High chance that current atmospheric greenhouse concentrations commit to warmings greater than 1.5…

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/high-chance-current-atmospheric-greenhouse-concentrations-commit-warmings

[font face=Serif][font size=5] High chance that current atmospheric greenhouse concentrations commit to warmings greater than 1.5 °C over land [/font]

Submitted by Dr. Barnaby Smith on Wed, 27/07/2016 - 09:23

[font size=3]Current levels of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations already commit the planet to air temperatures over many land regions being eventually warmed by greater than 1.5°C, according to new research published in the journal Scientific Reports.

The results of the new study have implications for international discussions of what constitutes safe global temperature thresholds, such as 1.5°C or 2°C of warming since pre-industrial times. The expected extra warming over land will influence how we need to design some cities. It could also impact on the responses of trees and plants, and including crops.

…

First, even if it was possible to keep carbon dioxide concentrations fixed at their current 400 parts-per-million concentration levels, then the planet would continue to warm towards new equilibrium higher temperatures. At present, the climate is out of equilibrium, with the oceans drawing down very large amounts of heat from the atmosphere. However this will decline as the planet is bought towards a stable climatic state.

Second, warming rates over land are far higher than those when averaged globally which include temperatures over the oceans. This is a feature observed in meteorological measurements and reproduced across a large suite of climate models.

…[/font][/font]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep30294

[Ghost Dog]

1. ... Heading for way beyond that...

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that CO2 concentrations must be stabilised at 450ppm to have a fair chance of avoiding global warming above 2C, which could carry catastrophic consequences.

Doing that that will require a 40-70% emissions cut by 2050, compared to 2010 levels, and zero emissions by the end of the century.

However, despite the Paris agreement last December and a boost in renewable energy that has at least temporarily checked the growth in global emissions, the world is on track to substantially overshoot the target.

“We could be passing above 450ppm in roughly 20 years,” Betts said. “If we start to reduce our global emissions now, we could delay that moment but it is still looking like a challenge to stay below 450ppm. If we carry on as we are going, we could pass 450ppm even sooner than 20 years, according to the IPCC scenarios.”...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/carbon-dioxide-levels-in-atmosphere-forecast-to-shatter-milestone

Let’s imagine, just for argument’s sake, that we are able to get off fossil fuels and switch to 100% clean energy. There is no question this would be a vital step in the right direction, but even this best-case scenario wouldn’t be enough to avert climate catastrophe.

Why? Because the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The remaining 30% comes from a number of causes. Deforestation is a big one. So is industrial agriculture, which degrades the soils to the point where they leach CO2. Then there’s industrial livestock farming which produces 90m tonnes of methane per year and most of the world’s anthropogenic nitrous oxide. Both of these gases are vastly more potent than CO2 when it comes to global warming. Livestock farming alonecontributes more to global warming than all the cars, trains, planes and ships in the world. Industrial production of cement, steel, and plastic forms another major source of greenhouse gases, and then there are our landfills, which pump out huge amounts of methane – 16% of the world’s total.

When it comes to climate change, the problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it’s what we’re doing with it. What would we do with 100% clean energy? Exactly what we are doing with fossil fuels: raze more forests, build more meat farms, expand industrial agriculture, produce more cement, and fill more landfill sites, all of which will pump deadly amounts of greenhouse gas into the air. We will do these things because our economic system demands endless compound growth, and for some reason we have not thought to question this...

... Clean energy, important as it is, won’t save us from this nightmare. But rethinking our economic system might. GDP growth has been sold to us as the only way to create a better world. But we now have robust evidence that it doesn’t make us any happier, it doesn’t reduce poverty, and its “externalities” produce all sorts of social ills: debt, overwork, inequality, and climate change. We need to abandon GDP growth as our primary measure of progress, and we need to do this immediately – as part and parcel of the climate agreement that will be ratified in Morocco later this year...

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/15/clean-energy-wont-save-us-economic-system-can

[CrispyQ]

2. Sometimes I think that collectively,

we know we're fucked beyond next Tuesday, so we're just gonna stick our heads in the sand & party like it's 1999.

There is no political will to address this critical situation to the degree that it needs to be addressed.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. I think the problem is more of a collective one…

The truth is, we need pretty much everyone to be “on board” here, and a large portion of society honestly believes a great hoax is being perpetrated.

Even on this board, it is quite common to read someone saying that they won’t get involved unless they can save money in the process (or even more trivial complaints, like CFL’s are ugly—as if an incandescent bulb is a work of art!)

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. I do get tired of this meme

It matters a great deal where we get our energy from. “Why? Because the burning of fossil fuels … accounts for about 70% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”

Holy crap! There’s no point in addressing a great majority of the problem, because a minority may still remain!? (What!?)

OK, deforestation is a problem. Yes, so why is there deforestation? It’s a complex situation but one of the reasons is the production of “biofuels!”
http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/WPapers/WP68Pacheco.pdf
http://climatepolicyinfohub.eu/do-biofuels-destroy-forests-link-between-deforestation-and-biofuel-use
http://kids.mongabay.com/elementary/biofuels.html
http://www.efrc.com/manage/authincludes/article_uploads/Deforestation%20diesel1.pdf

(But, of course, where we get our energy from doesn’t matter…)

[Ghost Dog]

5. The point is both the 70% and the 30%, and compound growth

as a requirement of an unsustainable economic operating system which also has unsatisfactory social consequences, need to be addressed.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. It’s nihilist nonsense

Honestly… one more time… The argument is that it is pointless to address the great majority of the problem, because in doing so, a minority will remain. That’s the most illogical attitude ever, yet I read it over and over…

When a patient is seen by emergency medical personnel, they set priorities. They do not say, “It’s pointless! even if we get her breathing again, she will still have that cut on her forehead!” No, first, they get the patient breathing, and then they bandage her wound.

People do not cut down the rain forests because deep down we just want to destroy rain forests. There are economic reasons, and deforestation can be addressed, partly by addressing those economics:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/forests/solutions-to-deforestation/

Addressing the question of where we get our energy, will, in part, address deforestation:

1. People won’t cut down the trees for fuel.
2. People won’t cut down the trees to plant “biofuel” crops.

[Ghost Dog]

7. Not pointless.

The argument is in no way that it is pointless to address the great majority of the problem:

...get off fossil fuels and switch to 100% clean energy. There is no question this would be a vital step in the right direction, but even this best-case scenario wouldn’t be enough to avert climate catastrophe.

You perhaps seek to argue that it is pointless to attempt to design and implement economic and political systems that would be more environmentally and socially just and sustainable than the rampant growth laissez-faire corporate capitalist model. In which case, going forward, I would suggest, your limited choices will have to include large-scale and draconian measures of environmental, social and population control.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can”

Last edited Sun Jul 31, 2016, 10:16 AM - Edit history (1)

This sounds like Donald Trump — “only I can fix it.”

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/15/clean-energy-wont-save-us-economic-system-can

…

When it comes to climate change, the problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it’s what we’re doing with it. What would we do with 100% clean energy? Exactly what we are doing with fossil fuels: raze more forests, build more meat farms, expand industrial agriculture, produce more cement, and fill more landfill sites, all of which will pump deadly amounts of greenhouse gas into the air. We will do these things because our economic system demands endless compound growth, and for some reason we have not thought to question this.

…

No, we would not do exactly the same thing with 100% clean energy as we’re doing currently. We would not (for example) be cutting down forests to grow “biofuels.” We would not be destroying rain forests in the pursuit of petroleum. We would not (for example) be fracking. We would not (for example) be taking the tops off of mountains going after coal. We would not (for example) be going after the tar sands in Canada.

Are landfills bad? Yes, although they are much better than they were. We’re lining them, and recovering usable methane from them.
https://www3.epa.gov/lmop/faq/lfg.html

…

How can landfill gas be used for energy?

Of the approximately 2,400 active or closed municipal solid waste landfills identified in LMOP's national database, nearly 600 of them have one or more LFG energy projects in operation, resulting in 648 operational projects. EPA estimates that as many as 400 additional landfills could cost-effectively have their methane turned into an energy resource, producing enough electricity to power nearly 473,000 homes across the United States. The remaining landfills in LMOP's database either have a project in the construction or planning phase, previously had a project that has since ceased operating, or are not known to have LFG energy potential based on the data available.

…

What are the environmental benefits of using landfill gas as an energy resource?

Converting LFG to energy offsets the need for non-renewable resources such as coal and oil, and reduces emissions of air pollutants that contribute to local smog and acid rain. In addition, LFG energy projects help curtail global climate change, because they reduce emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than CO₂. LFG energy projects go hand–in–hand with community commitments to cleaner air and reductions in greenhouse gases that cause global climate change. For more information on environmental benefits, please visit LMOP's Basic Information page.

…

Organized recycling and composting are removing tremendous amounts of material from the “waste stream.”

https://www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainable-materials-management-facts-and-figures

…

In 2013, Americans generated about 254 million tons of trash and recycled and composted about 87 million tons of this material, equivalent to a 34.3 percent recycling rate. On average, we recycled and composted 1.51 pounds of our individual waste generation of 4.40 pounds per person per day.



In 2013, America recovered about 67 percent (5.7 million tons) of newspaper/mechanical paper and about 60 percent of yard trimmings. Organic materials continue to be the largest component of MSW. Paper and paperboard account for 27 percent and yard trimmings and food account for another 28 percent. Plastics comprise about 13 percent; metals make up 9 percent; and rubber, leather, and textiles account for 9 percent. Wood follows at around 6 percent and glass at 5 percent. Other miscellaneous wastes make up approximately 3 percent of the MSW generated in 2013.

Recycling and composting prevented 87.2 million tons of material from being disposed in 2013, up from 15 million tons in 1980. Diverting these materials from landfills prevented the release of approximately 186 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent into the air in 2013—equivalent to taking over 39 million cars off the road for a year.

To aid researchers, EPA hosts a collection of historic tables on municipal solid waste generation in America, as well as related scoping studies and research memos.

…

Of course, this couldn’t be happening, and is all pointless, because we haven’t changed our entire economic system first.

Look Jason Hickel is not a climatologist. He’s not an ecologist. He’s an anthropologist. He wants social justice, and so do I, but he’s way off base here.

[NickB79]

8. Perhaps you're addressing the wrong problem?

If all indications are that it is now impossible to prevent catastrophic climate change, which will drive a large majority of the planet's species to extinction and likely kill billions of humans, then the most pressing problem isn't how to prevent it and save our current society, but rather how to mitigate the consequences as best we can and save pockets of nature and civilization from destruction.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. OK, let’s look at it this way then…

It may be too late to prevent an unpleasant future through environmental consequences of GHG emissions. It is never too late to avoid an even worse future.

[NickB79]

11. Agreed. But the prevailing talk is still maintaining the status quo

IE, swap out coal for solar, gasoline for electric, and keep on heading for that bright, shiny future so many sci-fi movies promised us.

And as long as we are planning for that future, I doubt we'll be investing enough to build the life boats to carry us through the actual future we are facing.