The voices of climate change denial are fading, and with good reason. First they're scientifically outgunned, and being routinely shot down every time they're forced to debate on a factual basis. Second, when you look around and see the Arctic ice cap dwindling into something you could slip into a gin-and-tonic, half of SoCal on fire, and unflappable old Morgan Freeman taking to the airwaves to prep us for the next natural disaster, it's increasingly difficult to give the thumbs up and say "everything's hunky-dory here!"
I'm sympathetic to the denialists, because I'm really not in the mood for climate change catastrophe either, and if I could prevent it by complaining about Big Green Al or shrieking "conspiracy" I'd be wearing a tinfoil hat and cherry-picking facts along with the rest of the cranks.
However, I can't, so I don't. But is the discussion academic at this point anyway? Do the math and it looks as though it may already be too late to turn the tide of what bids fair to be the biggest catastrophe in human history.
Alarmist? Read how it breaks down and you can decide.
How can we avoid disaster?
The United Nations Environment Program has estimated that by 2050, greenhouse gases will have to be reduced to half of 1990 levels if we're going to maintain some kind of climate stability (usually characterized as a global temperature increase limited to 2C or less). That's conservative; other experts suggest that GHG cuts of 90% will be required. Whichever you want to believe, once we get past the 2C mark, it's likely that we'd careen past a number of "tipping points" and end up in a place where we'd prefer not to be.
How are we doing?
Very, very poorly. Greenhouse gas emissions rose more than 25% between 1997 (the year of the Kyoto Accord) and 2007. Leaders at the G8 summit earlier this month came up with a climate change statement that was little more than a bad joke, agreeing that emissions should indeed be halved by 2050 (although they declined to say what year they should be half of), but not referencing binding agreements, concrete plans, or any idea of where the $45 trillion in necessary funding will come from.
The G8 still accounts for about 62% of greenhouse gases these days, but they're rapidly being overtaken by developing world powerhouses. China is now the world's biggest polluter, and is opening 2 dirty coal-fired power plants a week as it struggles to keep the economy in overdrive. Government officials in that country have expressed polite interest in combating climate change, but note that ""the responsibilities of the developed and developing countries in this battle have to be different", which can be loosely interpreted as "you guys go first and we'll be along presently."
India derives 60% of its power from coal, and plans to add 70,000 megawatts in the next 5 years. The Prime Minister of India recently said "For us, the foremost priority is the removal of poverty, for which we need sustained rapid economic growth." Doesn't sound like they're going to be leading the charge against climate change, at least not until they catapult about 800 million people into the middle class.
A recent report by think-tank The Stockholm Network postulates three possible future scenarios, none of which are will avoid a temperature rise of 2C or more. The most likely future based on current events is called "Agree and Ignore", and predicts a temperature rise of as much as 5C by the end of the century.
And it's already pretty hot. The National Climate Data Centre says that this year so far is the 7th warmest since record-keeping began in 1880, and last year was 5th warmest.
What will happen if we miss the mark?
Bad stuff, and lots of it. The probable effects aren't fully understood, but climate change impacts will range from drought to flooding to wildfires to storms and tornadoes much more violent than in the past. The most dangerous aspect is likely to be vastly reduced food production, especially in parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America that lack the resources to mitigate climate change impacts.
Even in wealthier nations which might be able to afford new infrastructure to cope with the changes, the future looks nasty. Peak oil, water shortages, and another 2 billion people on the planet by mid-century will test resources to the limit, as will the arrival of hundreds of millions of refugees from the developing world seeking food or a dry place to live.
What can we do?
Assume the crash position... More seriously, whatever hope we have of pulling ourselves out of this fire will rely on persuading politicians with our votes, companies with our dollars, and everyone else with our voices. Before we know it's too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment