Inaction on climate change costly, report warns

[NickB79]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2014/01/17/united-nations-says-lag-confronting-climate-woes-will-costly/gLzdaRqCFvl1RwnVVWqwXJ/story.html

Nations have dragged their feet in battling climate change so much that the situation has grown critical and the risk of severe economic disruption is rising, according to a UN draft report. Another 15 years of failure to limit carbon emissions could make the problem virtually impossible to solve with current technologies, the experts found.

Delay would probably force future generations to develop the capability to suck greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and store them underground to preserve the livability of the planet, the report found. But it is not clear whether such technologies will ever exist at the necessary scale, and even if they do, the approach would probably be wildly expensive compared with taking steps now to slow emissions.

Like I've been saying here on DU for a while now, we are just a few short years away from being so far over the carbon cliff that we're screwed every which way.

And FYI, carbon emissions are still growing at a rate of 2.2% per year for the past decade, twice the rate they were at in the 1990's. With that in mind, I'd say it's even odds we won't have carbon emissions under control in only 15 years.

[yeoman6987]

1. How can we change the minds of people

I have spoken to people at work (I work at a University in Maryland) about climate change. They believe in it but after the cold spell we just had they aren't as convinced as they once were. Even liberals are turning away even though the cold weather we just had really had nothing to do with climate change. We are on an uphill battle especially when we have people wanting to cut benefits for people. They aren't as positive on climate change as they were three or even five years ago. Hopefully the tide will turn or we will be in deep trouble.

[kristopher]

2. How is addressing climate change like going to war?

Harnessing governments, business and finance for a green revolution
Forget the futile climate debate. Let's focus on driving business, political and financial leaders to act, writes Stephen Kinnock

Stephen Kinnock
Guardian Professional, Wednesday 15 January 2014 07.41 EST

The connection between human activity and global warming is now as clear and proven as the link between smoking and cancer, so let's stop this futile debate about the accuracy of the science of climate change and focus instead on building a green growth revolution.

Storms have been hitting people's homes, towns and livelihoods – and the headlines – this new year, with many saying they've seen nothing like it in decades. In September last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its latest report, a measured and meticulous piece of work based on the contributions of thousands of experts, which concluded that the climate is changing, humans are responsible, and more extreme weather events are heading our way.

It's revealing to look back on the media chatter that the IPCC report generated, and to note how much time and energy was spent questioning its scientific credibility. This is puzzling, particularly if you benchmark the thoroughness of the IPCC's work against the sort of flimsy intelligence that formed the basis of the case for other big judgment calls that have been made in recent times (Weapons of mass destruction as the justification for the invasion of Iraq is one example).

This tells us that game-changing decisions are not taken on the basis of objectively verifiable statistics or painstakingly compiled analytics; they are, in fact, driven by a will to act. In particular, by the will to act of business and political leaders.

So, where is that leadership going to come from? ...

more at: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/government-business-finance-green-revolution

[kristopher]

3. Bloomberg's write-up isn't tailored to your predisposed ideas...

Climate Protection May Cut World GDP 4% by 2030, UN Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-16/climate-protection-may-cost-4-of-world-gdp-by-2030.html


Countries are trying to divide up by 2015 the burden of emissions limits needed to..

The cost of holding rising temperatures to safe levels may reach 4 percent of economic output by 2030, according to a draft United Nations report designed to influence efforts to draft a global-warming treaty.

Most scenarios that meet the 2-degree Celsius (3.6-degree Fahrenheit) cap on global warming endorsed by world leaders require a 40 percent to 70 percent reduction in heat-trapping gases by 2050 from 2010 levels, according to the third installment of the UN’s biggest-ever study of climate change. The world would need to triple the share of renewables, nuclear power and carbon-capture and storage to meet that goal.

“This report shows that 2 degrees is still technically possible and ought to remain the primary policy target” for climate negotiations that intend to produce a global agreement in 2015, said Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.

A draft of the study was obtained by Bloomberg from a person with access to the documents who asked not to be identified because it hasn’t been published. A spokesman for the panel declined to comment on the document.

Posted by xchrome http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762354

[NickB79]

4. It does indeed support many of my concerns

For example:

* Greenhouse gas emissions grew by an average 2.2 percent per year between 2000 and 2010. Global emissions since 1970 outstrip those for the preceding 220 years.

* Just 10 nations accounted for 70 percent of emissions in 2010.

* Industrial emissions from developing nations now exceed those from industrialized ones, though high income nations are net importers of carbon dioxide emissions embedded in goods from abroad.

* Pledges for emissions cuts by 2020 that were made by the world’s biggest emitters in 2010 don’t correspond to the ‘‘lowest cost” emissions reduction trajectory and would lead to greenhouse gas concentrations of as much as 650 ppm by 2100.

We're still heading towards a cliff with our foot firmly on the gas pedal.

And as you know, I find the idea that 2C of warming is somehow an acceptable level for global civilization to carry on entirely bullshit: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/06/two-degree-global-warming-limit-is-called-a-prescription-for-disaster/

New, extensive study of the paleoclimate record going back 50 million years by Hansen and others now shows that the two-degree target for global temperature rise “is a prescription for disaster,” Hansen said here at a news conference during the American Geophysical Union meeting.

[NickB79]

5. I can see why my link pisses you off, Kris

From my OP:

While the spread of technologies like solar power and wind farms might give the impression of progress, the report said, such developments are being overtaken by rising emissions from fossil fuels over the past decade, especially in fast-growing countries like China. And one of the most important sources of low-carbon energy, nuclear power, is actually declining over time as a percentage of the global energy mix, the report said.

“The fundamental drivers of emissions growth are expected to persist despite major improvements in energy supply” and in the efficiency with which energy is used, the report declared.

[kristopher]

6. Shifting the goalposts is always a good way to be correct.

Your usual line of rhetoric is that there is nothing we can do. That is substantially different than a statement saying we have to do more. Of course we have to do more.
The ironic part about your position is that one of the biggest obstacles right now is that the nuclear power industry (as the face of the established energy system based on coal) is using their stranglehold over the political conservatives in key countries and sabotaging proven effective policies that have brought renewables to the point where they are actually capable of showing the rate of deployment we need.

I know that DUEE nuclear supporters love to stand on the logical construct that "even though by far the largest bloc of support for nuclear power is conservative, just because I support nuclear power doesn't mean I'm a conservative".

However what that ignores is that there is another logic found in the fact that this 'by far largest bloc' of conservative support for nuclear power also supports fossil fuels and also denies climate change.

The final aspect of the beliefs of the 'by far largest bloc' of support for nuclear power that is conservative, that supports fossil fuels, and that denies climate change, is that, in the mold crafted by Roger Ailes**, they spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the effort to deploy renewable energy with all kinds of specious facts and defective reasoning.

In my opinion, that leaves a pretty heavy burden of proof for the negative claims made by the liberal supporters of nuclear power (like yourself) who spend a great deal of their time trying to undermine renewable power.


** Roger Ailes Fox News Chief - Pronuclear & Antirenewable http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762504