Six Months after Paris Accord, We’re Losing the Climate-Change Battle

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601601/six-months-after-paris-accord-were-losing-the-climate-change-battle/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Six Months after Paris Accord, We’re Losing the Climate-Change Battle[/font]

[font size=4]A new report from the International Energy Agency includes projections for reductions in energy use and carbon dioxide emissions that could be wildly optimistic.[/font]

by Richard Martin June 1, 2016

[font size=3]Since the signing of the Paris climate accord in December, have we made any progress in cutting global emissions?

Let’s start with the good news. Emissions in China, the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide, dropped by around 3 percent in 2015, according to preliminary government statistics, thanks largely to an economic slowdown and a dramatic decrease in the burning of coal. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption (which account for more than 90 percent of total emissions) also fell by nearly 3 percent from 2014 to 2015, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And worldwide, carbon dioxide emissions in 2015 fell by 0.6 percent, according to a study in Nature Climate Change—the first time emissions have shrunk in a period of economic growth, rather than contraction.

And now, the bad news: we still have a long way to go to avoid catastrophic global warming.

A report released today by the International Energy Agency, which focuses on urban energy consumption, contains some encouraging projections, but a closer look at them reveals that they are wildly optimistic.

…[/font][/font]

[hatrack]

1. Which will surprise absolutely no one who's been paying attention . . .

"Let's start with the good news" - starring our old reliable friends, Chinese government statistics.

Sheesh.

[truebrit71]

3. Right? We know just how reliable those can be...

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Oh, we have pretty much lost

Even if HRC wins, she is not going to take the action needed to put the brakes on.

[GliderGuider]

4. Last year emissions fell by 0.6% but atmospheric concentrations rose by 0.7%

The previous year emissions rose by 0.5%, but concentrations rose by 0.6%

I don't think performance like this gets us where we need to go. We can't afford fuck around shaving the icecube with emissions if we want to make a difference. We need at least an immediate and ongoing 10% per year drop in global emissions if we want to pull the fat out of the fire.

http://kevinanderson.info/blog/avoiding-dangerous-climate-change-demands-de-growth-strategies-from-wealthier-nations/

We're not going to make it.

[KelleyKramer]

5. You are saying we should be at ZERO emissions in 10 years, seriously?

Maybe you forgot the sarcasm thingy at the end of that post??


.

[GliderGuider]

6. No, more like 20.

Last edited Sat Jun 4, 2016, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

No sarcasm tag needed because it's so obviously impossible to do.
But it's the only thing that would save this world's sorry ass.

So it won't happen.
So we're fucked.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Well, actually, we need negative emissions in rather short order

Hansen et al, writing in 2008:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

[font face=Serif]…

[font size=4]Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO₂, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO₂ for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO₂ was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO₂ fell to 425±75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO₂ forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO₂ target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO₂ is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO₂ is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.[/font]

[font size=3]…

We use paleoclimate data to show that long-term climate has high sensitivity to climate forcings and that the present global mean CO₂, 385 ppm, is already in the dangerous zone. Despite rapid current CO₂ growth, ~2 ppm/year, we show that it is conceivable to lower CO₂ this century to less than the current amount, but only via prompt policy changes.

…[/font][/font]