31/01/2017

3 Things You Need To Know About The Science Rebellion Against Trump

National Geographic -  Laura Parker | Craig Welch

The new president's first moves on science spur a Twitter war and prompt a march.
Ice is melting in much of the Arctic thanks to rising global average temperatures. The new presidential administration is facing heat over its early response. Photograph by Paul Nicklen, National Geographic Creative
The Trump administration was merely minutes old when all references to climate change disappeared from the White House website. Later that day, the National Park Service Twitter account was briefly shutdown because the new president was miffed about a retweet of side-by-side aerial photographs that clearly showed the crowd at former President Obama's 2009 inauguration was larger than the crowd at President Trump's.
Trump was so peeved, he personally ordered acting Park Service director Michael Reynolds in a phone call to come up with additional photographs that would prove the media "had lied in reporting the attendance had been no better than average," the Washington Post reported. Reynolds sent more photos to the White House. But they did not show larger crowds.
So began an unprecedented rebellion inside government agencies that quickly transformed from a duel about presidential popularity into the fate of the government's work on climate change.
By the end of Week One, public affairs officials in agencies where climate scientists work had received directives aimed at silencing them—at least temporarily. The Environmental Protection Agency was ordered, Reuters reported, to take down its climate change page from its website—although that order was shelved in the backlash that followed. Grants and contracts at EPA were also frozen, although there are reports that that edict may also be rescinded.
"Taken together, what we've seen over the first five days is completely unprecedented," says Peter Gleick, a water scientist and co-founder of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California. "I have seen nothing like it in my lifetime and I've been around for a while."


Climate Change 101 With Bill Nye

The Trump administration is hardly the first new executive branch to attempt to influence scientific research that contradicts political party orthodoxy. Under President George W. Bush, Interior Department officials sometimes overruled agency scientists working on endangered species issues. The Obama administration was accused by scientists of underreporting damage from the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and at times required public-relations chaperones when scientists talked to the press.
But the speed and ferocity with which controls on science appeared in the opening days of the Trump administration set off the fury on Twitter and inspired scientists from Maine to California to join a scientists' march on Washington.
More than a dozen "rogue" unofficial Twitter accounts launched to voice resistance to the orders. Some claimed to be tweeting on behalf of unidentified federal scientists at the Park Service, NASA, the U.S. Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Agriculture and Health and Human Services Departments—although no one knows for sure the identities of the people posting the tweets.
Scientists are not known for waging political protest en masse. But they have become so alarmed by what has played out, they are taking a page from the Women's March in Washington that drew an estimated 470,000 protesters, with protests in at least 80 other countries the day after Trump was sworn into office.
"The situation seems more uncertain than ever," says Bethany Wiggin, a University of Pennsylvania humanities professor who directs the Penn Library Data Refuge and has been leading the effort to collect and preserve federal climate and environmental data.
A former NPS employee tweeted climate change information on an official Badlands National Park Twitter account this week, in defiance of a Trump order. Photograph by Annie Griffiths, National Geographic Creative
"We hear there is a gag order and then there is a claim that the gag order has been revoked, and then it is denied that it was ever made. Everything seems incredibly in flux," Wiggin says. "What seems certain is that we have an anti-science administration and an anti-factual and anti-research administration that does not understand what it needs to do."
David Doniger, director of climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says he's less concerned about the Twitter war than efforts to expunge climate information from government websites.
"The most dramatic thing is the turn from full acceptance of climate science to this calculated waffling from all the Cabinet nominees who testified on the Hill," he says. "They are all saying, 'the climate is changing, we just don't know whether it is human influence or how much. That still amounts to climate denial."
Whether intended or not at the start-up of the Trump administration, the question of how the president handles climate change has now become an urgent question to settle. Doniger says the point isn't that EPA contracts were frozen, it's what happens next: "What will be more telling is how they change what's contracted for and what tasks the agency is going to be allowed to do and not be allowed to do."
Below are three takeaways from the tumultuous first week:

Muzzling Agencies Inspires A Scientists' March On Washington
Doubters of science in general date back to Galileo. Climate scientists have been an outspoken voice for as long as the government has been studying climate science.
But instructions to limit communications to the public that were passed on to public affairs officials at the EPA, Agriculture Department, and, according to the Washington Post, the National Institutes of Health, have fed fears that the Trump administration will attempt to filter climate science through a political lens.
"Attacks on climate change are nothing new," Gleick says. "They have always come from the fringe, peripheral groups and individuals. Now it looks as though marginal groups have control of the steering wheel."
Meanwhile, the march, which began as a suggestion on Facebook, has blossomed into a full-force organisational effort, with a web page and activists working to set it up. A date will be announced possibly next week. The March for Science Twitter account has 288,000 followers.
"This has just developed in the last 48 to 72 hours. It's really snowballing," says Jacquelyn Gill, one of the march organisers and a University of Maine paleoecologist who studies how extinction affects biodiversity. "What prompted this is the idea that climate science in particular will be targeted. It's not about cost-cutting. The entire United States science and medical research budget is less than two percent of the federal budget. This is clearly agenda driven."
Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma's attorney general, appears at a confirmation hearing before Congress as Trump's pick for the head of the EPA. Conservationists have criticised Pruitt's record. Photograph by Gabriella Demczuk, The New York Times, Redux
The Park Service Became The Unlikely Hero Of The 'Rebellion'
The Park Service is one of the least controversial and most popular federal agencies because its primary task is to take care of the nation's parks. But in the wake of the flap about the size of the inauguration crowd, a former Park Service employee at the Badlands National Park in North Dakota defied President Trump—setting off a broader resistance that quickly spread to other federal agencies.
The Badlands former employee, who still had access to the Park Service's official Twitter account, posted tweets about rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. One of three posts said: "Today, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. #climate."
By the time those posts were deleted on January 24, the Badlands Twitter account had some 60,000 new followers.
Then, a new account was born—AltUSNatParkService—which used the Park Service logo and identified itself as the "Unofficial #Resistance team of U.S. National Park Service." As of Friday morning, it had 1.24 million followers.
There are now more than a dozen alt-agency Twitter accounts, all posting a combination of climate science facts and taunts at Trump. Although these rogue accounts claim to represent agency employees, it is impossible to confirm who set the accounts up and is actively tweeting.
A Park Service employee who asked to remain anonymous for fear of being fired told National Geographic that agency workers are concerned that there will be reprisals from the administration, which has been embarrassed by the public show of resistance to the commander in chief—even though it is impossible to determine if the alt-sites are operated by actual government employees or internet trolls. But, the employee said, one tweet in particular posted on the alt-Park Service account suggests the account may indeed be operated by at least one rebellious Park Service employee because it refers to the White House by its official name, President's Park, because the residence is part of the national park system—a tidbit not widely known outside the Park Service.
"Reports of an unidentified orange haired mammal close to President's Park," the tweet says. "Possibly invasive species. DC animal services have been notified." (Read about the new species of moth named after President Trump.)

A Glimmer Of Hope?
It's still early and missteps are not uncommon as new administrations get up and running. The contract freeze at the EPA may, in the end, turn out to be "a tempest in a teapot," Doniger says. Although signals so far have put the scientific community on red alert, it may be too early to reach any conclusion other than the administration's start-up is in disarray.
Despite less-than-compelling testimony about climate change from both Rex Tillerson and Scott Pruitt, Trump's picks to lead the State Department and EPA, a glimmer of hope shone through that at least one of the newcomers understands what's at stake. Billionaire banker Wilbur Ross, the administration's nominee to head the Commerce Department, outlined his views in a letter to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat whose home state of Florida is one of the most vulnerable places to sea-level rise on Earth.
While Ross, who lives part of the year in Palm Beach County, Florida, echoed his fellow Cabinet colleagues in demurring on the cause of climate change, he agreed to focus on addressing the impacts. "Science should be left to the scientists," Ross said.

Links
at No comments:

Abbott To PM: Scrap RET Or Face Fury

The Australian - Simon Benson

Former Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott. Picture: Braden Fastier
Tony Abbott has unleashed anothe­r critique on Malcolm Turn­bull’s leadership, using his Achilles heel — climate change — to accuse the government of treating voters like “mugs” if it did not scrap the renewable energ­y target.
In his second swipe at the Prime Minister in as many weeks, his predecessor said the Coalition would lose all credibility if it did not move to quickly rein in the push to generate more renewable energy.
In a speech yesterday to a Young Liberals conference in Adelaide­, Mr Abbott accused the government of “losing touch” with its traditional supporters.
The escalation of rhetoric contained a charge that the government not only lacked leadership in Mr Turnbull but that the Coal­ition was at risk of elect­oral collapse. It also reveals Mr Abbott is willing to risk further alienation from his own government.
“The past year has shown us what happens when mainstream parties lose touch with their supporters,” he said. “That was the big lesson of 2016. And heed it we must if we are to make a success of the coming year.”
While the RET has resonance among conservative MPs, some have privately expressed frustration that Mr Abbott rejected calls from colleagues when he was leader to do the same.
“Labor wants to more than double the renewable energy target­ to 50 per cent. That means a $50 billion overbuild of unnecessary wind turbines costing each household $5000 — and that’s just for starters,” he said.
“But before we get too self-congratulatory, rather than making power less expensive, our own policy is to subsidise Alcoa to keep it in business; our own policy is to lift renewable power from 15 per cent to 23 per cent within four years at the cost of $1000 per household.
“This is where the public are not mugs. We can’t credibly attack Labor merely for being worse than us.
“This is why our first big fight this year must be to stop any further mandatory use of renewable power.”
The comments build on remarks Mr Abbott made two weeks ago but indicate that he has no intention of remaining silent as the government struggles to regain momentum after a horror start to the year.
They come as Mr Turnbull is due to deliver a major speech to the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday.
The Prime Minister will becoming increasingly frustrated with Mr Abbott’s intervention on the RET, knowing that the government is unlikely to go as far as Mr Abbott is suggesting.
Senior Liberal MPs said it was no coincidence that Mr Abbott was goading the Prime Minister over climate change, as it was the issue that lost Mr Turnbull the leadership to Mr Abbott in 2009.
Mr Abbott, in his speech, recognised that he was responsible for the RET as it stands now but claimed he had brought it down from Labor’s target. He added that the government now risked subsidising renewables by bailing out stranded industries.
“Australia has almost limitless reserves of clean coal and gas. We should have the world’s lowest power prices. Instead, we’re making it harder and harder to use coal and gas through the renewable energy target — so that power is getting more expensive and less reliable,” he said.
“When the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, the power doesn’t flow. So until there’s baseload power from low-cost batteries, trying to rely on renewables is mad. My government reduced the renewable energy target from 27 to 23 per cent — but after the lights went out in South Australia, it’s obvious that it’s still too high.
“Alcoa is in trouble, Arrium is in trouble, Port Pirie is in trouble, even Roxby Downs has a problem.
“Why is it OK for everyone to get the benefit of Australian coal and gas except us? Why is it OK for other countries to open new power stations using Australian coal but wrong for us?
“So let’s stop forcing people to use the most expensive power and make it easier for them to use the cheapest.”
Mr Abbott also barely concealed his frustration and a belief that, had he fought the last election as leader, he would have won, claiming the Coalition had taken the conservative base for granted and paid the price.
“The British electorate rejected their prime minister’s advice — and that of the political class generally — to leave the European Union,’’ he said.
“The American electorate rejected all the mainstream candidates to catapult into the White House an outsider feeding off grievances that are deeply felt but rarely acknowledged by the system.
“And here in Australia, the resurgence of One Nation is a warning to our Liberal-National coalition that the conservative vote can’t be taken for granted.
“What used to be called the silent majority, Hillary Clinton’s ‘deplorables’, might often lack a voice but they sure haven’t lost their vote.
“Voters will punish governments and parties that they think have lost the plot — and so they should.
“So that’s our challenge for 2017: to tackle real problems in a meaningful way so that people’s lives get better, not worse — and to do so in ways that make sense to our strongest supporters.”

Links
at No comments:

Changing Climate, Not Humans, Killed Australia’s Massive Mammals

Smithsonian.com - 

But that mass extinction could help us predict what today’s human-wrought climate change may bring
An illustration of Australia's past megafauna. (Illustration by Peter Trusler © Australian Postal Corporation 2008)
If you think Australia is full of weird creatures now, you should have seen it at the end of the last Ice Age. There were wombats the size of Volkswagons, koala cousins that resembled the mythical Drop Bear and enormous, venomous lizards larger than today’s Komodo dragons. But why did these fantastic beasts disappear? After a decade of debating this question, a new study is helping to revive a hypothesis that had previously been pushed aside.

What happened in Australia is just one part of a global story in the decline of the world’s massive mammals. From that island continent through Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas, the close of the Ice Age 12,000 years ago saw the worldwide downfall of many large, charismatic creatures from the giant ground sloth to the beloved woolly mammoth. In every case, both humans and a warming climate have been implicated as major suspects, fueling a debate over how the extinction played out and what—or who—was responsible.

As far as Australia goes, humans have been promoted as prime culprits. Not only would early-arriving aboriginals have hunted megafauna, the argument goes, but they would have changed the landscape by using fire to clear large swaths of grassland. Some experts point to Australia’s megafauna crash after human arrival, around 50,000 years ago, as a sure sign of such a human-induced blitzkrieg.

For example, a region called the Sahul—which included Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea during the Ice Age—lost 88 species of animal that weighed over 220 pounds. These included oversized kangaroos that strutted rather than hopped, real-life ninja turtles with tail clubs and flightless birds twice the size of today’s emus.

The problem is, there’s no hard evidence that humans were primarily to blame for the disaster that befell these giants. Judith Field, an archaeologist at the University of New South Wales who focuses on megafauna and indigenous communities in Australia and New Guinea, says the hunting hypothesis has hung on because of its appealing simplicity. “It’s a good sound bite” and “a seductive argument to blame humans for the extinctions” given how simple of a morality fable it is, she says. But when it comes to hard evidence, Field says, the role of humans has not been substantiated.

So what really happened? The picture is far from complete, but a paper by Vanderbilt University paleontologist Larisa DeSantis, Field and colleagues published today in the journal Paleobiology argues that the creeping onset of a warmer, drier climate could have dramatically changed Australia’s wildlife before humans even set foot on the continent. And while this event was natural, it is a frightening portent of what may happen to our modern wildlife if we do nothing to stop the scourge of today's human-caused climate change.
Cuddie Springs is the only site in mainland Australia that has produced insitu fossil evidence of the co-existence of humans and megafauna, as shown here by the discovery of a flaked stone artifact and the bone of a giant flightless bird. (Judith Field / University of New South Wales)
The researchers focused on a spot in southeastern Australia known as Cuddie Springs, which turned out to be an ideal place to interrogate the fate of the continent’s megafauna. Initial scientific forays focused on searching for fossil pollen to reconstruct ancient environments, Field says. But in the process, researchers also found fossils and archaeological artifacts that indicated megafauna and humans lived alongside each other there for 10,000 years or more.

“The combination of the fossil bone, the pollen record and the archaeology make this a really unique opportunity to investigate the relationship between the three,” Field says.

Even better, DeSantis says, Cuddie Springs boasts older beds of fossils deposited long before human arrival. This provided an opportunity to document changes over a longer span of time, “and assess dietary responses to long-term shifts in climate,” she says. To that end, the paleontologists focused on fossils laid out in two horizons—one 570,000-350,000 years old and the other between 40,000 and 30,000 years old. Drawing on chemical clues about diet and microscopic damage to marsupial teeth found in those layers, the researchers were able to document who was around and what they were eating at each layer.

If you were able to take a time machine between the two time periods, you’d be forgiven for thinking that you had moved through space as well as time. “Cuddie Springs, around 400,000 years ago, was wetter,” DeSantis says, and there was enough greenery for the various herbivores to become somewhat specialized in their diets. Kangaroos, wombats and giant herbivores called diprotodontids browsed on a variety of shrubby plants, including saltbush. By 40,000 years ago, a warmer, drying climate had transformed the landscape and the diets of the mammals on it.

By late in the Ice Age, the plant-eating marsupials were all eating more or less the same thing, and the sorts of plants that were better at holding water for these mammals were much rarer. Saltbush, for example, became less palatable because, DeSantis says, “if you haven’t been able to find water for days, the last thing you are going to eat is salty food that requires you to drink more water.” The desert became drier, resources became scarce, and competition for the same food ramped up.

Altogether, DeSantis says, this suggests “climate change stressed megafauna and contributed to their eventual extinction.”

Knowing how climate change impacted Australia’s mammals thousands of years ago isn’t just ancient history. NASA recently reported that we’ve just gone through the hottest year on record in an ongoing string of exceptionally warm years. The only difference is that now, our species is driving climate change. “Australia is projected to experience more extreme droughts and intense precipitation events,” DeSantis says, including a projected temperature increase of around 1-3 degrees Celsius by 2050, thanks to Homo sapiens and our forest-razing, fossil-fuel-burning, factory-farm-dependent lifestyles.

Looking to the past may help us get ready for what’s coming. “Data from Cuddie Springs suggest that there is likely a tipping point beyond which many animals will go extinct,” DeSantis says. We’re on track to play out such a catastrophe again—and today’s changing climate can’t be halted or reversed, the least our species can do is prepare for it. “I always learned in school that the importance of studying history is to make sure that history doesn’t repeat itself,” DeSantis says.

Looking at the ghosts of climate change past gives us a preview of what’s coming—and what we might lose if we do not act.

Links
at No comments:

30/01/2017

Government Facing Legal Action Over Failure To Fight Climate Change

The Independent - Ian Johnston

Lawyers say ministers have been in breach of legal requirements to come up with a plan to make major cuts to the UK's fossil fuel emissions for years – and further delays in its publication could be the final straw
The ongoing delay is potentially serious because it means industry and investors will have less time to plan for the changes that would be required. Getty
The Government is facing legal action over its failure to come up with a plan to dramatically reduce the use of fossil fuels in order to meet the UK's international commitments in the fight against climate change.
Britain has agreed to cut emissions by 57 per cent by 2032 but is currently nowhere near meeting that goal.
The latest expert report predicted the target would be missed by 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide – the equivalent of all the greenhouse gases currently produced by industry.
The Government's Emissions Reduction Plan was supposed to have been ready at the end of last year but the publication date was first put off until February and then again to the end of March.
The Independent can now reveal the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), which is responsible for climate change after Theresa May abolished the dedicated department, is no longer standing by this latest deadline.
Under the 2008 Climate Change Act, the Government has a legal duty to come up with ways to meet its carbon reduction targets.
Environmental legal activists at ClientEarth had already put Theresa May on notice that it was considering legal action over the Government's lack of progress on the issue, telling the Financial Times it had been breaking the law for several years.
And climate lawyer Jonathan Church said if the March deadline was missed this could prompt them to go to court.
"We've made it clear that under our analysis, the UK Government is already in breach of the Climate Change Act because its plans don't deliver the emissions reductions the Act demands," he told The Independent.
"If that remains the case come April, after many months of delay, that may be the moment to bring a legal challenge."
ClientEarth has already successfully sued the Government for failing to come up with a plan to cut air pollution to within legally allowed standards.
Barry Gardiner, shadow climate change minister, said he believed the Government was now breaking the law.
The 2008 Climate Change Act "demands" that the Government must produce an Emissions Reduction Plan "as soon as is reasonably practicable", he said, adding: "They are clearly in breach of the statute."
He criticised climate change minister Nick Hurd, who had assured him that the March deadline would be met.
Mr Gardiner confronted Mr Hurd about a potential delay to the plan in the House of Commons on 23 January when the Government's Industrial Strategy report was published. It said the emissions plan would be published "in 2017", rather than "early 2017" as previously stated.
But Mr Gardiner said Mr Hurd had told him: "No, no Barry, it's still our intention to publish by the end of March. That's just loose wording on the part of the officials."
"I said, 'Can I quote you on that?' and he said, 'Oh yes,'" Mr Gardiner said.
"What it means is neither the officials nor the minister know when this is going to come out or how they are going to meet the targets."
He said he believed Mr Hurd, known to be a strong supporter of action to address climate change, would "like to have it out as soon as possible, but his officials simply cannot get it together".
"In order to do this properly, you need cooperation between Transport, Communities and Local Government, the Cabinet Office, Defra as well as BEIS… at least five departments," Mr Gardiner said.
"Because the key areas we are failing on are not actually energy, power production and renewables. It's actually energy efficiency and the transport sector. Housing and transport are key elements of this strategy.
"My view is nobody in those departments is prepared to play ball with them. Nick Hurd is the minister in charge of the brief. He should be damn well making sure that it happens – it's his job to drive it."
He said he did not want to call for Mr Hurd's resignation "at this stage" because the Government had not actually said it would miss the March deadline.
And he added if Mr Hurd did quit it "would probably mean you ended up with somebody worse who didn't even want to reach the March deadline".
The ongoing delay is potentially serious because it means industry and investors will have less time to plan for the changes that would be required, increasing the cost of making them.
Environmentalists and the car industry, a key source of carbon emissions, found themselves united in calling for the Government to get a move on.
Tamzen Isacsson, of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said: "The Government's Emissions Reduction Plan promises to build on its commitment to accelerating take-up of ultra-low emission vehicles, so we welcome its publication as soon as possible.
"Plug-in electric, hybrid and hydrogen cars will deliver even greater improvements in emissions, but this market is still small – meaningful growth will require continued support through infrastructure development, incentives and a tax regime that will stimulate consumer demand."
And Gareth Redmond-King, of conservation charity WWF-UK, said: "We need a plan that gives certainty to the renewables industry, to house-builders, to electric car manufacturers – to all the companies that will invest in the technologies and infrastructure that will not only tackle climate change, but will bring jobs and growth the UK as a result.
"The longer the Government leaves to publish that plan, the harder it becomes to cut emissions in time; any slippage beyond expected publication in March should give us serious cause for concern."
When The Independent asked a BEIS spokesperson to confirm the March deadline would still be met, she refused to answer and insisted a question be emailed so it could receive a formal response.
Asked if the Emissions Reduction Plan was still on course to be published by the end of March, BEIS said: "Our emissions reduction plan will set out how we will reduce emissions through the 2020s and send an important signal to the markets, businesses and investors.
"We are investing the time now to undertake critical preparatory work to ensure we get this right. This includes engaging across businesses, industry and other stakeholders on the shared challenge of moving to a low-carbon economy."
It is understood the Government is working to get the report published "as soon as possible".

CIA director nominee Mike Pompeo refuses to accept NASA's findings on climate change

But Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and Environment, echoed remarks made by Mr Hurd at a BEIS committee hearing earlier this month that it was important to get the plan right, rather than rushing publication.
And he said one "major factor" was likely to be the amount of time civil servants are having to devote to the prospect of leaving the European Union.
"If it doesn't come out in March, it will be unfortunate," he said.
"But most important of all, it's got to be credible.
"I suspect the delay is a combination of: it's going to be a challenge to come up with the right policies and there's a drag effect from having to worry about Brexit."

Links
at No comments:

China Builds World's Biggest Solar Farm In Journey To Become Green Superpower

The Guardian - 

Vast plant in Qinghai province is part of China’s determination to transform itself from climate change villain to a green energy colossus
Longyangxia Dam Solar Park – the 850MW plant has the capacity to power up to 200,000 households. Photograph: Tom Phillips for the Guardian
High on the Tibetan plateau, a giant poster of the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, guards the entrance to one of the greatest monuments to Beijing’s quest to become a clean energy colossus.
To Xi’s right, on the road leading to what is reputedly the biggest solar farm on earth, a billboard greets visitors with the slogan: “Promote green development! Develop clean energy!”
Behind him, a sea of nearly 4m deep blue panels flows towards a spectacular horizon of snow-capped mountains – mile after mile of silicon cells tilting skywards from what was once a barren, wind-swept cattle ranch.
“It’s big! Yeah! Big!” Gu Bin, one of the engineers responsible for building the Longyangxia Dam Solar Park in the western province of Qinghai, enthused with a heavy dose of understatement during a rare tour of the mega-project.
The remote, 27-square-kilometre solar farm tops an ever-expanding roll call of supersized symbols that underline China’s determination to transform itself from climate villain to green superpower.
Built at a cost of about 6bn yuan (£721.3m) and in almost constant expansion since construction began in 2013, Longyangxia now has the capacity to produce a massive 850MW of power – enough to supply up to 200,000 households – and stands on the front line of a global photovoltaic revolution being spearheaded by a country that is also the world’s greatest polluter.
“The development of clean energy is very important if we are to keep the promises made in the Paris agreement,” Xie Xiaoping, the chairman of Huanghe Hydropower Development, the state-run company behind the park, said during an interview at its headquarters in Xining, the provincial capital.
Xie said that unlike Donald Trump, a climate denier whose election as US president has alarmed scientists and campaigners, he was convinced global warming was a real and present danger that would wreak havoc on the world unless urgent action was taken.
“When I was a child, rivers usually froze over during the winter; heavy snowfall hit the area every year, so we could go skiing and skating … people weren’t very rich, and nobody had a fridge, but you could still store your meat outside,” the Qinghai-born Communist party official remembered. “We cannot do that any more.”
Sheep graze amid the panels at Longyangxia Dam Solar Park in China’s Qinghai province. The plant has the capacity to produce 850MW of power. Photograph: Tom Phillips for the Guardian
Anders Hove, a Beijing-based clean energy expert from the Paulson Institute, said that as recently as 2012 solar power was shunned as a potential source of energy for China’s domestic market because it was seen as too expensive.
No more. Costs have since plummeted and by 2020 China – which is now the world’s top clean energy investor – hopes to be producing 110GW of solar power and 210GW of wind power as part of an ambitious plan to slash pollution and emissions. By 2030, China has pledged to increase the amount of energy coming from non-fossil fuels to 20% of the total.
Earlier this month, meanwhile, China’s energy agency vowed to spend more than $360bn on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind by 2020, cutting smog levels, carbon emissions and creating 13m jobs in the process.
“The numbers are just crazy,” said Amit Ronen, director of the George Washington University’s GW Solar Institute, who described feeling “awed” by the scale of the Chinese solar industry during a recent trip to the country.
Activists now hope Beijing will up the ante once again following Trump’s shock election.
Amid fears the billionaire US president will water down attempts by his predecessor, Barack Obama, to fight global warming, campaigners are calling on China’s rulers to seize the mantle and position their country as the world’s number one climate leader.
“As Mr Trump drops Obama’s legacy, Mr Xi might establish one of his own,” Greenpeace campaigner Li Shuo told the Guardian on Wednesday .
That campaigners are now looking to China for green leadership underlines the once unimaginable changes that have taken place in recent years.
While China remains the world’s biggest emitter, thanks to its toxic addiction to coal, it has also become an unlikely figurehead in the battle against climate change.
Longyangxia Dam Solar Park in China’s Qinghai province. Photograph: Tom Phillips for the Guardian
Last September campaigners hailed a major victory in the war on global warming when China and the US jointly announced they would formally ratify the Paris agreement.
“Our response to climate change bears on the future of our people and the wellbeing of mankind,” Xi said, vowing to “unwaveringly pursue sustainable development”.
Ronen said: “A decade ago, China’s attitude was: ‘You guys put all that carbon in the atmosphere growing your economy, we should be allowed to put a lot of pollution up there too to grow our economy. Now look at where we are.”
Sam Geall, the executive editor of China Dialogue, a bilingual website on the environment, said Beijing viewed having a climate change denying US president as a rare and unexpected opportunity to boost Chinese soft power by positioning itself as the world’s premier climate change fighter.
“[China sees it as] an opportunity for them to show leadership,” he said. “I’ve already heard that from people who work in environment bureaucracy in China. They see this as an opportunity for China to step up.”
Ronen said China’s renewable revolution, which has seen sprawling solar and wind parks spring up across its western hinterlands, was part of a dramatic political U-turn that culminated in Beijing throwing its weight behind the Paris climate accord last year.
He said part of the explanation was air pollution – repeated episodes of toxic smog have convinced Beijing it must take action to quell public anger – and part was climate change.
“They are very much impacted by a lot of these climate change weather patterns that are particularly troublesome: drought in the north, flooding they are very vulnerable to,” Ronen said.
But Paulson Institute’s Hove said the key driving force behind China’s low carbon quest was economic.
“Most of the things that China is doing related to the environment are generally things that China … wants to do for the economy as well,” he said, pointing to Beijing’s desire to rebalance the economy away from investment-led heavy industry-focused growth while simultaneously making itself the key player in an “industry of the future” and guaranteeing its own energy security.
Hove said Beijing saw a “huge investment opportunity” in exporting low-carbon technology such as high speed rail, solar power or electric vehicles to developing nations in Africa, south Asia and Latin America. “This is a 20-30 year mission to develop [clean] markets,” he said.
A recent report captured how China was already dominating the global clean energy market, pointing to billions of recent investments in renewables in countries such as Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan and Vietnam.
Xie, the Huanghe chairman, said his company was now making its first steps into Africa with solar and hydro projects under development in Ethiopia.
“We are actively going global,” he said, warning that the developing world could not copy the west’s dirty development model without bringing about “the destruction of the world”.
Geall said one indication of whether China was prepared to become the world’s premier climate leader would be if it was seen helping to finance more low-carbon projects beyond its own borders – such as a huge Chinese-built solar park in Pakistan.
“You’d hope to start seeing more of those sorts of projects around the world being financed … rather than [China being] just a source of cheap finance for dirty energy projects.”
Not all are convinced China is ready or even willing to become the world’s top climate leader in a post-Trump world.
Zhang Junjie, an environmental expert from Duke Kunshan University, believed China would stick to its Paris commitments out of self-interest, particularly since the fight against global warming empowered its environmental agencies to crack down on toxic smog despite strong resistance from vested interests.
“[But] if China needs to do more, to commit more, I don’t expect that is likely,” Zhang added, noting that China wanted to be a climate leader but not the climate leader. “Leadership is not just power … it is responsibility.”
With China’s economy losing steam, Zhang said tightening regulations on greenhouse gas emissions further would inflict “major trouble” on its manufacturing sector. China’s clean industries were not sufficiently developed to provide jobs for all those who would be made unemployed as a result. “I would say, don’t count on [China to fill the gap left by the US],” he said. “China has its own troubles now.”
China’s push to develop renewables has not been entirely plain sailing either, with concerns about over-capacity, falling demand for electricity and curtailment, the amount of energy that is produced but fails to make it to the grid.
Hove said despite the rapid growth of the sector, wind still accounted for just 4% of China’s electricity last year and solar for about 1%. Government subsidies meant many of the biggest solar and wind parks had been built in “sub-optimal” locations such as Qinghai, Gansu and Xinjiang, far from the southern and eastern metropolises where the energy was most needed.
Those behind the world’s largest solar park admitted obstacles such as energy wastage and transmission had yet to be overcome, but said there was no looking back as China forged ahead towards a low-carbon future.
“New energy is surely the future ... It’s hard to predict the future but I believe that solar energy will account for 50% of the total in 50 years,” said the engineer Gu.
Xie said authorities in Qinghai were now so confident the future of China was green that they were planning two massive new solar parks on the Tibetan plateau, with the capacity to produce 4GW of power.
In a sign of the central government’s support for the renewable revolution, Xi recently visited Xie’s company, urging staff to “make every reasonable effort to develop the PV industry”.
Xie, who hosted the Chinese president, scoffed at Trump’s suggestion that climate change was a Chinese hoax and said such claims would do nothing to dampen his country’s enthusiasm for a low-carbon future.
“Even if President Trump doesn’t care about the climate, that’s America’s point of view,” he said. “The Chinese government will carry out and fulfil its international commitments as they always have done in the past, and as they are doing now in order to try to tackle climate change.
Xie concluded: “I don’t care what Mr Trump says – I don’t understand it and I don’t care about it. I think what he says is nonsense.”

Links
at No comments:

Victoria To Take On Turnbull With New Climate Target In Wake Of Hazelwood Closure

Fairfax - Adam Morton

The Victorian government will pledge to cut the state's greenhouse gas emissions by up to a fifth by 2020, putting it at odds with Canberra as the state positions itself as the national leader on tackling climate change.
The target – a reduction of 15 to 20 per cent – will be achievable only because of the closure of the Hazelwood coal power station in March, announced by its French-majority owners last year. But it will also require other cuts through energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

Melbourne trams to run on solar power
Energy, Environment and Climate Change Minister Lily D'Ambrosio says Melbourne's more than 400 trams will be powered by Victoria's first large-scale solar plant, set to be built by the end of 2018.

It deepens the divide on climate between the state Labor and the Turnbull Coalition government, which will meet a less exacting 2020 target and has been sharply critical of the cost of Victoria's ambitious renewable energy policy.
Victorian Energy, Environment and Climate Change Minister Lily D'Ambrosio said 2016 was the hottest year on record, and the state wanted to maximise job and investment opportunities through a forward-thinking approach to tackling the problem.
"The Paris agreement has been set and Victoria will continue to lead," she said.
"We hope that Malcolm Turnbull will stand with Victoria rather than climate deniers like Donald Trump and Cory Bernardi."
The announcement effectively reintroduces a target introduced by Labor seven years ago under then premier John Brumby. That target – a 20 per cent cut below 2000 levels – was scrapped under his Liberal successor Ted Baillieu.
The new target is based on 2005 emissions levels, which are little changed today. The interim target will be made easier to meet by the closure of the ageing Hazelwood plant, which is responsible for about 13 per cent of Victoria's greenhouse pollution and up to a quarter of its electricity.
The Hazelwood coal plant will shut in March. Photo: Eddie Jim
Though other coal plants are likely to increase generation, it is expected the state's emissions will fall by about 10 per cent overnight.
The state aims to have zero net emissions by 2050. Targets for 2025 and 2030 are promised in 2018.
The Codrington windfarm in south-west Victoria.
Asked if the state was just relying on Hazelwood shutting to meet the 2020 goal, Ms D'Ambrosio said the target reflected "a range of factors within the changing energy market". She cited the growth of renewable energy and an energy efficiency target, which offers discounts on electricity-saving products.
Renewable energy targets set last year aim to nearly triple clean energy in less than a decade (specifically, 25 per cent by 2020 and 40 per cent by 2025, up from 14 per cent last year), though they are not expected to have much impact on emissions until next decade.

Premier Daniel Andrews and and Minister Lily D'Ambrosio called for voluntary emissions pledges last year. Photo: Penny Stephens
Ms D'Ambrosio will on Sunday also announce that:
  • More than 2400 businesses, local governments, community groups and schools have made commitments to cut emissions following a call for voluntary pledges.
  • A target for state government departments of a 30 per cent cut by 2020, compared with 2015 levels.
  • Victoria has joined the global Under2Coalition of state and city governments working to avoid 2 degrees warming.
Spring Street v Capital Hill
The Victorian government is contrasting its stance with that of the Prime Minister, who starts the year under pressure from competing directions on climate change and energy.
An Environment Department review this year will consider how to meet the Turnbull government's 2030 commitment of a 26-28 per cent cut below 2005 levels. Chief Scientist Alan Finkel reported that several analyses have found existing policies are not fit for purpose and will need to be upgraded.
Mr Turnbull is also facing calls from some Coalition MPs calling for climate policies to be wound back – and possibly for Australia to walk away from the global Paris deal – in the wake of Mr Trump's election as US President.
It comes against a backdrop of concern about the energy reliability as coal plants close, and warnings from energy and business leaders that there is no national policy to guide investment in a modern electricity system.
Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg said, rather than chest-beating about their own targets, the Andrews government would better serve Victorians "by getting into sync with the Commonwealth's more considered approach, which places a priority on energy security and affordability while transitioning to a lower emissions future".
Victorian Opposition environment spokesman Brad Battin said Premier Daniel Andrews was expecting businesses to foot the bill to meet the new targets. "The Coalition supports positive, proactive environment policy but not at the expense of electricity security and jobs," he said.
Environment Victoria chief executive Mark Wakeham welcomed the target, but said achieving it would require pollution limits on coal-fired generators so they did not just increase emissions when Hazelwood shuts, and an ambitious energy efficiency strategy.
"The fact that our new target may be weaker than the original target highlights the delays and damage caused by the lack of bipartisanship on climate change," he said.

While in Washington ...
Reports last week suggested Mr Trump was preparing executive orders to drastically reduce US involvement in the United Nations and review, and potentially walk away from, multilateral treaties such as the Paris climate deal.
More than 100 countries last year ratified the Paris agreement, agreeing to aim to keep global warming this century well below 2 degrees.
Meanwhile, the planet continues to warm. The world's major meteorological organisations have declared 2016 the third year straight to set a new benchmark for average global heat, a trend they overwhelmingly attribute to greenhouse gases.

Links
at No comments:

29/01/2017

How the World Passed A Carbon Threshold And Why It Matters

YaleEnvironment360 - Nicola Jones

Last year marked the first time in several million years that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 passed 400 parts per million. By looking at what Earth's climate was like in previous eras of high CO2 levels, scientists are getting a sobering picture of where we are headed.

Last year will go down in history as the year when the planet's atmosphere broke a startling record: 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide. The last time the planet's air was so rich in CO2 was millions of years ago, back before early predecessors to humans were likely wielding stone tools; the world was a few degrees hotter back then, and melted ice put sea levels tens of meters higher.
"We're in a new era," says Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography's CO2 Program in San Diego. "And it's going fast. We're going to touch up against 410 pretty soon."
There's nothing particularly magic about the number 400. But for environmental scientists and advocates grappling with the invisible, intangible threat of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, this symbolic target has served as a clear red line into a danger zone of climate change.
When scientists (specifically, Ralph Keeling's father) first started measuring atmospheric CO2 consistently in 1958, at the pristine Mauna Loa mountaintop observatory in Hawaii, the CO2 level stood at 316 parts per million (ppm), just a little higher than the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. 400 was simply the next big, round number looming in our future.
But as humans kept digging up carbon out of the ground and burning it for fuel, CO2 levels sped faster and faster toward that target. In May 2013, at the time of the usual annual maximum of CO2, the air briefly tipped over the 400 ppm mark for the first time in several million years. In 2014, it stayed above 400 ppm for the whole month of April. By 2015, the annual average was above 400 ppm. And in September 2016, the usual annual low skimmed above 400 ppm for the first time, keeping air concentrations above that symbolic red line all year.
Concentrations of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere have risen rapidly since measurements began nearly 60 years ago, climbing from 316 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to more than 400 ppm today. Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Global temperatures have risen in parallel, with 2016 standing as the hottest year since records started in 1880: 2016 was about 1.1 degrees C (2°F) warmer than pre-industrial levels. The 2015 Paris Agreement, the latest international climate treaty, is aiming to keep the global temperature increase well below 2 degrees C, and hopefully limit it to 1.5 degrees.
At the current rate of growth in CO2, levels will hit 500 ppm within 50 years, putting us on track to reach temperature boosts of perhaps more than 3 degrees C (5.4°F) — a level that climate scientists say would cause bouts of extreme weather and sea level rise that would endanger global food supplies, cause disruptive mass migrations, and even destroy the Amazon rainforest through drought and fire.
Each landmark event has given scientists and environmentalists a reason to restate their worries about what humans are doing to the climate. "Reaching 400 ppm is a stark reminder that the world is still not on a track to limit CO2 emissions and therefore climate impacts," said Annmarie Eldering, deputy project scientist for NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite mission at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Passing this mark should motivate us to advocate for focused efforts to reduce emissions across the globe.

The Modern Measure
Back in the 1950s, scientist Charles David Keeling (Ralph Keeling's father) chose the Mauna Loa volcano site to measure CO2 because it is a good spot to see large atmospheric averages. Rising to 3,400 meters (11,155 feet) in the middle of the ocean, Mauna Loa samples an air mass that has already been well mixed from the inputs and outputs of CO2 far below and far away. And the site, being a volcano, is surrounded by many miles of bare lava, helping to eliminate wobbles in the measurement from the "breathing" of nearby plants.
The start of Keeling's effort was well timed: the 1950s was also when man-made emissions really began to take off, going from about 5 billion tons of CO2 per year in 1950 to more than 35 billion tons per year today. Natural sources of CO2, from forest fires to soil and plant respiration and decomposition, are much bigger than that — about 30 times larger than what mankind produces each year. But natural sinks, like plant growth and the oceans, tend to soak that up. The excess produced by mankind's thirst for energy is what makes the CO2 concentration in the air go up and up. Once in the air, that gas can stay there for millennia.
The so-called Keeling Curve that plots this rise has an annual wiggle because the entire planet inhales and exhales like a giant living being. In the Northern Hemisphere (where the Mauna Loa observatory is based, and also where most of the planet's landmass and land-based plants sit), the air in spring is filled with the CO2 released by soil microbes in the thawing snow, and by autumn the CO2 has been vacuumed up by a burst of summer plant life; hence the annual high in May and low in September.
While Mauna Loa has become the global standard for CO2 levels, measurements taken in other places have confirmed the Mauna Loa results. NOAA's network of marine surface stations, and even a monitoring station in the remote, pristine Antarctic, all passed the 400 ppm hurdle in 2016. NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 shows the planet hovering around 400 ppm, with variation from one place to another, mainly thanks to atmospheric circulation patterns.
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are now above 400 parts per million year-round globally. NOAA
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 last year surpassed 400 ppm at the South Pole. NOAA

The Long View
In the big picture, 400 ppm is a low-to-middling concentration of CO2 for the planet Earth.
Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide. Earth was very different back then: the Sun was cooler, our planet was in a different phase of its orbital cycles, and the continents were lumped together differently, changing ocean currents and the amount of ice on land. The planet was maybe as much as 10 degrees C (18°F) warmer than today, which might seem surprisingly cool for that level of greenhouse gas; with so many factors at play, the link between CO2 and temperature isn't always easy to see. But researchers have confirmed that CO2 was indeed a major driver of the planet's thermostat over the past 500 million years: large continental ice sheets formed and sea levels dropped when the atmosphere was low in CO2, for example.
Thanks to earth-shaking, slow-moving forces like plate tectonics, mountain building, and rock weathering — which absorb CO2 — atmospheric concentration of CO2 generally declined by about 13 ppm per million years, with a few major wobbles. As large plants evolved and became common about 350 million years ago, for example, their roots dug into the ground and sped up weathering processes that trap atmospheric carbon in rocks like limestone. This might have triggered a massive dip in CO2 levels and a glaciation 300 million years ago. That was eventually followed by a period of massive volcanic activity as the supercontinent ripped apart, spewing out enough CO2 to more than double its concentration in the air.
CO2 levels over the last 400 million years. The last time CO2 levels were as high as today's was about 3 million years ago. Foster et al/Descent into the Icehouse
The last time the planet had a concentration of 300 to 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere was during the mid-Pliocene, 3 million years ago — recently enough for the planet to be not radically different than it is today. Back then, temperatures were 2 degrees C to 3 degrees C (3.6 to 5.4°F) above pre-industrial temperatures (though more than 10 degrees C hotter in the Arctic), and sea levels were at least 15-25 meters higher. Forest grew in the Canadian north and grasslands abounded worldwide; the Sahara was probably covered in vegetation. Homo habilis (aka "handy man"), the first species in the Homo line and probably the first stone-tool users, got a taste of this climate as they arrived on the scene 2.8 million years ago. (Homo sapiens didn't show up until 400,000 years ago at the earliest.)
To find a time when the planet's air was consistently above 400 ppm you have to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago, when Earth was a very different place and its climate totally dissimilar from what we might expect today.
There's a lot of debate about both temperatures and CO2 levels from millions of years ago. But the evidence is much firmer for the last 800,000 years, when ice cores show that CO2 concentrations stayed tight between 180 and 290 ppm, hovering at around 280 ppm for some 10,000 years before the industrial revolution hit. (There have been eight glacial cycles over these past 800,000 years, mostly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit that run on 41,000 and 100,000 year timescales). This is the benchmark against which scientists usually note the unprecedented modern rise of CO2.
Frighteningly, this modern rise of CO2 is also accelerating at an unusual rate. In the late 1950s, the annual rate of increase was about 0.7 ppm per year; from 2005-2014 it was about 2.1 ppm per year.
Concentrations of atmospheric CO2 soared in recent decades as industrialized nations continued to pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and emissions in developing nations rose steeply. NOAA/Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Paleo records hint that it usually takes much longer to shift CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere; although researchers can't see what happened on time frames as short as decades in the distant past, the fastest blips they can see were an order of magnitude slower than what's happening today. These were typically associated with some major stress like a mass extinction, notes Dana Royer, a climatologist at Wesleyan University. During the end-Triassic extinction 200 million years ago, for example, CO2 values jumped from about 1,300 ppm to 3,500 ppm thanks to massive volcanic eruptions in what is now the central Atlantic. That took somewhere between 1,000 to 20,000 years. Today we could conceivably change our atmosphere by thousands of parts per million in just a couple of hundred years. There's nothing anywhere near that in the ice core records, says Keeling.

Future Scenarios
Though 400 seems a big, scary number for now, CO2 concentrations could easily pass 500 ppm in the coming decades, and even reach 2,000 by 2250, if CO2 emissions are not brought under control.
Predicting future CO2 levels in the atmosphere is complicated; even if we know what will happen to man-made emissions, which depends on international policies and technological developments, the planet's network of natural sources and sinks is vast and interlinked. Some plants grow faster in a carbon-rich world; deforestation takes some plants out of the equation; the ocean stores different amounts depending on its temperature and circulation.
If you completely ignore the questions of what society might do to curb emissions, and what the planet might do to suck them up, and just look purely mathematically at where the Keeling Curve is going, levels cross 500 ppm around 2050.
The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from 2013 made a more realistic estimate of what might happen, and what the temperature outcome would be.
In the IPCC's most pessimistic scenario, where the population booms, technology stagnates, and emissions keep rising, the atmosphere gets to a startling 2,000 ppm by about 2250. (All the IPCC scenarios presume that mankind's impact on the atmosphere levels out by 2300.) That gives us an atmosphere last seen during the Jurassic when dinosaurs roamed, and causes an apocalyptic temperature rise of perhaps 9 degrees C (16°F).
In the next-most-pessimistic scenario, emissions peak around 2080 and then decline, leading to an atmosphere of about 700 ppm and probable temperature increases of more than 3 degrees C.
In the most optimistic scenario, where emissions peak now (2010-2020) and start to decline, with humans actually sucking more carbon out of the air than they produce by 2070, the atmosphere dips back down below 400 ppm somewhere between 2100 and 2200 and the temperature increase is held under 1 degrees C in the long term.
Emissions scenario 1 projected concentrations of CO2 extending to the year 2500. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Emissions scenario 2 projected temperature increases extending to the year 2500. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Slowing Down
If man-made emissions were to magically drop to zero tomorrow, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would start to level out immediately — but it would probably take about a decade to detect this slowdown against the background of the natural carbon cycle, according to Keeling.
Even with zero emissions, getting back to pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm is "sort of a 10,000-year proposition," says Keeling. Atmospheric concentrations would drop relatively quickly at first, as the surface ocean sucked up a good chunk of the excess carbon in the air (that would take on the order of 100 years); then some atmospheric carbon would work its way into the deeper ocean (in about 1,000 years); then the planet's carbon cycle — for example, the weathering of rocks — would soak up most of the rest over about 10,000 years.
It's encouraging to see that, since 2014, total emissions have stayed basically flat despite continued growth in the global economy, mainly thanks to reduced coal burning in China. But steady emissions are a far cry from reduced emissions, zero emissions, or even "negative emissions" (where humanity uses technology to soak up more than we emit).
Real emissions plotted against the IPCC's projections of CO2 emissions and temperature increases through 2100. Global Carbon Project
The non-profit Global Carbon Project estimates that the planet's current trajectory of emissions is on track to meet the national commitments made as part of the Paris Agreement up to 2030, but not to meet the long-term goal of stabilizing the climate system below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. So that puts us somewhere in the middle zone of the IPCC's projections; right now it's hard to tell which long-term path we are heading for, although the most optimistic scenario — with emissions starting to decline significantly in the next few years — is arguably out of reach.
"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted… CO2 will need to be reduced… to at most 350 ppm," Columbia University climate guru James Hansen has said. We sailed past that target in about 1990, and it will take a gargantuan effort to turn back the clock.

Links
at No comments: