The IEA documents have been leaked stating that carbon emissions are increasing almost unchecked and we have completely missed the opportunity to limit global warming to 2 degrees.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1132010/1/.htmlThis is big news in Australia right now.
Above 2 degrees means global food production is going to be virtually destroyed - do you people understand this ?
This is not alarmist, it is not hyperbole, it is the greatest moral challenge in the history of humanity - if we were to go above 3 degrees it would basically spell the end of modern civilisation - I can not be clear enough about this to you, please try and understand the seriousness of this.
Three degrees and you basically go back to living in a mad max style world of fighting for survival in an agrarian style world, millions upon millions of Americans would perish - nothing would remain even remotely similar to what you have now.
At 6 degrees everything on this planet would be in danger of being extinguished - certainly there would be no humans or large mammals.
The chances of us using renewables to meet our projected energy requirements are simply utterly and completely unrealistic.
The amount of energy returned from wholesale restructuring of our entire society on renewables could not possibly meet our energy needs - absolutely no chance of meeting them at the levels which would be required by 2020 based on current projections.
Those very best renewables can ever possibly hope to achieve - according to ALL THE SCIENCE is assist in mitigating the problem through immediate action - this was the position from a decade ago when we could have turned around.
No serious scientist who understands the totality of the issues involved could say we can use renewables with any current or envisioned technology and keep a straight face, or even keep their job. The idea is utterly desirable.
Almost all the studies assume a maximum efficiency of society - a best case scenario, political will as people call it. Further there is a fundamental assumption in every study of sustainable consumption, in other words massively reducing our energy use.
There is not doubt we can replace fossil fuels with renewables if we use horses to drag the plough and candles instead of lights.
The fundamental assumption is that we massively reduce our energy useage, and continue to reduce this useage until we are using an absolute bare minimum.
The likelihood of global civil society of achieving this is on par with eradicating discrimination, ending poverty, ending global basic health issues, providing education to everyone and clean drinking water - ALL of which are entirely achievable, with maybe two months of the annual American military budget - but will not happen. Simply will not happen.
The alternative to this is nuclear - Fast Burning Breeder reactors are a proven way of delivering the energy requirements for our future without destroying our entire planet with "Green Tech" - the only reason it is not employed is outrageous fear mongering from green baby boomers who refuse to understand it, and the irrational fears of government from the increased ease of plutonium production which could POTENTIALLY be used in nuclear weapons, despite this being proven utterly wrong.
Once again the science and logic of humanities survival is being decided upon by irrational, illogical and ignorance - the three I's of innevitable social collapse.
Quite simply for us to survive what the leaked IEA report spells out we have no choice but to go nuclear or Amish - that is the choice.
The only question of will, political or social, is will people try and understand the science.