When the chief economist for the International Energy Agency (IEA) issues a dire warning, you'd think the world's leaders would sit up and take notice. If this statement by Fatih Birol last week wasn't a dire warning, then I don't know what is: "What I see now with existing investments for plants under construction... we are seeing the door for a 2 degree Celsius target about to be closed and closed forever."
A global rise in temperature of 2°C is widely considered to be a threshold beyond which catastrophic climate change is likely to occur; many scientists and governments consider 1.5° a safer bet. And we're talking here about catastrophic with a capital C -- for many communities around the world, climate change has already proved catastrophic.
So how did the leaders of the G8 richest countries respond to this warning at their summit in Camp David last week?
By speaking in platitudes, at best: "Different energy sources have different inherent risks and must be developed in a safe, efficient, and environmentally sustainable manner."
And by missing the point, at worst.
To keep that door to 2°C open, three things need to happen:
So here's why the G8 missed the point. Nothing in the "Camp David Declaration" comes even close to moving us off the frightening trajectory which the IEA is warning about. It explicitly endorses an "all of the above" approach to meeting our energy needs, and foresees continued long-term investment in extracting every last drop of petroleum from the breadth and depth of the planet:
"We are committed to establishing and sharing best practices on energy production, including exploration in frontier areas and the use of technologies such as deep water drilling and hydraulic fracturing... "
On the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, the declaration merely reiterates previous commitments to phasing them out over the medium term, despite the fact that according to Birol "we are going backwards." From 2010 to 2012, fossil fuel subsidies increased from $400 billion to $630 billion.
If you think this is an issue of environment vs. economics, think again. To quote Birol once more, "One dollar not invested now in reducing C02 will cost 4.6 dollars in the next decade to achieve the same effect." It's like using one credit card to pay off the debt on another. The interest payments will get you in the end.
Creative Commons: Kelly Rigg, TckTckTck.
Likewise, if you think this is an issue of protecting the environment vs. promoting global security, here too you'd be drawing a hasty conclusion. The Center for Climate and Security has published many reports documenting the inextricable link between the two, noting that "security analysts often refer to climate change as a 'threat multiplier' or 'accelerant of instability' -- a phenomenon that exacerbates a range of existing problems."
While G8 leaders were preparing to enjoy their VIP slumber party in the woods at Camp David, WWF issued a stark warning of its own. According to the organization's latest "Living Planet" report,
"We are living as if we have an extra planet at our disposal. We are using 50 percent more resources than the Earth can provide, and unless we change course that number will grow very fast -- by 2030, even two planets will not be enough."
The question is whether our elected leaders are listening to these warnings. On the face of it, I'd say clearly not.
Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg
Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld: Economic Security Is National Security
Samuel A. Worthington: Dear G8: Be Bold and Inclusive in Tackling Hunger
Lisa Meadowcroft: The Unsung Heroes of African Health Systems
BBC NEWS | Europe | Ban criticises G8 climate efforts
G8 Summit Reflects Canada's Climate Change Policies
The G8 and climate change: towards Copenhagen | openDemocracy
Full text of the G8 statement on climate change and environment ...
G8: Leaders open up vital new front in the battle to control global ...
All the Elite want is more money and fewer people and it has nothing to do with climate.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/05/climate-reality-global-warming-science-facts-co2-has-little-impact.html
Articles that shirk from pointing out the necessity of this radical curtailment simply enable the delusion that industrial civilization can ever be made sustainable. No matter how many windmills you put up, it will never be enough to replace the concentrated power of fossilized fuel and furthermore, the level of resource extraction and pollution are all by themselves in overshoot.
Furthermore, the human population is well beyond the planet's carrying capacity. If we were rational we would immediately curtail family size but it's far more likely, unfortunately, that Mother Nature will figure out a less pleasant way of reducing our rampant growth.
Good luck to them!!!
averted:
Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
Seth Borenstein in Washington
Associated Press
December 12, 2007
An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." "The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html
"So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models? "
Yes, asking questions and further study is bad...but don't let that get in the way of you using a sensationalist headline and *speculation* so you can embarrass yourself by twisting it into some denialist gotcha....
eh?
word on the street is NYC and DC were supposed to be under water by now:
Moynihan, as Nixon aide, warned of global warming
YORBA LINDA, Calif. — Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon's inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago.
Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public's attention.
There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
And the prediction attributed by some to Hansen that this would have happened by now, is essentially a wilful misinterpretation of what he actually said.
Give it 100 years or so. By then you'll see some very, very destructive sea level changes.
When determining the rate of global sea level rise, the best method is to conduct a tide gauge station data analysis - latest analysis reveals claims of "accelerating" sea level rise to be totally bogus.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/05/tide-gauge-station-data-analysis-global-sea-level-rise-7-inches.html
People need to wake up to the reality of climate change, but fuel profit worshippers and their hand maidens are very clever about not letting that happen until they have made as much dough as they can.
Here is a term that we will all become familiar with in the not too distant future..... energy rationing.