Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the hot-stuff dept.

It's the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.

Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.

Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

[...] After three years of research and a week of haggling between scientists and government officials at a meeting in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C.

The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards.

Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and clear.

"The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to two degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who co-chairs the IPCC.

"The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C - changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."

"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW, IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, of Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have."

The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below two degrees this century, then the changes we would experience would be manageable.

Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years, in 2030.

We can stay below it - but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals and we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, about 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced, for two decades.

-- submitted from IRC


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: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:39PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:39PM (#746580)

    If you've got a viable alternative, then what are you waiting for??? Go deploy it! If it's viable, then it'll work—that's what "viable" means.

    Subsidizing an alternative doesn't count, because it hides the true costs (and, yes, I realize that fossil fuels are subsidized, too). The only way we can get a solution is to stop the subsidies, and let the free market do its work—let individuals make their own damn choices about which solution is worth their resources.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:50PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:50PM (#746585)

    That is beyond stupid as usual vim guy. The market will decide that all the infrastructure is too costly to replace or remove so the ststus quo will co tinue as that macimizes profits while minimizing costs. Future consequences are not even considered. History shows that i am right and you are a deluded anarcho-capitalist.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:04PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:04PM (#746928)

      If you've got a problem with the way infrastructure is managed, then you've got a problem with government—you know, the organization that pretends to manage lots of infrastructure.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:59PM (#746994)

        You seem like a crappy chatbot now.

  • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday October 10 2018, @10:04PM

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Wednesday October 10 2018, @10:04PM (#747168)

    Subsidizing an alternative doesn't count, because it hides the true costs

    So does continually ignoring the external costs of continuing to maintain or worse, expand fossil fuel use.