Where Are The Giant Headlines? Zero Emissions Needed Now
Here's the news I never wanted to hear. The seriously tragic news. Apparently, while we dithered over god's word and Rush Limbaugh's opinions, we missed the easy targets. You know, the piddling percentages of greenhouse gas emissions we could have reduced a mere 5, 10 or 15 years ago to maintain a benevolent planet. The latest study indicates we've waited too long and now only zero emissions will avert the Big Doomsday, the 2-degree rise that the science community (you know, the real one) agrees is needed to prevent the tipping points from tipping. The same 2-degree rise our unesteemed Leader in Washington doesn't get. Why? Because he can't convert from Celsius to Fahrenheit, apparently. This from New Scientist:
Andrew Weaver and colleagues at the University of Victoria in Canada . . . used a computer model to determine how much emissions must be limited in order to avoid exceeding a 2°C increase. The model is an established tool for analysing future climate change and was used in studies cited in the IPCC's reports on climate change. They modelled the reduction of industrial emissions below 2006 levels by between 20% and 100% by 2050. Only when emissions were entirely eliminated did the temperature increase remain below 2°C.
The researchers conclude that governments should consider reducing emissions to 90% below current levels and remove what is left in the atmosphere by capturing and storing carbon. There is a stark contrast between this proposal and the measures currently being considered. Under the UN's Kyoto protocol, most developed nations have agreed to limit their emissions to a minimum of 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. What happens beyond this date is the subject of ongoing debate and negotiation. The European Union nations have agreed to limit their emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and support dropping global emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.
"There is a disconnect between the European Union arguing for a 2°C threshold and calling for 50% cuts at 2050 - you can't have it both ways," says Weaver, who adds: "If you're going to talk about 2°C you have got to be talking 90% emissions cuts."
As for the naysayers and their inevitable frakkin whining. What can I say. It looks like we are going to meet in hell.
Julia Whitty is Mother Jones' environmental correspondent. You can read from her new book, "The Fragile Edge," and other writings, here.