. Lucky you. Shame about the rest of the planet, and our descendants though.
Re:Think scientifically about this please (Score:5, Informative)
You oppose a scientific report [an interesting word to choose], calling it propaganda. Why? Tautologically, your answer is
You also call troll to posters who point out the strong dichotomy in your belief system; that you want a scientific view, but not a science that actually works as science. Instead, you'd prefer one that finds things that you oppose to be incorrect.
I withdraw my accusations of your profligacy with resources, your perceived selfishness, and I apologise. I now think you do not understand the scientific arguments surrounding climate change and should withdraw from further commentary.
Re:Some are missing the obvious here... (Score:5, Insightful)
True but irrelevant. It's like saying it's okay to flood cities with water, because fish depend on it.
Re: (Score:3)
It was 71 degrees the other day on November 1st.
We're talking about climate, not weather (events). You're off-topic dude...
Re: (Score:3)
pre-industrial civilization or slavery
Right, because those are the only two options. Nice false dichotomy you've set up there. Almost had me convinced that simply whistling past the graveyard is the best course of action
Re: (Score:3)
What you're stating is the broken window fallacy.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window [wikimedia.org]
All those things are bad for the economy, which is the reason that the governments haven't actually done anything so far.
Re:Nothing can ever stop... (Score:4, Informative)
The increase in CO2 is not natural, and it's not by definition irreversible.
Warning that we're about to go over the 450 ppm level isn't over hyped doomsday rhetoric. It's just simple extrapolation of current trend.
We can still argue whether 450 ppm is the correct upper limit, and scientific discussion is still ongoing. The question is: while the discussion is still going on, should we go ahead and exceed the 450 ppm level, knowing that we don't really have a way to extract the CO2 from the atmosphere if we're wrong.
Re:Nothing can ever stop... (Score:5, Interesting)
The same thing will happen if we just continue to burn fossil fuels. We can't keep producing them at current rate for much longer. The peak oil problem is likely more urgent than global warming, so an aggressive plan for transition would benefit us either way.
Sure, we have plenty of ideas.
But I see your point. Short term benefits outweigh long term doubts. Since, long term, we're all dead anyway, I can't argue with that.