Arguments
There’s one key takeaway from last week’s IPCC report
Posted on 15 October 2018 by dana1981
The Paris climate agreement set a target of no more than 2°C global warming above pre-industrial temperatures, but also an aspirational target of no more than 1.5°C. That’s because many participating countries – especially island nations particularly vulnerable to sea level rise – felt that even 2°C global warming is too dangerous. But there hadn’t been a lot of research into the climate impacts at 1.5°C vs. 2°C, and so the UN asked the IPCC to publish a special report summarizing what it would take to achieve the 1.5°C limit and what the consequences would be of missing it.
The details in the report are worth understanding, but there’s one simple critical takeaway point: we need to cut carbon pollution as much as possible, as fast as possible.
We’re about to burn through the 1.5°C carbon budget
Depending on how we define ‘pre-industrial temperatures’ and how fast we keep consuming fossil fuels, we’ll likely burn through the rest of the 1.5°C carbon budget within the next 3 to 10 years. To stay below 1.5°C, the IPCC therefore concludes the world must embark on a World War II-level effort to transition away from fossil fuels, and also start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at large scales – anywhere from 400bn to 1.6tn tons of it.
Global carbon dioxide emissions to date, and potential pathways to stay within the remaining 1.5°C global warming budget. Illustration: IPCC SR15
Realistically, this isn’t going to happen. We’re currently on track for more than 3°C global warming by 2100. We can do better than that if countries ratchet down their carbon pledges and implement more aggressive climate policies, but with some nations moving in the wrong direction, like the US and potentially Brazil electing climate denier presidents, even staying below 2°C is looking increasingly less likely.
The answer to the question “what should aim for?” is simple: cut carbon pollution as much as possible, as fast as possible. Until the world reaches zero carbon, the answer will always be the same.
What happens when temperatures rise above 1.5°C?
Carbon Brief created an excellent interactive page detailing the differences in climate impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C, based on 70 peer-reviewed studies. Generally speaking, the IPCC report finds that “Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C.”
One of the biggest differences between 1.5°C and 2°C is the impact on coral reefs, which support about 25% of all known marine species. Coral reefs are very vulnerable to the combination of hotter and more acidic ocean waters resulting from carbon pollution. At 1.5°C, the IPCC estimates that we’ll lose about 80% of coral reefs. At 2°C, virtually all coral reefs will be gone.
Summers with no remaining Arctic sea ice are also ten times more likely at 2°C than 1.5°C (at least once per decade vs. once per century). What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic – disappearing sea ice appears to be connected to the weakening jet stream, which in turn causes weather systems to get stuck in place for extended periods of time. This can lead to particularly intense heat waves, floods, droughts, and other extreme weather events. The volume of sea ice in the Arctic has already declined by about 70% over just the past 40 years.
Trump stated; "I don’t wanna give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t wanna lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t wanna be put at a disadvantage.”
This the general consensus around the world and he is right. Unless and until this is addressed nothing will get done. And we will not solve the problems that industrial consumer capitalism has wrought on the world by ramping up industrial consumer capitalism.
Trump is being far too pessimistic. Renewable energy is not a threat to jobs. Massive economic transformations create jobs. Look at how unemployment rates plumetted during WW2 as production was geared up for the war effort. Economic output also doubled, and wages increased.
The problem is not capitalism. The problem is a lack of desire to direct capitalism to solve problems, rather than at mindless materialism for the sake of it.
The problem is not globalisation. Look at how the Marshall Plan after WW2 helped the world and ultimately America by creating a market for Americas products.Nationalism and turning inwards is understandable, but is not the answer.
Recommended supplemental readings:
GOP shrugs off dire study warning of global warming by Miranda Green & Timothy Cama, The Hill, Oct 10, 2018
Senators concerned as Trump official disputes UN climate change warning by Michael Burke, The Hill, Oct 14, 2018
'It'll change back': Trump says climate change not a hoax, but denies lasting impact by Emily Holden, Guardian, Oct 15, 2018
‘I Don’t Know That It’s Man-Made,’ Trump Says of Climate Change. It Is., Fact Check by Lisa Friedman, Climate, New York Times, Oct 15, 2018
Any socioeconomic-political system that includes competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others (so ... all socioeconomic-political systems), can be expected to devolve into damaging egoism (selfishness) winning unless the leaders-winners constantly successfully do the harder work of ensuring that none among them are anti-altruistic.
And the people below the higher status people need to want to be more correctly aware and be willing to penalize those above them for failing to set more-altruistic examples. And that requires those lower status people to not want to benefit from excusing less acceptable behaviour.
Things would be so much better today if the global community had more altruistically responsible leaders 30 years ago. Instead, undeserving winners have been able to protect their undeserved perceptions of prosperity and opportunity. They succeed through misleading marketing appeals to people who are easily impressed into voting for the irresponsible likes of Trump (to try to preserve undeserved perceptions of superiority relative to others).
Have things changed since 30 years ago? Seems the Unite the Right crowd are more determined to be as incorrect and harmful to the future of humanity as they can get away with for as long as they can get away with.
Probably inevitable now that some sort of geoengineering response will be required to slow northern hemisphere climate change.
It's difficult to imagine that the world will come remotely close to meeting the emissions reductions required, even if the global energy sector manages to significantly transition away from fossil fuels, and noting that the transition itself is an emissions intensive exercise. Population growth and resulting emissions from land clearing and agriculture pretty much cancels out those emissions reductions.
@Nigelj - You say <> I appreciate your effort to look beneath the surface, but what is capitalism if not a system in which private corporations are obliged to maximize profits rather than solve problems in the generalized interest of humanity. The IPCC's latest report calls for a rapid, unprecedented, far-reaching transformation of major sectors of the economy. As I understand the rules, this exceedingly useful website does not allow us to discuss how that might be accomplished in political terms so I will leave it at that.
[PS] Thank you. Discussion of technical solutions is fine. Political mechanisms (eg carbon tax versus ETS etc) can be discussed on appropriate threads but other sites eg https://thinkprogress.org/climate/ probably do this better. Partisan bickering and overly political comments are generally ruled out.
@Art Vandelay - Geoengineering will certainly be proposed but the schemes that have been the subject of speculation so far are deeply flawed. Take, for instance, spraying sulfates into the atmosphere to increase the Earth's albedo. This will do nothing to halt acidification of the oceans. And whenever the program comes to a halt (as indeed all things come to an end), ia future generation will be doomed to suffer the immediate global warming effect of all the CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere while sulfates produced a false sense of security. There is no proven technology to get around the need to stop burning fossil fuels if we wish to limit global temperature anywhere near 1.5 degrees C. This report is the first IPCC report to consider a pathway that does not depend on the BECSS technogy that is not now and may never be economically viable.
@Ted Franklin, agreed, but if it's able to halt or reduce polar amplification then it will also reduce some of the related impacts, such as jet stream related weather events and coastal innundation. It also buys some time to develop methods and technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and inevitably, for the world to reduce its population to more sustainable levels. The effect of 600ppm+ CO2 in the atmosphere does at least have the effect of amplifying the carbon cycle, and with so many mouths to feed by 2070 it might be an almost necessary evil.
Art Vandelay @8,
I agree that the total global population is a concern. But the issues identified by climate science are regarding the total impact of all humans, not the number of humans.
The highest impacting portion of the population changing their minds and behaving less harmfully will have to happen to achieve the required limiting of impacts on the future generations.
A significantly smaller total global population with the highest impacting people still as numerous is almost no improvement. Of course, a reduction of population that eliminated the highest impacting people would make a big difference, but my preference is for those people to change their minds and behave more altruistically.
Jef, not only is Trump not right, he is lying again. The US contribution to the UN Global Warming fund was going to be $3 Billion. Which was cancelled. We spend almost $2 Billion A DAY on our military adventures, I think we could have afforded that. Anyway, "trillions and trillions" is bull. And every study shows that ramping up alternative energy creates a lot more jobs than coal mines do.
Nigel said,"during WW2 as production was geared up for the war effort. Economic output also doubled, and wages increased." Yes and CO2 and many other toxic destructive doubled too.
Any talk of ramping up means ramping up total energy use and resource extraction which guarantees runaway destruction of the biosphere.
Fossil fuels (FFs) are the most traded commodity in the world.
Virtually every business in the world is dependent on FFs.
Global food production is 100% dependent on FFs.
There is no water without FFs, and no FFs without water.
There has never been a transition away from an energy source only additions.
There is no alternative energy source that isn't 100% reliant on FFs.
There is no solution where we make a change of this magnitude and still all make money.
The issue is how do we do less, stop what we are doing and still take care of 7+ billion people in a humane way?
[PS] This post is walking a very fine line on sloganeering. You are making a large no. of assertions and provide no sources to back any of them.
In particular "There is no solution where we make a change of this magnitude and still all make money" flies in face of published plans and many countries roadmaps. Please provide sources to justify this assertion.
The assertion "There has never been a transition away from an energy source only additions.?" doesnt seem supported by EIA data.
The current generation of humanity has a clear responsibility to remove CO2 from the atmosphere starting now, as well as dramatically reduce the creation of new CO2 by burning fossil fuels.
The only ones who can help the future generation are the current generation. The current generation should never believe it is OK to do harm to the future generation, no matter how appealing the harmful activity appears to be, no matter how regionally popular or profitable.
Understanding that changes everything. That could be understood decades ago, especially by leaders and winners who have little excuse to not 'know better' that others. But the global leadership (winners) at the time chose to maintain and maximize their popularity and profitability any way they could get away with. They kicked that responsibility further down the road, but also down a hill.
The result of that irresponsible behaviour by the supposed deserving leaders and winners has been like a landslide or avalanche. The problem has just gotten bigger, and will continue to grow unless responsible actions by leaders correct the unjustified developed perceptions of superiority relative to others.
There are existing technologies that can remove CO2 with vary little negative future consequences. But the methods that will be truly sustainable and not potentially create other problems for future generations are not profitable and may never be profitable. Other riskier or more harmful ways are cheaper and potentially profitable.
If the socioeconomic-political systems are not corrected to keep the undeserving harmful selfish from getting away with the advantages they can personally get from behaving less acceptably, then the 'solutions' that are implemented (if they get implemented), will be less effective than they need to be and could potentially be more damaging than the problem they are claimed to be a 'solution' to.
jef @10
"Nigel said,"during WW2 as production was geared up for the war effort. Economic output also doubled, and wages increased." Yes and CO2 and many other toxic destructive doubled too."
Come on you are deliberately missing the point. The point was surely obvious that humanity has made massive economic transformations in the past so could do so again. What is lacking now is motivation, due to a range of pshychological and political issues, and a campaign to spread climate denialism and pessimism, the later which appears to be what you are hell bent on doing :)
"Any talk of ramping up means ramping up total energy use and resource extraction which guarantees runaway destruction of the biosphere."
I never said anything about ramping up total energy use. I simply referred to transitioning to renewable energy.
For the record I agree with comments by others that it would be wise to reduce population growth and I would add that we should try to reduce our per capita energy use. These things are in the commonsense basket.
There is a problem with resource extraction but you have to think past the slogans. Most materials can be recycled or are abundant. Metals can be recycled indefinitely, including the metals used in renewable electricity generation and batteries. Where I would agree with you is we have a problem with non renewable resources ,which ironically includes fossil fuels, so once they are gone they are effectively gone and this has implications for plastics and fertiliser manufacture. However if we stopped burning fossil fuels, they would provide many centuries of use for other applications.
"Fossil fuels (FFs) are the most traded commodity in the world."
So what?
"Virtually every business in the world is dependent on FFs."
Yes, and this has to change, and can change. We already know alternatives are possible for most things. The last IPCC Report had an entire section devoted to climate change mitigation policies.
"Global food production is 100% dependent on FFs."
Not really. Many third world farmers make no or little use of fossil fuels, fwiw.
"There is no water without FFs, and no FFs without water."
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Water could easily be pumped using electricity from renewable generation.
"There has never been a transition away from an energy source only additions."
Theres a first time for most things. We used to cook food over open fires.
"There is no alternative energy source that isn't 100% reliant on FFs."
This is total nonsense! If the grid becomes entirely based on renewable electricity then by definition it is clearly not reliant on fossil fuels.
"There is no solution where we make a change of this magnitude and still all make money."
Empty unsubstantiated slogan. Theres no logic that says an energy transition means we stop making money. The worst case scenario is we are replacing infrastructure, so might make slightly less money in the short term, but good long term outcomes require up front investments thats nothing new. But go back to my example of WW2. Although huge sections of industry were turned over to war production, wages acutally increased and the supply of consumer goods increased. I think its quite possible transitioning to new energy sources will make us wealthier.
"The issue is how do we do less, stop what we are doing and still take care of 7+ billion people in a humane way?"
I think thats a very good point, but it is a separate issue to the climate problem. Right now the solution to the climate problem is renewable energy. The climate issue is a consumption issue, and you are not going to convince people to cut their consumption of energy in half or more, especially poor people. The most we can hope for is to substitute renewable energy and perhaps get people to make some modest reductions to their total energy use. I'm being a realist.
Eventually its obvious humanity is going to have to reduce its per capita use of minerals and energy but I doubt you will solve that problem by Paris time frames of 2050. I agree entirely that we have to look after the global population in a humane way, and I would hope we eradicate poverty, or at least ensure everyone has good opportunities to improve their situation. However I dont think you will convince people to radically reduce their consumption of materials and energy. The best you can hope for is reducing waste and inefficiency and promoting smaller houses etcetera. The principal and ultimate solution to resource scarcity is going to have to be smaller global population by encouraging low birth rates. So this is demand reduction which enables us to still have a reasonable standard of living.
Art Vandelay @8
I'm sceptical about solar geoengineering because of the risks. CO2 levels of 600ppm might encourage plant growth but various articles on this website has pointed to research that this will be overwhelmed by the negative effects on crops of higher temperatures, droughts and heatwaves.
In fact I agree population growth is a problem in many respects, for example energy and resource use, however simply changing to a vegetarian diet would solve the food scarcity problem.
jef@10,
"There is no solution where we make a change of this magnitude and still all make money."
I agree. Unsustainable unjustified developed perceptions of superiority, prosperity and opportunity will have to be scrubbed out of the economy. It is already happening to coal barons. It is startig to happen to oil sands barons. And it will have to happen to oil and natural gas barons. Everyone else on the sustainable development path will make more money forevermore.
jef@10,
"The issue is how do we do less, stop what we are doing and still take care of 7+ billion people in a humane way?"
Promote altruistic leadership that responsibly pursues the achievement of all of the Sustainable Development Goals (and strives to improve on them). The Climate Action Goal is particualrly important because achieving it quicker makes it easier to achieve the others.
Note that many right-wing groups, like the Republicans in the USA, have policy desires that are contrary to achieving many of the SDGs not just the Climate Action Goal (at least they are consistently anti-altruistic).
The Future of Humanity is in Question - Altruism is the Answer
Altruism! What is it Good For? - The Future of Humanity
I know that this comment is way late to get any viewing but I respectfully submit it in response to moderators of my comments.
If you read my comment you understand that FFs are the global economy. There is no aspect of the global economy that is not completely dependent on FFs at some level and the largest % of the global economy is FF related. Having said that it is obvious that we can not eleminate or even reduce FFs in the economy and not expect extreme economic repercussions.
The number 1 problem with AGW/climate change understanding and effective response is the willful ignorance of this simple fact.
Its like focusing on the cancer cells of lung cancer and completely misunderstanding the part that cigaretts plays in that dynamics. A weak analogy I admit but please try and understand.
This can be extrapolated out to just about every aspect of earths biospheres degredation. The global economy, the thing that supposably we need to increase in order to keep people from suffering and dying is 100% reliant on FFs, mining, deforestation, industrial ag, global distribution, etc. Please stop perpetuating the lie that we can keep doing all these things but in a "green" way.
[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
[PS] Again, I pointed you to peer-reviewed research pointing to exactly how renewables can replace FF. In contrast you have simply repeated your assertion without any supporting evidence. This is a science-based site - if you want to make an argument you need to back it with evidence.
nijelj@14, I think it might be possible to geoengineer with atmospheric aerosols at high latitudes , reducing polar amplification, without significant climate impacts at lower latitudes. Sure there are risks but at some point the risk of not doing something will become even greater, so I think it's inevitable.
Global population is expected to rise by 30% before levelling off, and that itself will necessitate further extensive land clearing which will release lots more carbon stores from the biosphere above and beyond per capita fossil fuel emissions, so it's unlikely that emisisons growth will be constrained until population growth is very close to zero.
Changing to a vegan diet may help to reduce methane emissions though more likely is the development of livestock feeds that achieve similar, because global consumption of beef is still accelerating, due mostly to increasing demand in the developing world.
Life will indeed be interesting post 2050 with a global population of >10 billion. That's pretty much the earth's carrying capacity, so every significant natural disaster, which includes droughts, floods, fires, storms, earthquakes etc will have an immediate global impact.
I think we're in for some radical societal changes too, and that probably includes the end of the laissez faire economic model.
Art Vandelay,
Adding sufate aerosols to the atmosphere is well known to cause severe drought. Reducing sunlight reduces evaporation from the ocean. This is observed after vocalnic eruptions. Do we really want to cause world wide drought?
I doubt that any significant effect can be kept over the poles. Can you provide a citation to support your claim this is possible or is it just a feeling that you have?
Micheal Sweet@ 19,
No, not just a feeling. I defer to higher authorities and published studies such as: rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4007
Injecting aerosols at high latitudes gives best bang for buck and limits side effects eslewhere, because they're flushed more radiply naturally from the atmosphere. Bear in mind that sulphate or similar aerosol injections could be restricted to northern summer months.
Ftr, I'm not advcocating geoengineering but it's my personal belief that it will eventually become a component of climate change mitigation strategy.
Jef @17
"Having said that it is obvious that we can not eleminate or even reduce FFs in the economy and not expect extreme economic repercussions."
I would question this. I suppose it depends on how you define extreme economic repercussions. This wording has rather a negative connotation. There will be a dislocation but I would challenge the contention that such repercussions have to be extremely negative.
For example various reports have found most countries can completely transition from fossil fuel to renewable electricity generation at a cost of 1% of a countries yearly gdp output, spread over approximately 25 years. The maths is actually pretty simple. For comparison purposes most western countries spend considerably more on just the old age pension each year, so I cannot see that such an energy transition could really be cause extreme economic repercussions and certainly not significantly negative ones. Yes theres more to it than electricity generation, but this puts it into perspective.
Another example. Transitioning to a low meat diet would achieve a lot, and yes it would be a dislocation for farmers and consumers, but I don't think you could accurately call it some extreme economic problem, and its not as if crop farmers don't make plenty of money. In fact converting farms from one product to another often happens rather quickly as food preferences and market opportunities change. Its more of a motivational problem.
[PS] Jef is so far just make vague and unjustified assertions. Unless he can show the basis for his belief and quantify expected economic loss for transition, this is little more than FF propoganda regurgitated. Further sloganeering from him without evidence will be deleted.
Art Vandelay @18, yeah I do recall reading that sulphate aerosols tend to be regional in their effects. The following research is interesting and highlights some of the problems with the whole strategy. I mean I do see a certain inevitability that technical fixes like may be used, and could buy time, but I prefer not to tak about it too much, because it takes the focus off doing the number one priority which is to reduce emissions.
Yes population is on track to head towards about 10 billion before stabilising. If the world adopted more procative policies it could be lower.
But my point was that meat eating is a very inefficient use of land, and if we all changed to a vegetarian diet, or even just a low meat diet then there would probably be enough land to sustain a larger population without needing massive levels of deforestation. In an ideal world of course. However the case for adopting a vegetarian or low meat diet is becoming quite strong in terms of more efficient use of land, the methane problem, and also general health and longevity. So the population / food problem could I think be largely solved by more efficient use of land with a more vegetarian diet, so your argument that "CO2 is plantfood" is not a justifiable solution to this particular problem.
I agree however that 10 billion looks like it is pushing the worlds carrying capacity to the limits such that any problem will spread and become critical. I think thats a really interesting observation. There will be no slack in the system. You see it already in the way the global financial crash became "global".
Its also painfully obvious that we are already using resources at a prodigious rate, and this will leave a depleted stockpile for future generations that cannot be fully resolved by recycling. Population growth will make this so much worse, and reduced population growth is a relatively pain free solution.
The climate implications of population growth are interesting. Most of the population growth is in the third world like Africa, and they have the lowest per capita use of fossil fuels, something likely to continue, so population growth is not quite as large a climate problem as it first seems.
Nigelj, Art Vandelay @18 just to clarify, my understanding is sulphate aerosols from coal fired power stations tend to be regional in their effects, because they affect the lower atmosphere, but they are short lived because they get washed out pretty quickly. According to the link I posted, to provide a powerful effect that lasts years sulphates would have to be injected right up in the stratosphere and this means they tend to disperse globally with all sorts of global effects and problems. So to confine an effect to the arctic would require injection of aerosols into the troposphere, but they would have to be replenished constantly, and possibly permanently.
nigelj@23,
From what I've read there would need to be annual injections during the northern spring, but injecting into the lower stratosphere or tropopause would still be an effective solution, because over the poles the stratosphere falls to roughly half the average height of the tropical stratosphere, and aerosols would be mostly washed out by polar cells during northern fall & winter. Similarly, much of the soot and pollution coming out of tropical developing nations ends up on the ice caps.
My guess is that getting the aerosols up there at a reasonable cost would be the hard part.
Art Vandelay @24, yes the polar cell would help keep aerosols near the arctic, although I recall reading somewhere that the boundaries of the cell have started to shift south due to the warming effect basically weakening the cell, sort of similar to the meandeing jet stream. So its complicated.
But anyway yes cost might be the main limiting factor. I suppose automated aircraft are a possibility. The other problem is politics. Countries like Russia see mining opportunities in an ice free Arctic, so would probably not be supportive of the idea. Not that one country should be allowed to dominate proceedings.
Is this 'a key takeaway' from last week’s IPCC report?
“B4.1. There is high confidence that the probability of a sea-ice-free Arctic Ocean during summer is substantially lower at global warming of 1.5°C when compared to 2°C. With 1.5°C of global warming, one sea ice-free Arctic summer is projected per century. This likelihood is increased to at least one per decade with 2°C global warming. . . . ”
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
A link to the assembled whole Report, in its Oct 8 version:
http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/ipcc_cz/SR1.5_K_2018-10-08.pdf
hope it helps, Jenik
Does anyone know if this is the case?
" . . . the IPCC report is faulty, based on ten year old CO² emissions data . . . yet the IPCC report neglected to include the last ten years of emissions in it's calculations."