Landmark UN Climate Change Report: Act Now To Avoid Climate Catastrophe | IFLScience

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/landmark-un-climate-change-report-act-now-to-avoid-climate-catastrophe/

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has unleashed their Special Report on the impact of global warming reaching 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
“This IPCC report is set to outline a rescue plan for humanity,”
“1.5°C is the new 2°C,”
If we stick to Paris Climate Agreement commitments, we could still see a global warming of about 3°C by 2100.

36 Comments

  1. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Nuclear not mentioned, I wonder why.

    Final call to save the world from ‘climate catastrophe’
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45775309

    It’s the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.

    Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.

    Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”.

    Reply
  2. Tomi Engdahl says:

    This is not fine
    https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/this-is-not-fine/?utm_source=tcfbpage&sr_share=facebook

    Decisions made by world leaders today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, the authors warn.

    “One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, co-chair of one of the report’s scientific working groups.

    Reply
  3. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
    https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-changeÄ

    A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change

    Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to a new report.

    The Carbon Majors Report (pdf) “pinpoints how a relatively small set of fossil fuel producers may hold the key to systemic change on carbon emissions,”

    https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240

    Reply
  4. Tomi Engdahl says:

    What Difference Does 0.5°C Of Global Warming Make? A Hell Of A Lot
    https://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-difference-does-05c-of-global-warming-make-a-hell-of-a-lot/

    The world has reached a fork in the road with two paths ahead: a planet that’s 2°C warmer than pre-industrial levels and a planet that’s 1.5°C warmer. But what difference can a measly 0.5°C really make? It turns out, a hell of a lot.

    Reply
  5. Tomi Engdahl says:

    New IPCC Report Outlines Ways to Limit Global Warming
    https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/new-ipcc-report-outlines-ways-to-limit-global-warming

    Already, human activity has caused the global average temperature to rise 1 °C above preindustrial levels. If nothing changes, temperatures will likely reach 1.5 °C above that baseline at some point between 2030 and 2052. Or, in a more extreme case, the global temperature could rise by 2 °C.

    A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summarizes the likely impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C, and shows how society could stop further progress toward 2 °C.

    Reply
  6. Tomi Engdahl says:

    In the IPCC’s pathways, for example, renewables supply 70 to 85 percent of electricity by 2050 and natural-gas plants equipped with carbon capture and storage produce another 8 percent, while coal would be almost entirely phased out.

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/environment/new-ipcc-report-outlines-ways-to-limit-global-warming

    Reply
  7. Tomi Engdahl says:

    OPINION COMMENTARY
    U.N. Ignores Economics Of Climate
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-ignores-economics-of-climate-1539125496

    New Nobel laureate William Nordhaus says the costs of proposed CO2 cuts aren’t worth it.

    The global economy must be transformed immediately to avoid catastrophic climate damage, a new United Nations report declares. Climate economist William Nordhaus has been made a Nobel laureate. The events are being reported as two parts of the same story, but they reveal the contradictions inherent in climate policy—and why economics matters more than ever.

    Reply
  8. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

    Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven’t been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.

    We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming.

    Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

    If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

    Reply
  9. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

    Next best actions are selling your car, avoiding flights and going vegetarian, according to study into true impacts of different green lifestyle choices

    The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child, according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions.

    Reply
  10. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Climate actions that lift people out of poverty are often most cost-effective
    https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/climate-actions-lift-people-out-poverty-are-often-most-cost-effective.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=share

    The most cost-effective climate change actions are also those that could help us achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs) such as ending poverty and hunger, according to Dr Keywan Riahi, director of the energy program of the International Institute Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria, who says the first step should be to cut our energy demand.

    He researches the link between climate and development and contributed to the IPCC assessment published on 8 October, which looked at the impact of global warming of a 1.5˚C increase and how to limit it to this level.

    Reply
  11. Tomi Engdahl says:

    UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It’s Actually Worse Than That.
    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html

    Just two years ago, amid global fanfare, the Paris climate accords were signed — initiating what seemed, for a brief moment, like the beginning of a planet-saving movement. But almost immediately, the international goal it established of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius began to seem, to many of the world’s most vulnerable, dramatically inadequate; the Marshall Islands’ representative gave it a blunter name, calling two degrees of warming “genocide.”

    should the world warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which it will do as soon as 2040, if current trends continue. Nearly all coral reefs would die out, wildfires and heat waves would sweep across the planet annually, and the interplay between drought and flooding and temperature would mean that the world’s food supply would become dramatically less secure.

    Avoiding that scale of suffering, the report says, requires such a thorough transformation of the world’s economy, agriculture, and culture that “there is no documented historical precedent.”

    What has been called a genocidal level of warming is already our inevitable future.

    it will not be possible to keep warming below two degrees Celsius — the level the new report describes as a climate catastrophe. As a planet, we are coursing along a trajectory that brings us north of four degrees by the end of the century. The IPCC is right that two degrees marks a world of climate catastrophe. Four degrees is twice as bad as that.

    Human experience and memory offers no good analogy for how we should think about those thresholds

    At two degrees, the melting of ice sheets will pass a tipping point of collapse, flooding dozens of the world’s major cities this century.

    proposing the imposition of a carbon tax many, many times higher than those currently in use or being considered — they propose raising the cost of a ton of carbon possibly as high $5,000 by 2030, a price they suggest may have to grow to $27,000 per ton by 2100. Today, the average price of carbon across 42 major economies is just $8 per ton.

    To avoid warming of the kind the IPCC now calls catastrophic requires a complete rebuilding of the entire energy infrastructure of the world, a thorough reworking of agricultural practices and diet to entirely eliminate carbon emissions from farming, and a battery of cultural changes to the way those of us in the wealthy West, at least, conduct our lives. And we need to do all of that in two, or possibly three, decades

    Reply
  12. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

    Biggest analysis to date reveals huge footprint of livestock – it provides just 18% of calories but takes up 83% of farmland

    The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.

    The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.

    Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans.

    “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.

    Beef results in up to 105kg of greenhouse gases per 100g of meat, while tofu produces less than 3.5kg

    The large variability in environmental impact from different farms does present an opportunity for reducing the harm, Poore said, without needing the global population to become vegan.

    Cutting the environmental impact of farming is not easy

    There are over 570m farms all of which need slightly different ways to reduce their impact. It is an [environmental] challenge like no other sector of the economy.” But he said at least $500bn is spent every year on agricultural subsidies, and probably much more: “There is a lot of money there to do something really good with.”

    Reply
  13. Tomi Engdahl says:

    At what point do we admit that geoengineering is an option?
    https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/14/at-what-point-do-we-admit-that-geoengineering-is-an-option/?sr_share=facebook&utm_source=tcfbpage

    In 1883, Krakatoa erupted, spewing volcanic ash and gas into the stratosphere, making clouds more reflective and cooling the entire planet by roughly 1° C that year. In 2018, the UN reported that human activity has already raised Earth’s temperature by 1°, and if we don’t do something drastic soon, the results will be catastrophic.

    The optimal solution is staring us in the face, of course; reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately this optimal solution is politically untenable and extremely expensive. A decade ago McKinsey estimated it would cost $1 trillion just to halve the growth of carbon emissions … in India alone.

    the cost of doing nothing — estimated at $20 trillion by Nature, which doesn’t include its toll on human lives

    but it’s a cost which seems to make the necessary political decisions impossible.

    There is another option. The root problem we face is not carbon concentrations but atmospheric temperature.

    We already know how to cool the planet without reducing carbon. The solution is so simple it’s almost laughable: just make our clouds a little more reflective, so they reflect more of the sun’s light, and thus reduce our heat. Volcanoes like Krakatoa do it all the time

    The Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991 cooled global temperatures by about half a degree Celsius for the next few years. A sulfur-aerosol project could produce a Pinatubo of sulfur dioxide every four years. The aerosol plan is also cheap

    Now, is this a good idea? Probably not. In the case of sulfur dioxide, definitely not; it will come back down as acid rain.

    this solution is so (relatively) cheap, estimated at less than a billion dollars a year, that an individual nation — or, heck, even an individual
    could make it happen.

    There are better geoengineering solutions. Simple seawater could brighten marine clouds with the same effect … for more money. But in general, is geoengineering a good idea? Again, probably not.

    People do generally concede that cloud manipulation is a better idea than doing nothing at all, in that at least it would buy us 25 years or more

    If we were to start geoengineering, we couldn’t stop.

    Doing nothing is not an option, or, at least, for nations like Bangladesh, it’s not going to stay an option for long. Doing the right thing as a species appears not to be an option either. That leaves us with this ugly hack.

    Reply
  14. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=fb_gu

    Stop obsessing with how personally green you live – and start collectively taking on corporate power

    Would you advise someone to flap towels in a burning house? To bring a flyswatter to a gunfight? Yet the counsel we hear on climate change could scarcely be more out of sync with the nature of the crisis.

    These pervasive exhortations to individual action — in corporate ads, school textbooks, and the campaigns of mainstream environmental groups, especially in the west — seem as natural as the air we breathe. But we could hardly be worse-served.

    While we busy ourselves greening our personal lives, fossil fuel corporations are rendering these efforts irrelevant. The breakdown of carbon emissions since 1988? A hundred companies alone are responsible for an astonishing 71%.

    The freedom of these corporations to pollute – and the fixation on a feeble lifestyle response – is no accident. It is the result of an ideological war, waged over the last 40 years, against the possibility of collective action.

    At the very moment when climate change demands an unprecedented collective public response, neoliberal ideology stands in the way.

    Neoliberalism has not merely ensured this agenda is politically unrealistic: it has also tried to make it culturally unthinkable. Its celebration of competitive self-interest and hyper-individualism

    Margaret Thatcher preached: “there is no such thing as society.”

    Studies show that people who have grown up under this era have indeed become more individualistic and consumerist.

    Neoliberalism has taken this internalized self-blame and turbocharged it. It tells you that you should not merely feel guilt and shame if you can’t secure a good job, are deep in debt, and are too stressed or overworked for time with friends. You are now also responsible for bearing the burden of potential ecological collapse.

    individual choices will most count when the economic system can provide viable, environmental options for everyone—not just an affluent or intrepid few.

    the con-job of neoliberalism: to persuade us to address climate change through our pocket-books, rather than through power and politics.

    Eco-consumerism may expiate your guilt.

    Reply
  15. Tomi Engdahl says:

    A Study Did NOT Actually Find That Vegetarianism Hurts The Planet
    It’s a lot more complicated than that.
    https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_567072d7e4b0e292150f95a4

    Reply
  16. Tomi Engdahl says:

    https://www.hs.fi/mielipide/art-2000005864146.html

    Uusiutuva energia ei ole ilmastolle aina hyväksi
    Vain osa uusiutuvan energian tuotannosta vähentää päästöjä tehokkaasti. Bioenergian nettopäästöt voivat jopa olla suurempia kuin fossiilisen energian päästöt

    uusiutuvan energian lisäys ei sinänsä takaa hiilidioksidipäästöjen vähenemistä.

    Ilmastoahdistus on kannustanut tuottamaan mahdollisimman paljon kaikkea uusiutuvaa energiaa. Energian uusiutuvuus on arvokas asia, mutta kaikki uusiutuvat ener­gia­lähteet eivät ole hiilineutraaleja tai päästöttömiä.

    MITÄÄN energiaa ei voida tuottaa täysin haitattomasti. Kaikki tuotantotavat kuluttavat luonnonvaroja, ja energiantuotanto kuormittaa aina ilmastoa – vähän tai paljon, suoraan tai välillisesti. Tämä on osa­selitys siihen, miksi päästöt pienentyvät hitaasti suuristakin panostuksista huolimatta.

    Kivihiileen verrattuna pellettien ja hakkeen päästöt energiayksikköä kohti ovat kuitenkin suurempia, ­eikä niiden nopeasta sitoutumisesta kasvustoon ole takeita.

    EU-komission tilaama raportti vuodelta 2016 osoittaa, että jäte­rasvoja lukuun ottamatta kasvi­peräisistä aineksista tehtyjen liikenteen biopolttonesteiden elinkaaren hiilidioksidipäästöt ovat tuntuvasti suuremmat kuin fossiilisen diesel­öljyn päästöt.

    Ilmastopoliittisia saavutuksia esitetään usein bruttopanostuksilla laitoksiin eikä ilmastohyödyistä kertovilla tuloksilla.

    Aurinko- ja tuulivoiman lisäyksestä puhutaan usein käyttäen hetkellisiä nimellisteholukuja vuosittaisten ­energiantuotantomäärien sijaan. Se on johtanut päättäjiä harhaan: katkeilevan tuotannon saatavuus on täystehoksi laskettuna vain 9–38 prosenttia nimellistehosta.

    fossiilisia polttoaineita tarvitaan uusiutuvien rinnalla vielä vuosikymmeniä.

    Tuulivoima näyttää olevan Suomessa ilmastovaikutuksiltaan uusiutuvista paras vaihtoehto, kunhan heikkojen tuulten aikaan on käytössä riittävästi vesivoimaa ja tuontisähköä. Aurinkovoimaa ei Suomen oloissa saada riittävästi sähköverkkoon, ja bioenergian käyttö saattaa olla nettovaikutuksiltaan ilmastolle jopa haitallista. Ilmastolle parhaat vaihtoehdot ovat vesi- ja ydinvoima.

    Reply
  17. Tomi Engdahl says:

    https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/tekniikka/energia/kumpi-on-parempi-ydinvoima-ranska-vai-hiili-saksa-saksalle-rokaletappio-sahkon-co2-paastoissa-6744372

    Ranskassa tuotetun sähkön co2-päästöt olivat 74 grammaa kilowattituntia kohden vuonna 2017.

    Saksalaistilastojen mukaan Saksan vastaava lukema on peräti 489 grammaa kilowattitunnilta

    Reply
  18. Tomi Engdahl says:

    https://www.nei.org/news/2018/mit-says-nuclear-needed-for-clean-energy-future

    Fast Facts:

    The study debunks the myth that meeting clean energy goals with 100 percent renewables will be straightforward, easy or affordable.

    The study finds that nuclear power will keep electricity prices low, particularly where there are constraints on carbon emissions. This supports previous studies that show that closing nuclear plants increases wholesale electricity prices.

    calls on the government to establish programs and funding for new nuclear technologies by sharing licensing costs, funding research and development, and providing electricity production tax credits.

    What NEI’s John Kotek has to say about the study: “MIT’s study highlights nuclear energy as a vital contributor in helping meet environmental goals across the globe, and MIT researchers are also explicit in linking the loss of existing nuclear power in the U.S. with increased costs for electricity consumers and setbacks for clean air targets. As our nation’s largest clean energy source, nuclear energy should continue to play a prominent role in any credible program to mitigate against carbon and air pollution.

    Reply
  19. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Climate Change Will Lead To Beer Shortages And Price Hikes
    https://www.iflscience.com/environment/climate-change-will-lead-to-beer-shortages-and-price-hikes/

    Sure, the ice caps might be melting, hundreds of animals could go extinct in the coming decades, and coral reefs might soon be a thing of the past, but at least we can enjoy a nice cool beer while climate change wreaks havoc on our planet, right? We wouldn’t count on it.

    A new study, published today in Nature Plants, has estimated that extreme drought and heatwaves sparked by climate change could dramatically decrease barley yields across the world. As a result, we will see global beer shortages, sharp falls in beer consumption, and surges in beer prices.

    Reply
  20. Tomi Engdahl says:

    How does Britain compare with the rest of the world when it comes to pollution?
    https://nam-dev-cdn.awspreprod.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/co2-emissions-per-capita-ranking/

    Countries that emit the most CO2 per capita
    Qatar – 35.73 tonnes

    Curacao – 30.43

    Latvia – 22.94

    Bahrain – 21.8

    United Arab Emirates – 19.31

    Trinidad and Tobago – 17.15

    Malaysia – 16.57

    Saudi Arabia – 16.4

    Guatemala – 16.25

    United States – 16.22

    Reply
  21. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Coal giants to build 3GW of solar in India
    https://www.pv-tech.org/news/coal-giants-to-build-3gw-of-solar-in-india

    Two of India’s coal giants will develop 3GW of solar in the country through a new joint venture company.

    NLC India and Coal India will invest around US$1.6 billion to install the new capacity within the next 15 months. The new JV will be split 50:50 between the two parties.

    Coal India has been set a mandate by the government to become zero carbon.

    Reply
  22. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Some Electric Car Drivers Might Spew More CO2 Than Diesel Cars, New Research Shows
    https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/10/17/0323232/some-electric-car-drivers-might-spew-more-co2-than-diesel-cars-new-research-shows?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot%2Fto+%28%28Title%29Slashdot+%28rdf%29%29

    bricko shares a report from Bloomberg with the caption, “Making batteries is a mess”:
    Beneath the hoods of millions of the clean electric cars rolling onto the world’s roads in the next few years will be a dirty battery. Every major carmaker has plans for electric vehicles to cut greenhouse gas emissions, yet their manufacturers are, by and large, making lithium-ion batteries in places with some of the most polluting grids in the world. By 2021, capacity will exist to build batteries for more than 10 million cars running on 60 kilowatt-hour packs, according to data of Bloomberg NEF. Most supply will come from places like China, Thailand, Germany and Poland that rely on non-renewable sources like coal for electricity.

    The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/the-dirt-on-clean-electric-cars

    New research shows some drivers might spew out less CO2 with a diesel engine.

    Reply
  23. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Why zero-emission hydrogen is not as green as it seems – something scientists want to change

    Hydrogen use doesn’t emit carbon but its production often does. That could soon change
    https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/hydrogen-use-doesn-t-emit-carbon-its-production-often-does-could-soon-change.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=share

    Hydrogen can be used to power cars, supply electricity and heat homes, all with zero carbon emissions. The snag is that the vast majority of hydrogen itself is derived from fossil fuels – a fact that scientists are now hoping to change. They plan to clean up production to kickstart a dedicated economy – something that has already found small-scale success in Scotland’s Orkney Islands.

    By generating hydrogen from electrolysis, biogas, or within solar reactors, these scientists are hoping to encourage the uptake of a clean hydrogen economy. In such an economy, hydrogen would be used to store the energy from renewables during periods of peak production, and then release it as electricity whenever – and wherever – demand is high.

    ‘The production of hydrogen from processes with a low or zero carbon-footprint is at the core of developing the hydrogen economy,’

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*