|Impact of national climate pledges (aka INDCs) on world’s greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalents (CO2e). Source: Climate Progress via ClimateCrocks.com (modified).|
From the Austrian-German Climate and Energy College via Climate Denial Crock of the Week, an assessment that the proposed fossil fuel emission reductions committed to by the individual countries coming into the Paris summit now past would not meet the stated 2 degrees C (3.6 F) above "pre-industrial" (i.e., 1880s) temperatures required limit to avoid extremely dangerous climate change -- even though the summit agreed to peak fossil fuel emissions as soon as possible (i.e., 2020 at the latest) and an even more rigorous goal of 1.5 C (2.7 F) by the year 2100. This goals will require the removal of carbon from the atmosphere by anthropogenically-created carbon sinks (examples, industrial carbon capture and storage, biochar). Yet they trust that the goal is going to be achieved. Since the planned reductions were not enhanced by or at the conference, what confidence do they have in the Paris agreement?
The Paris Agreement writes history.
The crucial Article 4 is: “In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. ”In our assessment, the Paris Agreement rises to the challenge of limiting dramatic climate change. It sets the framework for a chance to limit multi-metre sea-level rise in the long-term. Individual post-2020 country targets put on the table before Paris are insufficient to the task of limiting warming to 2°C, let alone 1.5°C. The so-called INDCs [intended nationally determined contributions] have not been enhanced here in Paris (they were never meant to be enhanced here because the main focus was on the global agreement). Thus, there exists a big gap between INDCs and the global ambition needed. This will need to be bridged by upgraded mitigation contributions from countries in the years to come.
Joe Romm of Climate Progress notes that the INDCs only run through 2025 or 2030 and that further meqasures will be required after that.
The world appears to have bought itself a little time in the fight to avoid climate catastrophe, according to a new analysis.Virtually every major country has made pledges to limit or reduce carbon pollution in advance of the Paris climate talks this December. These pledges generally end in 2025 or 2030, and so they only matter if the world keeps ratcheting down its greenhouse gas emissions in future agreements until we get near zero by century’s end. Otherwise we will blow past the 2°C line of defense against very dangerous-to-catastrophic global warming, and hit 3.6°C warming by 2100.The good news, as you can see [in the graph at top], is that the INDCs have bought us another five to 10 years of staying close to the 2°C path. I asked Andrew Jones, one of the systems-thinking savants behind Climate Interactive, if that was correct and he said, “Yep, about seven years.” By “staying close” I mean staying close enough to the 2°C path that it remains plausibly achievable — though (obviously) politically still very, very challenging.
Local officials in North Carolina rejected a solar panel farm there, because the idiot townspeople were afraid that it would suck up all the energy from the sun -- and under no uncertain terms, let the officials know it. HAHAHA what a bunch of maroons!
According to the Roanoke Chowan News Herald, the Woodland Town Council rejected a proposal to rezone a section of land north of town to M2 (manufacturing) from RA (residential/agricultural), essentially denying approval of a solar farm.
One of the residents, Jane Mann, expressed concerns that if the town allowed the solar farm, it would somehow prevent photosynthesis in the local plants.
Bobby Mann stated that solar farms would suck up all the energy from the sun and businesses would not come to Woodland.
Another resident, Jean Barnes expressed concerns over the fact that the town would not benefit from the farms.
Over the past couple of decades, we've been adding renewables (bio, wind, solar) to our energy source mix but have been maintaining or reducing the percentages for hydro and nuclear power. Oil, gas, coal still command the same lion's share of about 5/6ths it held in 1997. And the negotiators of the Paris Agreement think we'll decarbonise by 2050. Willi at Robertscribbler noted on this subject that it would require three halvings of current fossil-fuel use. That, plus by my calculation a moderate (50%) rise in renewables above present. And it's doable. t'll be tough and will cause economic dislocations and hardships because of our extreme fossil-fuel dependency, but it can get done.
Well easier said than done because the biggest hurdle is political; and we all know who controls politics, and we all know who's telling people to consume more, more, more!
The Paris climate deal is, potentially, an important first step toward addressing climate change. But some of the headlines have been wildly overstated, saying the treaty marks the "end of the fossil fuel era."
That's awfully premature. Oil, gas, and coal still make up about 86 percent of the world's energy supply — a fraction that has barely budged since 1997. Until that drops sharply, we can't really declare the end of the fossil fuel era:
|Source: BP SRoE 2015 via Vox.com.|
Yes, there are some genuinely hopeful signs that this is changing. Solar and wind power consumption is growing at 15.9 percent per year, whereas coal, oil, and gas are growing at less than 1.7 percent per year. But renewables are still rising from a tiny base, and in many cases can't yet offer the reliability or versatility of fossil fuels. By and large, oil, gas, and coal continue to rule our world.
And Common Dreams has noted that to meet the Paris Summit's goal of 1.5 degrees C (2.7 F) by 2100, we would need to have a wartime mobilization of resources -- just like during Second World War when the consumer economy was put on hold and all resources that were available to the Government went to the War Effort. Like I said before, the biggest hurdle to getting this done is political -- or do people think the to-be-bankrupted fossil fuel companies will just take this lying down? But at least some people in the Global Warming activist community recognises the urgency of the problem.
We believe humanity can still prevent civilization-destroying global warming – but only if we undertake a WWII-scale Mobilization to restore a safe climate immediately. We need to transition off of fossil fuels and carbon-intensive agriculture as soon as humanly possible. That means an emergency restructuring of the entire economy at wartime speed to achieve net zero emissions in the U.S. by 2025, net zero emissions globally by 2030, as well as an urgent effort to draw down the excess carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.
And speaking of politics, OMG a lot of people in the US are so fucking STUPID! AND they VOTE.
Slate notes that 30% of Republican voters (41% of Trump voters), 19% of Democrat voters support bombing Agrabah the city depicted in the animated Disney film Aladdin.
Apparently this is for real: PPP, which is known for asking cheeky/provocative questions in its polls, asked voters if they would support bombing Agrabah—the city* depicted in the animated Disney film Aladdin—during an otherwise straightforward survey, and some said yes.
And from NPR.org: more American stupidity!
1 In 4 Americans Thinks The Sun Goes Around The Earth
And the US Government announced plans to contribute peanuts, relatively, to a climate change fund at the Paris summit:
Last week, at a critical point in the Paris negotiations on global climate change, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States would commit $800 million annually to help developing nations adapt to a warming climate and move to cleaner energy. $800 million doubled the prior US pledge, and the announcement may have helped seal the deal.
$800 million is a great deal of money. But it is actually less than US taxpayers provided in the past year to each of five major for-profit college companies — all of which have been under investigation in recent years by federal and state law enforcement agencies for deceiving their students, lying to government regulators, and other abuses.
Of course, decarbonisation will come with a price. If it means the end of electricity, we could end up without civilization as we know it. Or even civil conduct to and consideration for each other! In reference to "Arborgeddon," a Hallowe'en 2011 storm:
Want to know what life is like without electricity? It’s the end of modern society. Nobody could get gas, because the pumps wouldn’t work. People were fighting (reports of someone pulling a gun) at gas stations that were open. Food spoiled (fortunately it was cold so that didn’t happen too quickly) and stores were closed. There was no heat for many and there was a thick haze in the Farmington Valley from all of the fires in fireplaces and wood stoves. People were becoming unruly and agitated and couldn’t cope. We are more vulnerable than people realize.