Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday December 26 2015, @10:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the go-from-blow-to-suck dept.

If governments are serious about the global warming targets they adopted in Paris, scientists say they have two options: eliminating fossil fuels immediately or finding ways to undo their damage to the climate system in the future.

The first is politically impossible—the world is still hooked on using oil, coal and natural gas—which leaves the option of a major cleanup of the atmosphere later this century.

Yet the landmark Paris Agreement, adopted by 195 countries on Dec. 12, makes no reference to that, which has left some observers wondering whether politicians understand the implications of the goals they signed up for.

"I would say it's the single biggest issue that has to be resolved," said Glen Peters of the Cicero climate research institute in Oslo, Norway.

Scientists refer to this envisioned cleanup job as negative emissions—removing more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere than humans put in it.

Right now we're putting in a lot—about 50 billion tons a year, mostly carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels for energy.

There are methods to achieve negative emissions today but they would need to be scaled up to a level that experts say could put climate efforts in conflict with other priorities, such as eradicating hunger. Still, if the Paris climate goals are to be achieved, there's no way to avoid the issue, said Jan Minx of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate change in Berlin.

"My view is, let's have this discussion," he said. "Let's involve ourselves in developing these technologies. We need to keep learning."

The Paris Agreement was historic. For the first time all countries agreed to jointly fight climate change, primarily by reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Governments vowed to keep global warming "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) compared with preindustrial times. But even 2 degrees of warming could threaten the existence of low-lying island nations faced with rising seas. So governments agreed to try to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F), which is just half-a-degree above the global average temperature this year.

That goal is so ambitious—some would say far-fetched—that there's been very little research devoted to it. In Paris, politicians asked scientists to start studying how it can be done.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday December 27 2015, @02:02AM

    by frojack (1554) on Sunday December 27 2015, @02:02AM (#281344) Journal

    But we DO NOT know how reducing CO2 emissions today will affect CO2 atmospheric levels in the future. Most likely, they will go down. But we don't know how much. Therefore this paper is like putting buggey in front of a horse.

    Agreed, but it also seems working toward a negative CO2 emissions gets us to Step 1 easier and quicker.
    Do we emulate saline aquifers in the Sahara or the Australian outback by pumping sea water inland?
    Do we replant the forests lost in much of Europe or the Plains States?

    You can always stop these things if you find they are unnecessary, and natural sinks are working better than expected.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2