IPCC Chair Says 350ppm Is the Number
Yesterday, on August 25, 2009, the UN's top climate scientist has, for the first time, backed ambitious goals for slashing greenhouse gas emissions that many climate negotiators say are beyond reach.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, said clearly and unequivocally that 350 is the number. This is the same "not to exceed" that James Hansen announced publicly 2 years ago at the AGU conference in San Francisco. It is refreshing that Hansen is no longer alone at the top in calling for this number. Pachauri's concurrence with the goal 350ppm gives even more credibility and makes it "safe" for the more progressive organizations such as 1Sky to be endorsing it (I just checked and the 350ppm goal is still no where to be found on the 1Sky website).
Here's a few lines from Pachauri's interview with Agence France Presse:
"As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations," said Rajendra Pachauri when asked if he supported calls to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 350 parts per million (ppm).
"But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target," he told Agence France Presse in an interview.
Pachauri, who has an oil and gas background (he was on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation (January 1999 to September 2003), was the guy handpicked by Bush to replace the "alarmist" Bob Watson.
We have the technology to meet the goal. What we lack is the political will and we need that in spades to aggressively pursue all of the clean power technologies we have for efficiency and new power. It must be done worldwide and we need to get into high gear now. We are installing clean power right now at a rate about 100 times slower than we need to.
We should be treating this like a war, but we clearly are not. For example, NRDC's Ralph Cavanagh points out that the energy R&D budget at DOE is still exactly the same as under the Bush administration ($3B/year). Yikes!
Chu wants to triple that. Where is the sense of urgency here? Can anyone find it?
More info on this story: Rajendra Pachauri endorses 350 ppm, not as IPCC chair but "as a human being" and UN scientist backs '350' target for CO2 and BREAKING: Top UN Scientist Endorses 350!.
Follow Steve Kirsch on Twitter: www.twitter.com/spamguy
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Are you sure that the correct number isn't 351? 349? This type of precision is absolutely laughable given there is so much we don't know about climate science and all the variables that affect it. Hahahahaha!
yeah so funny, that the CO2 levels are higher than before the ice ages cycles started, over 3 million years ago.
If CO2 were driving climate change, then I'd be worried. But it's not, so I'm not. Essentially, there has been no warming since 1998 while CO2 has continued to rise. Statisticians call this "weak correlatio
http://www
http://www
Tell President Obama about 350 ppm - Join the 350 Twitter hour USA action
We will send the exact same tweet to @BarackObama on October 24, 2009 at 9 AM (Pacific) 12 PM (Eastern)
check out our facebook event page for more info:
http://www
Tell your friends, we need thousands of people doing this for it to be effective!
The politicians only have power because we give it to them!
tell your friends, Rooftop solar, safe and cheaper.
research pushes this a lot, but fails to complete any realistic analysis. Might be OK for a large expansive roof . That shouldn't be scoffed at, but for the avearge homeowner it would get kind of dicey. Using his number $2.50/Wp, a solar insolation of 4.5 kWh/ m2-day, an average 1600 ft2 2-story house with 1-3 pitch, 1/2 gable roof facing south (rather unlikely) you get 56m2 of solar. At $330/m2 you'd pay $18 k, JUST for the panels, no inverters or power storage included. For that you get about 13,500 kWh/mo. that could power the average home that uses about 1100 kWh/mo and charge up 1 electric car. That's if you don't have the $18K or a probably more like 4x that for the extra hardware and installer profit. Consider mortgaging that over the 30 yr system life (and pray that hail or wind don't do damage), you'll be paying about $430 month for your electricity and "gasoline". Live in a city or apartment? Tough luck!
No research I don't think roof top solar is the answer n. Better to build solar in the desert SW where insolation is >6 kWh/m2. and perhaps 13,000 one-mile square solar thermal plants could provide all the nations electricity in 2050- residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation (all cars and trains). Add wind to the mix and some nuclear (yuk!) and you might make us truly carbon free for energy.
You are correct that we should be treating this as a war! A surprising new approach is contained in
the article: 4 Steps to Revive the Auto Industry and the Economy. It will be found on the Aesop Institute website: www.aesopi
The brief two page article outlines breakthrough technology that opens paths to cars that need no fossil fuel or recharge.
Later, more advanced versions can turn cars into power plants, wirelessly able to sell power to the local utility when parked.
Imagine the impact of cars and trucks that can pay for themselves, and end the need to build coal or nuclear power plants! That is now on the horizon!
WHEN they prove their claims, not a second before....
Proliferation, dirty bombs, contaminated ground water, uranium so scarce we are mining the grand canyon. and slower to install and more expensive than rooftop solar. see my profile for proof. Nukes are insane.
Conventional nukes are insane.
Recycling nuclear waste is a no brainer.
I agree, in principle. We can continue to use the Russian reactor for that purpose.
Burn it all up, then close down as much of the nuclear industry as possible, to minimize proliferation risks.
But no new reactors.
"We have the technology
Face it - we can't even get to commoditized (universal) cost of electricity in the USA. Those who have government subsidized hydro-power (no carbon footprint) are very quick to criticize coal fired power but those most dependent on it (Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.) are also the parts of the country most hammered by the econonic downturn. If we can't share the pain within our country then I predict little chance of global sacrifice being sold any time soon.
There is enough energy in US nuclear waste stockpiles to power the entire world for 700 years. The technology to recycle nuclear waste was developed two decades ago (Integral Fast Reactor). We should be building as many of those plants as possible; but the coal lobby got our wonderful government to deep-six the program.
I think everyone grossly under estimates the Chinese. Yes they are in the throws of massive expansion but they are also making serious strides in manufacturing wind and solar for the world. They are also starting production of electric vehicle for the masses . I'd guess that they would rapidly convert to renewables in the near future, especially if we led the way. After all their leading scientists and engineers were educated here in our green-pushing universities.
pm247, I'd like to see the source the "power the world for 700 years" claim.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
