SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ars Technica brings us another report on Climate change.
Given what we know about the sensitivity of the climate to added greenhouse gases, it's possible to calculate how much more carbon dioxide we can admit while still having a reasonable chance of staying within the two degree Celsius envelope. What's striking about these calculations is how many large changes we'll have to make in order to get there. According to Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University's Earth Institute, the per-capita emissions would have to drop from five tons annually (where they are now) to 1.6 tons by 2050.
To accomplish this, Sachs says that all nations will have to undergo a process he calls "deep decarbonization," which is part of the title of a report he's helped organize and deliver to the UN today. Pathways to Deep Decarbonization, prepared by researchers in 15 different countries, looks into what's needed to achieve sufficient cuts in our carbon emissions. The report finds that current government pledges aren't sufficient, and the technology we need to succeed may exist, but most of it hasn't been proven to scale sufficiently.
Achieving this, the report's authors argue, will have to come with a normal pace of economic growth: "There is no prospect of winning the fight against climate change if countries fail on poverty eradication or if countries do not succeed in raising the living standards of their people." Although this may add to the challenge of lowering carbon emissions, the report concludes that "Robust economic growth and rising prosperity are consistent with the objective of deep decarbonization."
The report identifies what Sachs called "three pillars" of emissions reductions: low-carbon electricity, massive efficiency gains, and a greater electrification of transit and infrastructure. (Sachs also added that land use changes could also have a major impact.)
Ok, folks you can't just put your head in the sand and pass this off as Science fiction. Do you honestly believe that the governments around the world will actually do something about this, or shall we just hope for a nice asteroid so we don't have to deal with long term planning?
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday July 11 2014, @01:32AM
Oh I'm not worried about this, the world is going to have so many other problems to deal with in 20 years or so when its population doubles AGAIN... this will be lost in the noise.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 11 2014, @02:45AM
It's likely to happen and also a very reckless move by the civilization at large to double its size when resources are scarce as is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @07:04AM
The UN disagrees. According to their reports in 2050 there will be around 9 or 10 billion people. Which of course still is way too many.
However population is kinda a red herring. Sure, people have basic needs to must be fulfilled but those are really minimal. It's our sick western consumer life style that is the actual problem: Everything is disposable and products are not engineered to last but to fail. Food is wasted in massive amounts. And we jet around basically just for fun all the time.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday July 11 2014, @01:59PM
Sick compared to what? The rest of the world is in even worse shape. And all that population growth isn't coming from the "sick western consumer life style" whose participants have a rather low fertility rate, often below replacement.