3 degrees: Chief scientist warns bigger rise in world's temperature will p

[WhiteTara]

This is a planetary crisis. When will we wake up to what is important? I wonder if we will.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article357783.ece
The world's temperature is on course to rise by more than three degrees Centigrade despite efforts to combat global warming, Britain's chief scientist has warned.

Sir David King issued a stark wake-up call that climate change could cause devastating consequences such as famine and drought for hundreds of millions of people unless the world's politicians take more urgent action.
snip
According to computer-modelled predictions for the Government, a three-degree rise in temperatures could put 400 million more people at risk of hunger; leave between one and three billion more people at risk of water stress; cause cereal crop yields to fall by between 20 and 400 million tons; and destroy half the world's nature reserves.

Environmentalists warned that Greenland's ice cap could melt, raising sea levels by six metres. In Britain, the main threat would come from flooding and "coastal attack" as sea levels rose.

In a BBC interview yesterday, Sir David said it was essential that the world began to make the necessary changes now. "We don't have to succumb to a state of despondency where we say that there is nothing we can do so let's just carry on living as per usual. It is very important to understand that we can manage the risks to our population - and around the world," he said. "What we are talking about here is something that will play through over decades - we are talking 100 years or so. We need to begin that process of investment. It is going to be a major challenge for the developing countries. There are no certainties here. If you ask me where do we feel the temperature is likely to end up if we move to a level of carbon dioxide of 550 parts per million - which is roughly twice the pre-industrial level and the level at which we would be optimistically hoping we could settle - the temperature rise could well be in excess of three degrees Centigrade. And yet we are saying 550 parts per million in the atmosphere is probably the best we can achieve through global agreement."

IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH AND SEND THEM ALL TO THE HAGUE! WE HAVE WORK TO DO

[Toucano]

1. Do the models say what "urgent action" will turn the tide? n/t

[DLnyc]

2. Maybe some really radical things

Like:

Not driving SUV's around so much

Heat to only 66 degrees in the winter/cool to only 70 degrees in the summer

Tap energy sources that don't emit CO2, like wind, solar, geothermal

Encourage masstransit, bicycles, trains and busses over jets

Slow down a little

Manufacture stuff that lasts instead of crap that gets thrown away

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. Not enough...

More like

replacement of the USA's current automobile-centric transportation infrastructure with commuter rail

Mandated maximum displacement and minimum fuel economy requirements for automobile engines

Shifting the global and particularly the American economy away from the current wasteful consumerist model which encourages people to spend money they don't have (credit) to buy things they don't need

Put in place a moratorium on future suburban development (the decentralised, strip-malled subdivided wastelands of suburbia are MASSIVE energy sinks) in favour of a sort of new urbanism...houses, shops, schools, etc all within walking or cycling distance



I have to say I rather share the pessimism Sir David expresses; it seems to me that people are too shortsighted, too selfish, and too collectively stupid to do what needs to be done to avert serious consequences from climate change. What's being done is too little, too late, and the fact that the US isn't making much effort at ALL makes the entire project of other countries attempting to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions an exercise in futility...the US uses 40% of the world's energy with 5% of the population, the US automobile fleet has the lowest average fuel economy of any in the world, much of our electrical generating capacity consists of coal-burning power plants...and American hubris insists that this state of affairs should continue indefinitely ('The American way of life is not negotiable'...and even people on the putative US left feel the same way...see for instance the cacophony of bleating in this forum over increased gasoline prices, which, from a standpoint of encouraging greater fuel-efficiency, reduced driving, and lowered emissions, are in fact a Good Thing).

[DLnyc]

5. Not that far from what I am saying

although your point about suburban development is a good one, I think.

If we are using such a huge portion of the world's energy consumption (I thought it was more like 25%, but you could be right that it's like 40%) then it stands to reason that we could cut back significantly without drying up and blowing away. Other developed countries, like Canada and those in Europe, use much less energy than we do (per capita) and still have lifestyles that are not radically different than ours. My point is that the idea that we would all have to go back to living in caves in order to reverse global warming is not accurate. But I agree that some significant cultural change, and a little bit of leadership on the part of politicians, is absolutely necessary. Whether either is likely before it's really too late, I don't know. I just think it's ironic that the cost of positive change to our lifestyles would be relatively small, I think, and the cost of no change will be catastrophic.

The exemption of SUVs from the fleet mileage requirements is a good example. By not having the ability to stand up to lobbyists from US auto manufacturers, we actually greatly increased the amount of CO2 being put out by American automobiles, instead of decreasing it. People were doing fine 10 years ago without SUVs, and now somehow they're seen as absolutely indispensible.

[Fun Doom Mentalist]

6. I don't believe that is true about SUV's and home heating/cooling

I think "Industry" is the major contributor to Global Warming.
It's nice of us to reduce consumption to allow more for industry isn't it!
Corporations have to take the lead.
Individuals should help but it won't do any good unless strict guidlines for Industry are set...with no grace period and no exceptions.

[DLnyc]

7. This chart was linked to earlier on DU

(not sure where the DU page is . . . I'll try to find it later)

looks to me like transportation and commercial/residential are a big part of the energy used and, I guess, of the CO2 produced.

I certainly agree corporations are the problem, but I think it's more in terms of forcing us to overconsume and waste. From preventing discussion of global warming (oil companies) to sabotaging the mileage requirements (auto industry) to advertising/propagandizing/hypnotizing vast numbers into buying all kinds of crap they don't need, to GM years ago buying up and closing trolley lines so people would buy more cars, the corporations have put their selfishness and greed ahead of the common good.

But it also seems clear that Americans, if they had the will, could cut their consumption of energy and useless products drastically. As well as stop corporations from directly damaging the environment.

Maybe when the Greenland ice starts slipping into the sea and the summers become more or less constant hurricanes and wildfires people will actually be frightened enough to change their lifestyles. It will probably be too late then, though, I think.

(edit to add DU page where I got the link to the chart:

oops, wrong page, here's the right one, I think
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x50239

[Fun Doom Mentalist]

9. good point

That chart's interesting-
From the year 2000.
I was surprised to see transportation so high a percentage at 26.6
and a near even split on residential vs commercial electricity consumption.

I think everyone would have solar hot water and drive a car that doesn't need gas or electricity if it were easy to do it-
Maybe competitive pricing will bring it into range for the average person.

And you're right- when all the ice melts it may be too late-
But did you see the Time magazine cover a couple of weeks ago?
The "tipping point" may well be upon us NOW.

I hope people will get together on this and forget about greed and luxuries --at least long enough to prevent ecological devastation!

[NMDemDist2]

15. welcome to DU Fun Doom Mentalist!

:hi:

[Fun Doom Mentalist]

33. thanks for the welcome!

:hi: right back atcha!

[NJCher]

10. Just an FYI

There isn't any "industry" left in the U.S. It was all given away to China.

There are, however, plenty of SUVs.




Cher

[Fun Doom Mentalist]

35. now THAT is the truth isn't it !!! LOL!!

(I just edited my typo)

I'm still cracking up !!!
that's a good one!!

[mom cat]

14. Welcome to DU Fun Doom Mentalist ... great name!

:hi:

[Fun Doom Mentalist]

34. thanks!--glad you like the name-

and a big hello to you all:hi:

[pretzel4gore]

12. shutting down heavier then air flight....

basically, grounding all aircraft on earth, and substituting lighter then air type craft (zeppelins etc)....each aircraft flying around is pumping poison into atmosphere- a small cessna burns a pound of fuel to climb to 2500 ft!
it's a disaster that will stop one way or other. humanity stop it for reasons of common sense, or nature just kill us off, for reasons of math and physics...

[ktlyon]

21. I totally agree

When planes were grounded after 9-11 the atmosphere improved.
The pollution put into the air at levels that today's jets fly, must be causing a huge mess. Any stats out there?

Building a mass transit train system would spur a lot of growth. Seems like a no brainer.

[ananda]

16. umm, 70 in the summer is..

.. fuckin cold.

I cool to 78 in the summer.

Sue

[0007]

27. So do I!

[Selteri]

24. Heh, they don't need to

I already know the radical plan and it could be the second great Revolution.

Screw the politicians though, I just keep working on developing the, plans and trying to get people to listen to me, the latter is the hardest thing to do even for ideas that require little sacrifice but more united working for a goal.

Some examples -

High efficiency homes designed to take a beating frm the elements.

Less wasted space

using free space for energy and fuel production

more wind and solar tech being applied

Using means we know about in conjunction to do the cleaning that they cannot do by themselves.

[Toucano]

29. I guess I wasn't clear.

I think we all know there are things we can do to improve our energy consumption and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

What I meant to ask was do the models show that we can actually slow or stop global warming by making these changes (which should be made anyway - it's just good policy)?

I've understood that the ice that has already melted is now generating it's own global warming and water that was once ice is now heating the planet. Do any of the models show that it is reversable? Or should we just be planning on adapting to the changes?

[skids]

30. I wouldn't rely on the models.

They change all the time as new feedback and counterfeedback mechanisms are discovered. We're far from accuracy there.

What they all would pretty much agree with, whether or not they say we are past a tipping point, is that we can buy time by reducing CO2 output. We might have more years -- perhaps even decades more -- to get ready for some of the consequences if we reduced output.

But that's not the most compelling reason to reduce CO2 output. Ocean acidification is. We might kill off the very bottom of the food chain before we even suffer drastically from warming.

[Selteri]

36. I'm looking at it this way....

I would rather try to start taking action to stop the tipping point by showing that we have the tools, we just aren't showing our human side by working them together in conjunction. The tech is there for anyone willing to work with nature, only we have chosen to ignore those who have been telling us that the solution is there.

As we continue to do nothing the cost of doing something increases. This to me is a simple bit of market economics.

1 - There is a need to slow the damage immediately before the investment of things into the globe that are bad for the system so that we do not desabalize our own planet. It is an effort of investing into a future for our children and their children. Not to mention not wanting to have to wear a special protective suit to go out in the rain or to get the mail.

2 - If people can't live on the earth they will be less able to do other things and we will form small city-state areas which are economically sustainable but logically unfeasable.

3 - Investing in this technology would also have a side-benefit of being able to more easily live on other planets as we continue to develope as a species and strive to become fully a type 1 civiliazation rather than exterminate ourselves.

[dipsydoodle]

31. Not "urgent action" but "likely outcomes"

I read projections some years ago of the effects of a 3 degree increase.

From memory - we (UK), for example, would progressively lose our bluebells in the spring because hare grass which germinates according to temp would overshadow bluesbells which germinate when daylight hours increase. Whereas you (USA) would say a really big hello to the dustbowl again - hence ref to cereal crops.

By all accounts the situation has already passed a point beyond which it cannot now be retreived.

So come back Woody Guthrie...........and maybe buy yourself a Model A Ford.

[Toucano]

32. For the record, I'm no longer USA.

But I do appreciate the response. It's what I suspected.

[autorank]

3. Recommended...this is the world they gave us...and now abuse...

[xchrom]

8. k & r

[WyLoochka]

11. Massive migrations

including across borders need to be planned for, but I seriously doubt this will happen. Pols and corpos the globe over will continue to stick their heads in the sand to avoid honestly addressing the ramifications of what has been wrought.

The huge pressure of hundreds of millions trying to migrate, in order to survive, will show today's hyped up consternation over current migration across our southern border for the cruel joke that it really is.

[acmejack]

13. Too little too LATE!

When people actually wake up to the problem, I imagine it will be about the time the majority of the world's beaches are under about 4 or 5 inches of water, the warming cycle will be well in motion and irreversible. It would have been real nice if mankind would have chose to address this issue when it was within our power to actually take measures to control the problem.

[ronnie624]

22. There have been many news items

in the last year or so that have reported on the seriousness of the situation. Shrinking ice sheets reflecting less sunlight back into space, melting permafrost which as it decays releases even more sequestered greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (a phenomenon never before recorded), the clearly observed dying of many species as well as the changes in migratory patterns of many others speaks to a perpetuating cycle which is well under way and probably not reversible.

Human civilization is heading for radical changes in the coming decades that could quite possibly culminate in the extinction of our own species. Avoiding this calamity will require an extreme overhaul of our system of values with tremendous emphasis placed on education. As I do not believe such an overhaul is forthcoming I have little hope for our continued existence beyond this century.

[skip fox]

17. Damn. I got a feeling it's already too late.

Maybe we can slow it down or mitigate its effects.

Hope I'm wrong.

[mike_c]

25. it is too late in some ways....

People-- and especially their leaders-- ignored the warnings that began 30 years ago and that has raised atmospheric CO₂ way above historic normal concentration. Short of instantaneous CO₂ removal, which isn't possible, it is too late to undue the greenhouse effects that are in motion. A bit more heat is accumulated each year. A bit more ice melts, changing the planet's albedo a bit more. And so on.

What CAN be done is 1) first and foremost, begin to prepare for the effects of the damage that are already inevitable, and 2) make the changes in energy use and land use policy necessary to prevent further CO₂ accumulation. Remember too that the Earth's human population is continuing to rise and is projected to continue growing until at least 2050-- every additional human brings with it increased energy demand and increased need for land conversion to agriculture-- energy intensive, nutrient subsidized agriculture. At the same time, everyone else in the world is aspiring to follow the example set by the U.S., i.e. use as much of the world's resources as possible, as quickly as possible. This is a prescription for disaster on a global scale.

The only leadership that can do anything about this is leadership with the courage to start by telling us the truth: there is no way out of this mess that doesn't involve giving up our accustomed resource intensive lifestyles.

[twaddler01]

18. The * admin. is too busy with other things

to worry about minor problems like this :sarcasm:

[jarnocan]

19. I can't wait for Al Gore's movie to come out.

WE can't wait for this BU**SH** nonsense to end.
I am wondering about the tornado season too, seems off to a roaring start. Soon it will be hurricane season as well. I hope more people get a clue before much more of our world is blown away (one way or another).

[Rex]

20. Humans rarely 'get it right the first time'.

One of those success through failure type of things. To bad this has been made into a political issue; the RW will have us all drown before they will admit to Global Warming.

[Lorien]

23. I've been trying to tell people for 20 years: it's a HUMANITARIAN CRISIS

in the making, as is BIODIVERSITY LOSS.

Self proclaimed liberals here and elsewhere have argued that "ending hunger", "ending poverty", "ending world conflicts" etc. are "more important than a bunch of wolves and ivy, or a little less snow in the winter". These people don't grasp what a environmental catastrophe means for the human race (and, of course, their too self absorbed to care about other species. My guess is that they're also too self absorbed to care about other humans too, but try to disguise that fact in a cloak of "humanitarianism"). Climate change and biodiversity loss will lead to famine, drought, epidemics, and massive world wars over resources. Just imagine if a billion Chinese cannot feed themselves; they can easily march 400 million soldiers across our nation of 300 million, and they pack nukes as well. Imagine if nuclear armed Russia is buried in a deep freeze long enough to end crop production? The threats are very real, and they won't only affect future generations; if you are under the age of 60 you will likely suffer greatly from what's in store for us if we do nothing.

[kineneb]

26. reading "Collapse" right now

given the comments by Diamond, we indeed may be noticing this too late...

[henslee]

28. The brilliant K-Cos (Kevin Cosnter) called it. Waterworld.