World faces last chance to avoid fatal warming: EU

[tex-wyo-dem]

Source: Reuters

BUDAPEST (Reuters) - The world faces a final opportunity to agree an adequate global response to climate change at a U.N.-led meeting in Copenhagen in December, the European Union's environment chief said on Friday.

World leaders from about 190 countries meet in Copenhagen in December to try to agree a global framework to replace the Kyoto Protocol on fighting global warming, which expires in 2012.

"It is now 12 years since Kyoto was created. This makes Copenhagen the world's last chance to stop climate change before it passes the point of no return," European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told a climate conference in Budapest on Friday.

"Having an agreement in Copenhagen is not only possible, it is imperative and we are going to have it," Dimas said.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51Q22X20090227

[dipsydoodle]

1. Well hopefully

Dimas will have more chance of agreement now that Dumbass has gone.

[sellitman]

2. I hope we can do a 180 on this with the adults in charge.

It would be nice to know we were part of solution as opposed to the reason for our demise.

[Mark Twain Girl]

16. If we don't do a 180, then the adults aren't in charge. nt

[closeupready]

3. It's already past the point of no return.

As I've said before, polar bears and penguins are gone; the canaries in the coal mine. It's too late for them. But the sooner we start making changes, the sooner we can move the environment back to its natural state. I'm obviously pessimistic. I think things are only going to deteriorate, both in terms of environmental change and expanded consumption of fossil fuels.

[Bragi]

4. I pretty much agree

I've come to accept the fact that it probably doesn't matter a whole lot in the scheme of things whether human beings survive the mess we've made. We're a destructive species with some deep flaws that will likely lead to our demise. Our most tragic flaw is our inability to make unwelcome collective changes needed to avoid a distant, though certain, calamity. That's what's going to do us in.

- B

[The Traveler]

6. We're going for the ride

The climate change train has pulled itself to the top of the mountain and is now heading down the other side. And this baby is picking up speed, fast. "Charlie stole the handle ... no way to slow down"

I agree with another poster here. Polar bears, penguins, they're probably already doomed. Still, we have to fight to preserve every one of these endangered species and I'm not ready to throw the towel in for them yet. As a culture, we currently undervalue biological diversity ... well, our political leaders are seldom the sharpest tools in the box. We the people better wise up fast.

In general I agree with efforts to cap carbon emissions due to human activity. It makes sense to stop throwing gas on the fire. But with methane and nitrous out gassing from thawing tundras and sea floors we can't expect that to bring the fire under control that way. Everybody on the planet could switch to Star Trek super clean technology tomorrow, and carbon levels will continue to rise. Indeed, it appears that carbon contributions from thawing processes we have triggered will greatly exceed the carbon directly emitted by human activity.

In short, I don't think stopping or even slowing climate change is possible. The system is diving down hill like a freight train without brakes. It will seek and eventually find a new equilibrium. We may or may not like that outcome. Surviving the transition and maximizing the odds of settling into a new equilibrium we like will require more than merely capping carbon emissions.

A lot of us say we want change. I myself think we will have no choice ... ready or not, change is crashing this party.

Trav

[Uncle Joe]

11. I believe we've gotten to the point where someone

needs to invent a reverse gear to go with the brake.

I'm wondering about the feasibility of light solar powered aircraft which could actively scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, maybe using the same principle that trees do?

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. No reason for them to be aircraft

whatever technology you'd use to capture the CO2, the CO2 is just as available (more so, in fact, because of air pressure) down in the ground.

[Uncle Joe]

14. You make a good point, muriel_volestrangler.

:thumbsup:

[slackmaster]

25. I think Earth's own feedback systems will stop and reverse it as they have in the past

It could get pretty Jurassic, with stagnant oceans and sweltering heat, but at some point the kinds of processes that sequester carbon, e.g. petroleum formation, will kick in.

[Uncle Joe]

31. I'm leaving for the night but what happens if and when the feedback

system starts to thaw massive methane deposits such as in the Siberian Tundra and even those underwater?

I suspect it may reverse it self eventually, but will humanity be around when that happens.

Of course worst case scenario, I suppose, we could become more like Venus and not much of anything be left behind., I believe we have roughly the same amount of carbon, except the vast majority of Venus' carbon is in the atmosphere, not underground like ours was and is until we burn it.

The way I understand it, as a result Venus' temperature is hotter than that of Mercury's, even though Mercury is closer to the Sun.

[The Traveler]

33. Exactly my point

A new equilibrium WILL be achieved. Will it be hospitable to a high energy technology civilization? Will it even support a high population, relatively good sized mammal? These are questions we can't answer yet with any certainty.

The planet will definitely survive, and even come to thrive. Our situation as a people and as individuals is certainly far less certain.

Trav

[tavalon]

34. I'm sure of it

I'm not at all sure that our species or most others will survive her adjustments, but she was here long before us and will continue to be here long after we're gone.

[The Traveler]

32. Algae based fuels

Take carbon in, and we convert the algae to biofuel. On combustion, a lesser quantity of carbon (not much lesser, but inevitably lesser) is released. This doesn't represent a reverse gear but it sure could be a brake, or at least be a way of taking the foot off the gas pedal. The technology is on our grasp and even my (not very environmentally friendly) 1991 Camaro could be adapted easily to burn this kind of fuel.

The big problem now is methane and nitrous release. Methane traps heat up 20 times as effectively as C02 ... nitrous 300 times as effective. As permafrost continues to break up, the rate of outgassing can be expected to increase.

I'm not sure we can invent our way out of this problem ... but we can adapt, and we can act to preserve. We just got to get serious about it.

Trav

[galledgoblin]

15. pretty much agree, but

penguins and polar bears will survive because they are cute and cuddly zoo attractions. the rest of the artic diversity, like the fish? not long for this world. :-/

[sellitman]

26. I probably agree with you but if I don't have hope.....

I have nothing.

[closeupready]

29. True, It doesn't serve a good purpose to worry about this stuff.

n/t

[cobalt1999]

5. I hope China & India & "developing nations" are not excluded this time.

It makes no sense to try and solve a global problem with only some countries participating.

That means the U.S., China, India, et all.

[marshall]

7. They have to want to participate

Those of us who do agree can still get together and do what we can.

[cobalt1999]

8. It makes no difference to the Earth if a CO2 molecule is released...

from China, India, or the U.S.

The ship is sinking and moving industry and emissions from participating countries to non-participating countries is just rearranging the deck chairs.

We've gone beyond "voluntary participation". For this to have a shot in hell of making a REAL difference, all countries will have to be pressured into joining.

[marshall]

9. But what do you mean by "pressure"?

I agree that the best solution is for everyone to participate. But where do we draw the line in "pressuring" another country to bend to the collective will?

[cobalt1999]

17. Same as violators of the nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

Cut off trade and aid to them.

Unless you think we are still at a point in climate impact that half measures will work.

[The2ndWheel]

10. With no infrastructure to pressure them with

Pressure them into joining...with what?

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. With trade

They'd be better off trading with the rest of the world in a climate agreement, than isolated and ruining the atmosphere.

[The2ndWheel]

36. Who, or what, is going to write the rules?

Also, since when does world trade not ruin the atmosphere? The scale of economic activity is a, if not the, major part of our environmental impact.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. That's what the Copenhagen conference is for

If people stopped trading oil, it's true it would alter how the CO2 is produced; but many countries have extensive coal reserves, and they'd turn to those if there was no trade in oil. When it comes down to it, we could ruin the climate with less trade too. We could also still trade, and have less of an effect on climate now (cut down on air cargo, use wind turbine, or aerofoil, ships as much as possible, and trade services electronically).

[cobalt1999]

18. Trade & aid

No trading & no aid.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Considering

if anything China has been giving us aid, not the other way around, by lending us money so we could buy oil.

I believe we should do everything in our power to convince them that global warming climate change threatens their civilization, but we're in an exceptionally weak position to force them to do anything.

I am optimistic in believing they will come around, I can't imagine they would want to survive any less than the rest of humanity. We just need to make the case in an influential, not a coercive manner and I believe Mother Nature will increasingly help to make our case for us as well.

[cobalt1999]

20. Stop the imports from China and see how weak we are.

As long as the exports flow to the U.S. and the money flows back, they are in a powerful position.

However, if the EU and US stop buying their products, their power drops to about the same level as Nigeria.

[Uncle Joe]

22. They're

lending us money, they buy our debt, they've propped up our economy such as it is. China and India comprise well over a third of the people on the planet, that's far beyond the scope of a more isolated Nigeria.

I suspect if that were stopped cold turkey, the dollar would melt faster than the Arctic, setting off a global depression combined with hyper inflation.

I also believe the consequences would be devastating in trying to evolve global society to the point of effectively reversing the effects of global warming climate change. We would in effect be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[cobalt1999]

23. They lend us money in order to get it right back in exports

Of course they've propped up our economy. It's their life's blood.

Stopping cold turkey would be very difficult, but what currency would the dollar melt so dramatically against? If anything the Chinese currency would be worthless overnight.

It would be drastic, but we are in drastic times. Furthermore, the serious threat of doing so would make them sign up.

[Uncle Joe]

30. The dollar

would melt against the cost of manufacturing goods. If you believe credit card companies are raising interest rates to loan shark levels now, this would just be an appetizer, the same goes for the cost of living in general.

The Chinese are holding a huge supply of American Dollars, whatever the Dollar melts to, their currency would be worth more by comparison.

I agree we're in drastic times, but I don't believe starting a trade war with China and or India would in any way benefit the cause of averting global warming climate change, if anything it would set us back.

I'm leaving for the evening, peace to you and have a good weekend.

[The2ndWheel]

37. Promote global trade by not doing it?

Sort of the way we have to change the climate in order to stop climate change?

Who, or what, is going to implement this no trade/aid? Is it just the US? The EU? The UN? Who's running the show?

[time_has_come]

21. And if they are, I hope other countries don't use that as an excuse to do nothing.

Dishonest as that is.

If the US had expressed regret over the exclusion of China and India in Kyoto, but had still gotten to work then there would undoubtedly be technologies in use to reduce emission which we don't yet have. Then they could have been shared with developing countries.

And it's kind of Ironic, but China and India have made some significant moves to reduce greenhouse gases.

[cobalt1999]

27. In what report, study, real life has China made significant moves?

Just few years ago they were producing 1/2 the CO2 as the U.S., now they produce 20% more and are the worlds leading polluter.

[slackmaster]

24. I think using hyperbolic language like "fatal warming" is counterproductive

It sounds too Chicken Little-ish.

[The Stranger]

28. I don't think it is hyperbole.

I think it is Science.

[fascisthunter]

35. We Better Start Doing Something on a Global Scale

[MellowDem]

39. It'll never happen

as it is, no one quite knows at what "point" fatal warming will occur, or event what the hell that means. Either way, the big changes that will be necessary won't take place until there is a necessity, and by then it will be too late. We're too concerned with other things than the health of the planet right now.