We're all DOOMED

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns

The world is likely to build so many new fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

Anything built from now on that produces carbon will continue to do so for decades to come, and this "lock-in" effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world's foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this infrastructure is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.

"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA), told the Guardian. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."

Every month now counts: if the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world's existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that "carbon budget", according to a new analysis by the IEA, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available "carbon budget" will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the "carbon budget" will be spoken for, according to the IEA's calculations.

Birol's warning comes at a crucial moment in international negotiations on climate change, as governments gear up for the next fortnight of talks in Durban, South Africa, from late November. "If we do not have an international agreement, whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door to [holding temperatures to 2C of warming] will be closed forever," said Birol.

But governments around the world are preparing to postpone yet again a speedy conclusion to the negotiations. Originally, the aim was to agree a successor to the 1997 Kyoto protocol, the only binding international agreement on emissions, after its current provisions expire in 2012. But after years of setbacks, an increasing number of countries – including the UK, Japan and Russia – now favour postponing the talks for several years.

Both Russia and Japan have spoken in recent weeks of aiming for an agreement in 2018 or 2020, and the UK has supported this move. Greg Barker, the UK's climate change minister, told a meeting: "We need China, the US especially, the rest of the Basic countries [Brazil, South Africa, India and China] to agree. If we can get this by 2015 we could have an agreement ready to click in by 2020."

Birol said this would clearly be too late. "I think it's very important to have a sense of urgency – our analysis shows [what happens] if you do not change investment patterns, which can only happen as a result of an international agreement."

Nor is this a problem of the developing world, as some commentators have sought to frame it. In the UK, Europe and the US, there are multiple plans for new fossil-fuelled power stations that would contribute significantly to global emissions over the coming decades.

The Guardian revealed in May an IEA analysis finding emissions had risen by a record amount in 2010 despite the worst recession for 80 years. Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuel, a rise of 1.6Gt on the previous year. At the time, Birol told the Guardian that constraining global warming to moderate levels would be "only a nice utopia" unless drastic action was taken.

Today's research adds to that finding, by showing in detail how current choices on building new energy and industrial infrastructure are likely to commit the world to much higher emissions for the next few decades, blowing apart hopes of containing the problem to manageable levels. The IEA's data is regarded as the gold standard in emissions and energy, and it is widely regarded as one of the most conservative in outlook – making today's warning all the more stark.

The central problem is that most of the industrial infrastructure already in existence around the world – the fossil-fuelled power stations, the emissions-spewing factories, the inefficient transport and buildings – are already contributing to the current high level of emissions, and will continue to do so for decades to come. Carbon dioxide, once released into the atmosphere, stays there and continues to have a warming effect for about a century, and industrial infrastructure is built to have a useful life of several decades at least.

Yet, despite intensifying warnings from scientists over the past two decades, the new infrastructure even now being built is constructed along the same lines as the old, which means that there is a "lock-in" effect – high-carbon infrastructure built today or in the next five years will contribute as much to the stock of emissions in the atmosphere as previous generations.

This "lock-in" effect is the single most important factor increasing the danger of runaway climate change, according to the IEA in its annual World Energy Outlook, published on Wednesday.

Climate scientists estimate that global warming of 2C above pre-industrial levels marks the limit of safety, beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible. Though such estimates are necessarily imprecise – warming of as little as 1.5C could cause dangerous sea level rises and an increased risk of extreme weather – the limit of 2C is now inscribed in international accords, including the partial agreement signed at Copenhagen in 2009, by which the biggest developed and developing countries for the first time agreed to curb their greenhouse gas output.

Another factor likely to increase emissions is the decision by some governments to abandon nuclear energy, following the Fukushima incident in Japan early this year. "The shift away from nuclear worsens the situation," said Birol. If countries turn away from nuclear energy, the result could be an increase in emissions equivalent to the current emissions of Germany and France combined. Much more investment in renewable energy will be required to make up the gap, but how that would come about is unclear at present.

Birol also warned that China – the world's biggest emitter – would have to take on a much greater role in combating climate change.

For years, Chinese officials have argued that as the country's emissions per capita were much lower than those of developed countries, it was not required to take such stringent action on emissions. But the IEA's analysis found that within about four years, China's per capita emissions were likely to exceed those of the European Union.

In addition, by 2035 at the latest, China's cumulative emissions since 1900 are likely to exceed those of the EU, which will further weaken Beijing's argument that developed countries should take on more of the burden of emissions reduction as they carry more of the responsibility for past emissions.

In a recent interview with the Guardian, China's top climate change official, Xie Zhenhua, called on developing countries to take a greater part in the talks, while insisting that developed countries must sign up to a continuation of the Kyoto protocol – something only the European Union is willing to do. His words were greeted cautiously by other participants in the talks.

The IEA's World Energy Outlook, published annually, provides the touchstone for global energy trends. This year's outlook is unusually gloomy, following one of the deepest recessions on record for the developed world. The IEA said: "There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is under way. Although the recovery in the world economy since 2009 has been uneven, and future economic prospects remain uncertain, global primary energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO2 emissions to a new high. Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400bn."

Meanwhile, an "unacceptably high" number of people – about 1.3bn – still lack access to electricity. If people are to be lifted out of poverty, this must be solved – but providing people with renewable forms of energy generation is still expensive.




World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns | Environment | guardian.co.uk
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
And the alternative is destroying the world economy. That is going to cause serious devastation to most life forms on the planet as billions of people attempt to ward off starvation not to mention putting a serious dent in your welfare cheque.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
And the alternative is destroying the world economy. That is going to cause serious devastation to most life forms on the planet as billions of people attempt to ward off starvation not to mention putting a serious dent in your welfare cheque.

 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
And the alternative is destroying the world economy. That is going to cause serious devastation to most life forms on the planet as billions of people attempt to ward off starvation not to mention putting a serious dent in your welfare cheque.

And those who don't starve will probably die from obesity. :smile:
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,239
11,367
113
Low Earth Orbit
Geo-influence? Never heard of it.
Geo-engineering is the large-scale engineering of the environment to combat the effects of climate change – in particular to counteract the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Plenty of geo-engineering going on.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I think Peter Kent recently said something like: "Well we won't do anything until the other major emitters do something about it.."

Before that the U.S. and China said: "Well we won't do anything until the other guy does something.."

So, basically, no one is going to do anything about it.

Which is a shame. Maybe Saskatchewan will pave the way -- oh.. oh nevermind that now, lol
 

gore0bsessed

Time Out
Oct 23, 2011
2,414
0
36
People thought Dinosaurs were less intelligent than Humans but Dinosaurs didn't go extinct because of their own self-destructive behaviour.
Our species demise will literally be our own fault, we'll be looked upon as modern day neanderthals by future species. :lol:
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I think Peter Kent recently said something like: "Well we won't do anything until the other major emitters do something about it.."

Before that the U.S. and China said: "Well we won't do anything until the other guy does something.."

So, basically, no one is going to do anything about it.

Why would we?... This argument is way dead, and as the iconic and venerable greenie-messiah Suzuki once bleated, "the debate is over". Well, he was right, but what he never bargained on is that the debate didn't finish up with the answer that he wanted.

At this point, all you're doing is wondering why Canada isn't the first kid on the block to climb atop a high bridge over a shallow river and dive in head first into the rocks just to prove how shallow the water really is.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Why would we?... This argument is way dead, and as the iconic and venerable greenie-messiah Suzuki once bleated, "the debate is over". Well, he was right, but what he never bargained on is that the debate didn't finish up with the answer that he wanted.

At this point, all you're doing is wondering why Canada isn't the first kid on the block to climb atop a high bridge over a shallow river and dive in head first into the rocks just to prove how shallow the water really is.
Yup! We're doomed.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Kent says new $149-million investment addresses climate change "reality"

The federal government will spend $148.8 million over the next five years to expand existing programs that help the country deal with impacts of climate change, Environment Minister Peter Kent said on Tuesday.

The funding would extend and expand 10 programs across nine federal departments to help communities "frame a credible, science-based response to the impact that climate change has and will have on our economy, our health, our security and in particular, our northern and aboriginal communities," Kent told a lunch time crowd at a downtown Toronto hotel.

The federal government has been repeatedly criticized by its own watchdog, the federal environment commissioner, as well as environmental groups for not doing enough to help protect the country from extreme weather and dramatic changes caused by global warming. Critics continued to urge it to take on a leadership role, even after it spent nearly $86 million in climate-adaptation investments over the past four years to help all parts of the country develop expertise and strategies to cope with the ongoing change.

NDP environment critic Megan Leslie suggested that ongoing efforts to slash hundreds of jobs inside of Kent's department could interfere with obtaining results from the newly announced investments.

"The minister's announcement on new funding is questionable at best," said Leslie. "Given the massive staffing cuts announced at Environment Canada, who exactly is going to run the programs that this newest funding will supposedly create?"
 

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
So many crappy predictions have been laid on us over the recent past that it's so easy now to look at them and realize how ridiculous they all are. Much of what is happening in the world today has happened before and I mean before "man" was ever a real factor so I don't even blame us.