As we enter a week where further market turmoil is likely against a background of further tensions between the US and China over the Huawei arrest, the climax of the Brexit debacle, and the yellow vest protests in France. All these issues can and will be resolved eventually but they pale in comparison to the political inaction over the latest climate change reports.
The US government, in the form of the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), in a report in November concluded that “the evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country, and that climate-related threats to Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being are rising” and warned that “these impacts are projected to intensify—but how much they intensify will depend on actions taken to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the risks from climate change now and in the coming decades”. Of course, the Orange One again demonstrated his supreme myopic attitude with the dismissal “I don’t believe it”.
We now have the black comedy of oil producing states such as the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia arguing over whether to “welcome” or just “note” the latest IPCC report this week at the UN climate talks, known as COP24. The IPCC report on the impacts of a temperature rise of 1.5°C was launched last October and is a sobering read. The IPCC again states with a high level of confidence that “human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C” and that “global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate”.
click to enlarge
In order to avoid warming above 1.5°C, the world needs “global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range)”. For limiting global warming to below 2°C, emissions need to “decline by about 25% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2070 (2065–2080 interquartile range)”.
Let’s face it, given the current political leadership across the globe, such declines are just fantasy. And I find that really depressing. The plea of David Attenborough at COP24 last week for leaders in the world to lead looks set to fall on deaf ears. Attenborough worryingly stated that “the continuation of our civilisations and the natural world upon which we depend, is in your hands (i.e. our leaders)”.
We’re pretty much toast then….
Posted in Climate Change
Tagged 5th assessment, above 1.5°C, agricultural productivity, anthropogenic drivers, anthropogenic greenhouse gas, atmospheric concentrations, biological carbon stores, carbon dioxide, carbon emission, climate change, climate change resilience, climate models, climate resilient pathways, climate system, climate warming, COP24, decarbonized economy, emissions reductions, geological data sets, global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, IPCC, IPCC 2018 report, methane, methane hydrates, National Academy of Sciences, nitrous oxide, ocean carbon sinks, Paris Agreement, permafrost thaw, PNAS, population growth, pre-industrial temperatures, sea level, soil erosion, synthesis reports, tipping elements, Trump climate change, UN climate talks, uninhabitable, USGCRP
The last time I posted on the climate change debate was here in November 2014 on the release of the synthesis reports on the IPCC’s 5th assessment. The post asked whether the debate would now move on, away from the climate change deniers, given the weight of scientific opinion. Well, that was before Mr Trump. In his inane rationale for withdrawing from the (nonbinding) Paris climate agreement, Trump has provided a classic illustration of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s quote that “there is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action”.
The Paris agreement is far from perfect. It does not however contain hard emissions targets but rather gives a framework for voluntary reductions. Admittingly previous voluntary reductions promised by many countries have been missed but even a flawed agreement is better than nothing. Recent declines in the growth in coal use in China and India were positive initial signs.
Maybe Mr Trump’s delusional thinking is that his masterful negotiations skills mean he can negotiate a global agreement with hard emission targets! More likely, he is acting politically to shore up his mid America coal loving support given the danger that some of his core support may just be realising that his healthcare and fiscal policies are not that favourable to those at lower incomes.
I recently came across this statement from January 1954 by the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, a tobacco firm group representatives, in reaction to some of the initial medical research showing that smoking was linked to lung cancer. The group stated that “we believe the products we make are not injurious to health”. My favorite bit is the arguments cited by “distinguished authorities” below countering the emerging scientific evidence:
- That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer.
- That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.
- That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.
That statistics purporting to link cigarette smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the validity of the statistics themselves is questioned by numerous scientists.
Don’t these arguments sound familiar?
Posted in Climate Change
Tagged anthropogenic greenhouse gas, cigarette smoking, climate change, climate change deniers, coal use China, delusional thinking, emerging scientific evidence, Frank statement, GHG emissions, Ignorance in action, IPCC synthesis report, IPCC’s 5th assessment, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, lung cancer research, Paris climate agreement, President Trump, scientific opinion, Tobacco Industry Research Committee, tobacco litigation, tobacco lobby group