Sorry it has been so long since I’ve posted anything to this blog. I’ve been busy looking for a job, and I’ve also been pretty discouraged by the lack of progress at COP15 and the regressive state of climate legislation in the U. S. I have still been active, of course. And I have been reading, so I will try to share some of that soon. But I wanted to write something about the situation we are in right now, as I see it.
The more I learn about the science of global warming and about what is being done in the United States and around the world to prevent global warming from going out of control or causing horrendous disasters, the worse the situation seems. I have tried to summarize the most important and relevant facts below, and to show that when you put all of this together, the situation looks very bad. I have been saying for years that global warming is not only the most serious threat we face right now (or in human history, for that matter), but it is also the most urgent. To understand the seriousness, you only have to read “Six Degrees” by Mark Lynas and the works of James Hansen, David Archer, or even Al Gore. Some people at least understand that the situation is extremely serious, but it seems that very few people understand the urgency, especially the decision makers in government who need to understand it the most. I think the summary below proves that my concerns are valid. I wish I could somehow get this information to President Obama and members of Congress who are working on climate legislation. If they knew the facts, they would not be headed in the direction they are going now.
According to the IPCC (see 2007 WG3 report from the IPCC, p. 776, box 13.7):
1. We need to reduce emissions 80 – 95% below 1990 levels by 2050.
2. In addition, we need to reduce them 25 – 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. (If we don’t, the 2050 reductions must be greater.)
3. These are ranges of uncertainty. If we want to be safe, we need to choose 40% by 2020 and 95% by 2050. And even that would be somewhat risky, because it assumes the future will fall within the scientist’s predicted ranges. (There are already signs it won’t – see below.)
4. These numbers are not just for the U. S. Reductions from all industrialized (Annex I) countries must average this much.
5. In addition, many developing (Non-Annex I) countries need to reduce emissions substantially by 2020, and they all need to do this by 2050. (If not, reductions by industrialized nations must be greater.)
6. If the entire world together does all of this, CO2 levels are predicted to peak at 500 ppm, then drop to 450 ppm relatively quickly, and they will remain near 450 ppm for a long time. The IPCC thought this would keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C above preindustrial levels.
In the 5 or more years since the science those reports were based on came out, the understanding of scientists has changed:
1. It has become clear to James Hansen and many others that we need to quickly get CO2 levels below 350 ppm, and that either 450 ppm or a 2 degree rise could be catastrophic.
2. Many things are happening faster than the IPCC predicted, even for their worst case scenarios, including rise in CO2 emissions, melting of polar sea ice, melting of Greenland ice, and the release of CO2 and methane from melting permafrost and shallow ocean floors. All of these are part of positive feedback cycles. This means reality may be worse than their worst case scenarios, so we may need to reduce emissions more than their upper range.
3. A recent study using supposedly better measurement techniques indicated that the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are now (15 million years ago), global temperature was 5 to 10 degrees F (2.8 to 5.6 degrees C) higher than now, and sea level was 75 to 120 feet higher. See this article from Science Daily. If this is right, and if the past is any indication of the future, then scientists have seriously underestimated the trouble we are in.
What is being done now?
1. CO2 is around 390 ppm already, and despite the efforts of many countries and many individuals, is rising faster than ever (about 2 ppm per year).
2. Cap and trade has not worked well, yet it is still the strategy that most countries are using or plan to use.
3. The United States is still doing virtually nothing at the national level, compared to what needs to be done.
What is being planned for the future?
1. The U. S. is working on reducing emissions around 17% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, but this is below 2005 levels. This translates to about 4% below 1990 levels by 2020, when we need 40%. It translates to 76% below 1990 levels when we need 95% (or more if we fail to meet the 2020 targets, or if predictions are too optimistic).
2. No major developing nation has committed to reducing emissions at all, ever, and none are even considering reducing emissions by 2020.
3. Some developed countries are committed to doing more than the United States, but few, if any, are planning to do more than 40% by 2020 or 95% by 2050, to make up for the countries who are not doing their share.
In conclusion, we are not doing nearly enough, and we know it (or should know it). We are not planning to do nearly enough in the future, and we know it (or should know it). Nobody in Congress or the Executive branch is even trying to reduce emissions nearly enough or nearly quickly enough to have ANY chance of preventing our worst nightmare from coming true. It must be because they don’t understand the situation, because no decent human being could possibly fail to do much more than they are doing to rectify this situation.
