Home


Leading climate scientists and climate analysts say that for a safe and sustainable world with retention of Arctic sea ice and cessation of the current mass species extinctions requires a return of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from the present dangerous level of 390 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm (see:

http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm ).


 300.org states that “There must be a safe and sustainable existence for all peoples and all species on our warming-threatened Planet and this requires a rapid reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration  to about 300 parts per million” (see "300.org":

http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/Home ). 


The worsening climate disruption and climate emergency has lead leading climate scientists and analysts to state  that we must now aim to urgently cut greenhouse gas (GHG)  emissions (notably carbon emissions e.g. carbon dioxide, CO2, and methane, CH4) by 80% by 2020 (see "Cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020":

http://sites.google.com/site/cutcarbonemissions80by2020/home ).


A  detailed submission to the recent Senate Inquiry by Dr Andrew Glikson (Earth and paleoclimate scientist, Visiting Fellow, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research School of Earth Science and Institute of Planetary Science, Australian National University (ANU),Canberra, ACT, Australia ) was entitled “The threat to life posed by atmospheric CO2-e over 450 ppm”, noting that the current 390 ppm CO2 corresponds to about 450 CO2-equivalent (CO2-e, taking CH4 and N2O as well as CO2 contributions into account): http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/cprs_09/submissions/sub34_web.pdf  (for other expert submissions to this Senate Inquiry see: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/cprs_09/submissions/sublist.htm .


Dr Andrew Glikson interviewed by ABC Radio Australia, 2009, in response to the question ”what has to be done?”:  “extremely rapid reduction in emissions …  I would say, 80 percent within the next ten years or so … people like me have been looking at the evidence about this on a day to day basis and we have been doing it for years, and to look in to the abyss at this length is a daunting task.” (see Dr Andrew Glikson interviewed by Linda Mottram, “Carbon emissions must be cut by 80% [by 2020] says scientist”, ABC Radio Australia, 23 July 2009: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/200907/s2634156.htm ).


Lester R. Brown and colleagues of the Earth Policy Institute,Washington, DC, USA, in "Time for Plan B. Cutting emissions 80 percent by 2020” state: “When political leaders look at the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions to curb global warming, they ask the question: How much of a cut is politically feasible? At the Earth Policy Institute we ask a different question: How much of a cut is necessary to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change? …   Cutting CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020 will take a worldwide mobilization at wartime speed. First, investing in energy efficiency will allow us to keep energy demand from increasing. Then we can cut carbon emissions by one third by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources for electricity and heat production. A further 14 percent drop comes from restructuring our transportation systems and reducing coal and oil use in industry. Ending net deforestation worldwide can cut CO2 emissions another 16 percent. Last, planting trees and managing soils to sequester carbon [biochar] can absorb 17 percent of our current emissions. None of these initiatives depends on new technologies. We know what needs to be done to reduce CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2020. All that is needed now is leadership“ (see Lester R. Brown, Janet Larsen, Jonathan G. Dorn, and Frances C. Moore,  “Time for Plan B. Cutting emissions 80 percent by 2020”, Earth Policy Institute: http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/80by2020notes.pdf .

Some key reasons why we need 100% renewable energy and non-carbon energy ASAP and why transitions to non-renewables gas or nuclear are bad:

1. In 2009 the WBGU which advises the German Government on climate change estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2C temperature rise (EU policy) the World must emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. This means getting to zero emissions within 5-10 years (most EU countries), 6.6 years (the UK) and 3.1 years (the US). Climate criminal Australia, a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG)pollution,  had already used up its "fair share" of this terminal GHG pollution "budget" by mid-2011 and is now stealing the entitlement of impoverished, global warming-threatened countries like Somalia and Bangladesh (see "Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions" : http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/01/shocking-analysis-by-country-of-years-left-to-zero-emissions/  ).

2. Gas is dirty energy and we need to stop extracting gas rather than developing new sources. We must stop coal seam gas exploitation that despoils nature, agriculture and aquifers.  Methane (most of natural gas) leaks and is 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year time frame and taking aerosol impacts into account. Significant methane leakage  means, for example,  that with existing power plants in heavily coal-based Victoria, Australia,  at a 3.3% systemic gas leakage (the US average) burning gas for power is roughly as dirty  GHG-wise as burning coal and at 7.9% leakage (as from fracking-derived gas in the US) burning gas for power can be twice as dirty GHG-wise as burning coal (see: “3 reasons the World must stop coal seam gas (CSG, coalbed gas, coalbed methane”: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article21302 ).  

3. In the context of an existing carbon-based energy economy nuclear is a major CO2 emitter from extraction and processing of uranium oxide, plant construction, plant decommissioning and radioactive waste disposal. Uranium-based nuclear is dirty (GHG-wise and radioactivity-wise), dangerous and expensive - and also civil liberties-threatening in the case of a fast breeder-based plutonium economy (thorium-based nuclear power is better albeit non-renewable).

This site is dedicated to informing the public about the views of expert climate scientists, paleoclimate scientists, climate change analysts, and community activists who say that rapid and radical cuts in carbon emissions are needed to avert catastrophic climate change and this requires, in addition to other key measures, 100% renewable energy by 2020.


Readers are also referred to the related very informative sites of the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group (YVCAG: see: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/Home ), and the Victoria, Australia-based Climate Emergency Network umbrella organization (see: http://www.climateemergencynetwork.org/ ), organizations  which are both committed to 100% renewable energy by 2020.