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 khallow on Friday July 11 2014, @02:06PM
There has to be at least the appearance of a crisis in order to stoke that hysteria. Climate change just doesn't cut it currently for most of the world.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 11 2014, @08:34PM
It will catch the attention all the way across all levels of the power pyramid. The catch is that by then the toes may already be getting wet..
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday July 11 2014, @09:02PM
You have a reason you feel that way? I think instead this is an attempt at manufacturing a false crisis. For example, why cap global warming at only 2C? Or I should say, go through the motions of backing such a cap given the widespread disinterest (by many parties capable of easily thwarting such efforts) in such a goal? No one has made a case for why we should be engaging in heroic efforts to stave off mild climate change. It's all vague talk of "toes getting wet".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Friday July 11 2014, @09:27PM
Because along that temperature increase other accelerating processes kick in. Which will make life on this planet very tough.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday July 12 2014, @02:23PM
Not if those processes don't happen. Shouldn't we have the existence of these "accelerating processes" confirmed first before we worry about them? And there's also the massive decelerating process of radiative cooling.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday July 12 2014, @05:14PM
There's a lot of research showing this asfaik.