08/11/2016

Climate Pledges Will Fall Short of Needed 2 Degree C Limit

Scientific AmericanUmair Irfan, ClimateWire

Just a day before the Paris accord takes effect, the U.N. says nations must make deeper emissions cuts
Credit: FLICKR, CC BY-SA 2.0
The U.N. Environment Programme dumped a bucket of cold water this morning on nations riding high from the Paris climate change accords’ taking effect this week.
In a new report, UNEP found that even if every country that made an emissions-cutting pledge in the Paris Agreement keeps its promise, the world will still fall 12 to 14 gigatons short each year of keeping temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels.
The individual commitments would only keep warming below 3 degrees at best, the report finds. Meanwhile, nations are on course to further miss the mark of the Paris Agreement’s more ambitious pledge to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial levels” by 15 to 17 gigatons per year.
“If we don’t start taking additional action now, beginning with the upcoming climate meeting in Marrakesh, we will grieve over the avoidable human tragedy. The growing numbers of climate refugees hit by hunger, poverty, illness and conflict will be a constant reminder of our failure to deliver. The science shows that we need to move much faster,” UNEP chief Erik Solheim said in a statement.
The annual report comes as climate diplomats prepare for two weeks of U.N. negotiations in Morocco that will be aimed at making the promises of the Paris Agreement a reality. The deal officially goes into effect tomorrow.
“Compared to the 2°C goal that was the reference point of earlier Emissions Gap Reports, these new objectives require stronger short-term action and deeper cuts in the medium and longer term, as the remaining carbon dioxide budget is now considerably lower,” according to the report.
Researchers said the Paris Agreement’s early entrance into force signals a strong commitment from countries to address climate change—but this concern wasn’t reflected in their pledges to ratchet down their emissions.
“In summer 2015, all major countries had submitted INDCs [intended nationally determined contributions], and they showed in aggregate that there is a large [emissions] gap,” said Niklas Höhne, a researcher at the NewClimate Institute in Germany, who was the lead author of two chapters of the UNEP report.
“This insufficiency was accepted in Paris but led to several provisions in the Paris Agreement meant to encourage countries to increase their ambition level,” he added in an email. “The first opportunity to raise ambition was to change the ‘intended’ contribution into a more ambitious final one when ratifying the Paris Agreement. But no major country has done that.”
The planet’s current policies put it on a trajectory to emit carbon dioxide at a rate between 58 and 62 gigatons in 2030. Pledges under the Paris Agreement would bring that down to a range between 52 and 57 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Keeping the planet’s temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius would require limiting greenhouse gas emissions between 31 and 44 gigatons per year.
In response, the report called for strong climate mitigation efforts before the year 2020, at which point the world will be on a warming trajectory that would be hard to reverse. This would require much stronger policies, deploying vastly more clean energy, reducing costs and coming up with new ways to cut greenhouse gases.
“The large number of nationally determined contributions was only possible because renewable energy has become so cheap,” Höhne said. “But also other areas see breakthroughs such as electric mobility, where the transition seems to happen faster than expected. In addition, the cost of air pollution is more and more factored into the economic evaluation and often point against coal.”
Philip Killeen, a research associate at the Worldwatch Institute, who was not involved with the UNEP report, noted that 2015 was a record year for the deployment of clean energy but that the pace of progress still isn’t fast enough to meet climate targets (ClimateWire, Oct. 28).
“We still need to double what we achieved in 2015 every year for the next 20 years,” he said.

Links

Earth ‘At Risk Of Ecological Breakdown’

EIN Presswire - Springer International

Earth's life support systems are at risk
The Earth is risking a major ecological breakdown that could eventually render it largely uninhabitable.
This is one of the warnings contained in "Surviving the 21st Century" a powerful new book released recently by global science publisher Springer International.
Our combined actions may be leading to "…a gross ecological breakdown that will strike humanity harder than anything in our experience", the book cautions.
This is absolutely a book about solutions – and opportunities. It is about hope – though a hope that is well-founded, on science and fact. — Julian Cribb
Author and science writer Julian Cribb says, "In the past week alone has come news that global populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles declined by 58 per cent between 1970 and 2012. From 20-30 per cent of known species now appear at risk of extinction.
"This is an extermination of life on Earth without precedent. The human impact is on track to exceed the catastrophe that took out the dinosaurs.
"Many people don't realise it, but our own fate is completely bound up with these other creatures, plants and organisms we heedlessly destroy. They provide the clean air and water, the food, the nutrient recycling, the de-toxing, the medications, the clothing and timber that we ourselves need for survival.
"Humans are now engaged in demolishing our own home, brick by brick. Every dollar we spend on food or material goods sends a tiny, almost-imperceptible signal down long industrial and market chains to accelerate the devastation.
"Together those signals are causing the very systems we ourselves need for survival to break down."
A recent study by Princeton University found oxygen levels in the Earth's atmosphere have fallen by 0.1 per cent in the past 100 years, probably due to land clearing, ocean acidification and burning of fossil fuels.
"Though it is still a small signal, it is another indicator of our ability to disrupt the Earth's life-support system," Cribb says.
The world is currently burning enough fossil fuels to raise its temperature by 4-5 degrees Celsius by 2100 – an event that will probably prove unsurvivable for the majority of large wild animals, and most humans too.
"Yet we're still arguing about whether its real and what we should do," he adds.
"Today humanity is facing ten huge existential threats, all of our own making. The good news is that we have the brains and the technologies to solve them – and to prosper from their solution.
"However we currently lack the collective will, the ability to co-operate and the institutions to save ourselves. That is a worry."
Drawing on the world's leading scientific thinkers, "Surviving the 21st Century" identifies systemic solutions for all of the ten major threats facing humanity, and actions which we must take both as a species and as individuals.
"This is absolutely a book about solutions – and opportunities. It is about hope – though a hope that is well-founded, on fact and science, not simply on belief, ignorance or wishful thinking. It's about understanding and facing up to the things which imperil out future, so that we can overcome them," Cribb says.
In the book he argues that by moving food production back into cities, using advance technologies and recycling of water and nutrients, humanity can re-wild 24 million square kilometres of the Earth's surface. This would help to end the 'sixth extinction' now taking place as well as locking up huge amounts of carbon causing climate change. It would create new jobs and new industries for both urban and rural populations.
'Surviving the 21st Century – Humanity's ten greatest challenges and how to overcome them', is published by Springer US and Springer International Publishing AGF, Switzerland.

Links

Show This Cartoon To Anyone Who Doubts We Need Huge Action On Climate Change

Vox - Alvin Chang | David Roberts


This is Earth. It's a crisp fall day. So why would you believe Earth is in a dire situation?


Let's look a little deeper. The brown area below represents all the fossil fuels — oil, coal, and natural gas — that humans have identified as recoverable with current technology. The black spot is what we're currently harvesting with mines and wells.

So what if, tomorrow, all the world leaders got together and decided to stop building new mines and wells?

And then we used all the fuel in existing mines and wells.What would that do to Earth?
It  would release about 1.1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Scientists have figured out that this scenario would almost certainly drive up the Earth's average temperature by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), relative to preindustrial levels. That's not a big deal, right?

Actually, it would be a massive catastrophe. The human suffering would be unthinkable.
When most of us think about Earth warming by 2 degrees, we think about it being, well, 2 degrees warmer.
But that's not quite right. First of all, it means Earth would get an average of 2 degrees warmer. This means some regions, especially on land, will get much hotter — far more than 2 degrees.
The Arctic, which houses much of the world's ice, would warm by almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit.
The US Southwest, already suffering from increased drought, could warm by almost 10 degrees Fahrenheit, enough to create near-permanent "superdroughts."
The other problem is that Earth's ecosystems would behave differently. For humans, it would mean rising sea levels, freshwater shortages, reduced agricultural productivity, food stress, and the conflicts and emigration that come in their wake.
A lot of people will die, and not because they burn to death. It'll be because we don't have enough food and water.
It would be like slightly heating up a fish tank, which is okay for the fish but kills the algae the fish eats.
All of this will be well underway by the time we hit 2 degrees — and the further we go past it, the worse it will get.
So we all agreed, in Paris, not to let it happen.
About 200 countries, including all the world's major emitters, agreed at a summit in Paris in 2015 that letting the planet warm beyond 2 degrees is unacceptable, and even 2 degrees is awful. We vowed to do our best to stop warming at 1.5 degrees — although most climate researchers believe that target is no longer realistic.
That's why we hear so much about efforts to stop warming at 2 degrees.
But how do we do it?
First, we figure out how much carbon dioxide we're allowed to emit
When we burn fossil fuels, we emit several harmful gases. But we focus on carbon dioxide for one reason: It stays in the atmosphere for centuries, accumulating and trapping heat.
This means we can calculate how much carbon dioxide it would take to warm the Earth a certain amount.
According to our best calculations, it would take about 843 billion tons of carbon dioxide to warm Earth about 2 degrees.

If  we decide to keep using fossil fuels at the same rate, we'll hit our limit in 21 years
Currently we emit about 39.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year — and that number is only rising. But if we were able to keep it at that amount, what would happen?
After one year, our mug would look like this:
It's not a huge hit. But after 21.5 years, we'd be here:
That's the year 2037.
If we reduce emissions until we get to zero in the year 2065, we still need to invent world-changing technology.
Let's say that over the next 49 years, we drive down our use of fossil fuels all the way to zero.
It's an optimistic long shot. But this is the scenario climate scientist Joeri Rogelj proposes:
The kicker is that even in this crazily ambitious scenario, we have to rely on "negative emissions" technologies that pull carbon out of the air and bury it.
The problem: We have no clue if that's even possible.
Negative emissions technologies have not been tested or proven at any scale. We are literally gambling our species' future on the idea that we're going to be able to invent it and scale it up to enormous size ... by 2065.

Let's say, somehow, we get to no emissions in 2065 — and we invent this world-changing technology.
We've saved the world, right?
Not definitely. It would only give us a 50 percent chance at staying under 2 degrees.

Remember when we all agreed in Paris that 2 degree warming cannot happen? This long shot is what they were committing to.
Given the evidence, the global community has committed not to let the Earth warm by more than 2 degrees. In doing so, countries committed to rapidly reducing and eliminating all production and use of coal, oil, and natural gas and to inventing and scaling up negative emissions technology.
The problem is they don't seem to realize that's what they committed to.
No country is taking this long shot seriously. This means Earth will probably warm past 2 degrees. It's terrifying.
Right now, the cool fall wind is flowing through windows, and everything feels fine. Nothing seems dire. So it's understandable why many of us don't feel this is an urgent political priority.
But here's the reality: We're heading toward a global catastrophe that will cause unthinkable human suffering. The data is clear: We need to turn the ship now — or else we'll never be able to avoid disaster.
But no country is taking this 2 degree goal seriously. It hasn't even been mentioned in a presidential debate.
Instead, we're focusing on threats that feel more imminent. It's just the way most humans are calibrated. So our true test is figuring out a way to comprehend that a mortal threat is on the horizon, and act accordingly.

Links